Economists want uncarbonated...

So you think the earth is only 120 years old?

 

I know, but we have an army of the brainwashed to deal with.

 

I was in denver colorado last may it was ****ing snowing

 

And that would be clowns that worship this guy..

 

I think until it affects them up close & personal, that won't change. My mate in Denver is actually a big climate change denier. I've been treating him with kid gloves and not rubbing it in, or mentioning a single thing.

I've noticed however, that he has stopped making posts about climate change denial and gone very silent on the matter.

 

So your mate denies the climate changes and he lives in colorado??.

 

Hard to know what you mean. They've had some of the largest fires in the states history.

 

You have to work hard these days to ignore it.

 

I guess that means you are ignorant of the fact that Australia is largely a tropical desert country that has experienced many intense, fatal, cyclical heatwaves in the past. In fact, of the dozen recorded Australian heatwaves in the last 130 years that have killed at least 100 people, only one (1) occurred within the last 60 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_in_Australia_by_death_toll

And for the nine that occurred before 1950, Australia's population was much smaller than it is now.

Total heatwave deaths in Australia were higher in four straight decades from 1900-1939 than they have ever been in any decade since then:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01...as-deadliest-hazard-why-you-need-plan/9338918

And again, Australia's population was much smaller then.

Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s if it is hotter now.

It's not a future "problem" because it has already happened at least half a dozen times in the Holocene. Such periods of global warm climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

 

Bingo. They ignored the fact that the earth was returning naturally to more normal Holocene temperatures after the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

 

I live in Houston TX and was flooded out of my house by Harvey.

Somehow, I find it hard to blame ExxonMobil for the weird ebola shaped path that Harvey traveled.

Somehow, I find it hard to blame BP for the USACE decision to release the Barker and Addicks reservoirs into Buffalo Bayou thereby flooding my property for 10 days.

***
Wildfires. Climate change is responsible for wildfires?

12,000 lightning strikes over the course of three days, because of additional greenhouse gases?

What's the science backing this theory.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/9049...in-california-its-governor-seeks-outside-help

***
Melbourne is your spot is it?

Over half of Victoria's grid is powered by coal fired power plants burning lignite, the nastiest flavor of coal.

Nasty stuff, I'm all in favor of a cleaner solution, and my opinion has sweet fa to do with requiring any faith in IPCC consensus "Science" or buying into man made global warming.

Australia has enough natural gas to close every coal fired plant in the country.

Funny though, choosing to ignore the nastiness of Aussies coal fired grid, the Guardian calls the natural gas reserves a bad thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...unleash-three-years-worth-of-global-emissions

p.s.

I learned this from another thread that caught my interest, here's a link to my post there,

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/trump-in-lititz-pa-right-now.580289/#post-1072160347

 

It's said to be a statistical creep thing. You can't put one particular incident down to climate change.

I guess you're in the category where you acknowledge that the climate is changing. The earth's getting hotter. However you're putting it down to natural causes? Or a combination of natural and man-made causes?

I think the natural gas is meant to be better than petrol because it burns more cleanly, with less Co2 missions per joule. But I'm no expert

 

I'm Australian

So it sounds like you're in the category where you dismiss the statistics showing steady warming over the past 10 to 15 years to the extent of which has never been seen before.

I'm no expert but we probably have air conditioning now and things and better knowledge so we mitigate against unnecessary deaths from heatwaves.

Sure....there have been cyclical warmings and coolings. For various reasons.

Sorry I didn't take quotes out and reply but my comments are in order. I'm using a phone.

 

Right: as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, and you continue to ignore, it is a powerful greenhouse gas whose concentration strongly affects infrared transmission in very dry air well below 0C, such as in winter at high latitudes and in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. However, in atmospheric air closer to standard temperature and pressure, such as prevails over 90% of the earth's surface 90% of the time, water vapor completely dominates the greenhouse effect, and additional CO2 has little effect on IR transmission.

And Angstrom demonstrated in 1900 that additional CO2 could not possibly have a significant effect on global temperature because there is already so much of it in the air, and two orders of magnitude more water vapor. We now know from ice core analysis that CO2 lags temperature by several hundred years, and was not low enough in the ice ages to have had any significant cooling effect, as Angstrom explained:

“under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16% of terrestrial radiation, and the amount of this absorption varies quantitatively very little, as long as there is not less than 20% of the existing value.”

I.e., atmospheric CO2 would have to be much lower than it has ever been in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth before increasing or reducing it would have any significant effect on global temperature.

No. What they found was three things:
1. temperature had increased over the previous century
2. CO2 had increased over the previous century
3. in the alternating ice ages and interglacial periods of the Pleistocene, temperature and CO2 varied together

What they did not understand was that in the Pleistocene paleoclimate record CO2 lagged temperature, and that its effect on IR transmission in normal atmospheric air is very small because CO2 and H2O are already so abundant. This is a point that less scientifically literate CO2 skeptics get wrong when they claim that 300 or 400 or 500 parts per million of CO2 is too little to have any significant greenhouse effect. On the contrary, as Angstrom showed, 300 ppm of CO2 is already so much that more can't have any significant additional effect: atmospheric air is already completely opaque to the relevant infrared wavelengths.

Because they did not know of Angstrom's demonstration that such an effect was impossible.

Angstrom's demonstration was not. They just didn't know about it.

No it didn't. It was flatly disproved, and survives only in the form of a giant post hoc fallacy and a source of research grant money, academic promotion, media appearances, and tenure.

Yes, but the consensus was not what is claimed by the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign. The actual consensus is that temperature has increased, CO2 has increased, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose emission via fossil fuel combustion has contributed to the temperature increase. There is NOT a consensus that the temperature increase of the last century was MOSTLY due to CO2, nor is there a consensus that additional CO2 from fossil fuel use will cause disastrous warming if it is not drastically curtailed. The claim that there is scientific (as opposed to political) consensus on the latter claims is a bald fabrication by the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign.

The scientific process is never done. An infallible indicator of anti-science propaganda is any claim that the scientific debate is over.

I.e., the political operators did their thing.

And continues to prove the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign wrong.

The real barking mad climate change deniers are those who deny that the same natural cyclical factors that caused all the previous century-scale Holocene warming episodes could possibly have caused the most recent one, too.

 

But far too young to have experienced any of the actual severe Australian heatwaves of the early 20th century. Ask an Australian in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s if it is really hotter now.

Yes, because such "statistics" are easily falsified. There is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that the last 10 or 15 years have been hotter than the 1930s -- or the 930s.

Certainly. But population is also much greater. Nevertheless, the cyclical nature of Australia's fatal heatwaves is obvious in the url I linked to.

But somehow, we know the reasons that caused all the previous warmings are no longer operative, even though we don't know exactly what those reasons were....?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

“We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see,” said Schmidt. “If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.”
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

You are doing pseudoscience. Ignoring Angstroms mistakes, for example, because that gives a plausible sounding denial, despite being absurd.

 

More failed computer models?

Give us real data

 

Internet genius at work...

 

I am reading it .

 

Yeah, modeled changes that are independent of empirical data.

Which conclusively proves the models are wrong, as such changes have occurred repeatedly in the Holocene with no associated change in greenhouse gases.

But NOT solar variation. Hello? Funny that he did not mention solar variation despite the fact that people are most definitely thinking about it, and that it is self-evidently and indisputably the first place to look for explanations of climate change.

So like you, Schmidt's claim is that WHATEVER caused previous natural century-scale Holocene warming episodes -- and he wisely does not claim to know what caused them, because he does not know -- he can nevertheless state with certainty that those causes are no longer operative. He also states with certainty that without human use of fossil fuels, the earth would never have returned to more normal Holocene temperatures after the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. He also states with certainty that the sustained lowest solar activity in the last 10,000 years occurring at the same time as the lowest temperatures was mere coincidence. He also states with certainty that the century with the highest sustained level of solar activity in the last several thousand years occurring at the same time the earth warmed significantly after the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years was also mere coincidence.

He is, quite simply, a damned liar.

It is you, and Schmidt, who are self-evidently doing pseudoscience, and I will thank you to remember it.

Angstrom's results have been replicated many times. It's a trivial exercise with modern equipment, and always shows that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air has little effect on its IR transmissivity. Angstrom conclusively disproved anti-fossil-fuel hysteria more than a century ago.

 

"A witness once impeached..."

 

Has no effect whatever on any facts he identified. There was no mistake in Angstrom's disproof of anti-CO2 hysteria.

 

Thanks for the laugh.

You're not real.

 

I'm actually doing a large statistical analysis now ( as an aside).

I think this is the important part of your post. Even though I'm sure you disagree you would come under the umbrella of what is classified as a conspiracy theorist. That political forces or whatever etc. are fabricating data.

I could point to a reputable organisation such as NASA - they have a nice detailed, yet simple to understand webpage in climate change. But there's no point having a discussion based on exchanging data/facts with a conspiracy theorist. I respect your views and good luck to you.

I had a look at your links btw, one of them was a bit more like an enormous essay. Didn't really have time to get through all of it

 

If conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh, wait a minute....

There is no doubt they are fabricating and falsifying data:

https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
https://realclimatescience.com/corruption-of-the-us-temperature-record/
https://realclimatescience.com/no-excuse-for-data-tampering/

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

I want you to remember this when you are no longer able to deny that I have been proved right by actual physical events.