Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

There are many skeptics who have a good atgument that climate change is a hoax

 

No, they don't have good arguments. Climate change skeptics can't explain past or present climate change with their theories. That kinda makes their arguments really bad.

 

Climate change is natural

It has been going on as long as the earth existed

 

Really? Can you? Oh yea, no, you cannot. So how is your observation then a blanket of credibility for you? From the conversations, it's unlikely that you can demonstrate what the "natural recovery" was supposed to look like following the abatement of the last mini ice age. Clearly, your approach has been... ignore it even happened, and they profess the smallest possible data set to attempt to justify your interest. Face it. If you cannot agree that the cessation of the last cool event must moderate, you have zero credibility.

 

And it always occurs for a reason. The focus of the study of climate change isn't about determining if it's happening. It's about figuring out why it's happening.

It just so happens that the things modulating the climate in the past are they same as they are today. That's the cool thing about the laws of physics. They don't care if a CO2 or aerosol molecule is emitted naturally or by man. It behaves the exact same way regardless. 410 ppm of CO2 will have the exact same effect today as it did in the past all other things being equal. It doesn't matter that 32% of the concentration today is anthroprogenic vs 0% in the past. Our man made CO2 molecules aren't magical. It's the same with aerosols, solar radiation, and many other climate modulating processes.

 

Like 99.99999% of the world I am not a scientist

You rely on your trusted experts and I will rely on mine

There are plenty of sleptics who are scientists that disagree with the man-made-global-warming theory

So there is no need to disrupt our standard of living to sove a problem that may not even exist

 

Well yes. I can. Just considering the net effect of the 3 biggest climate modulating processes (solar radiation, greenhouse gases, and aerosols) we can explain most (though admittedly not all) of the climate change both past and present. The Little Ice Age is believed to be largely the result of the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity. Other factors contributed, but these 2 were the biggest contributors.

 

Ok, so how much should it have warmed following the abatement? We have what .9F? is that too much, and if so, why?

 

32% ?? You sure about that??

And "all things being equal"... what does that mean??

As Richard Lindzen points out, none of the models get clouds right... perhaps b/c all things are not equal??

AGW: the science doesn't add up.

 

Yes. Absolutely positive. 280 ppm was the concentration prior to industrialization. 410 ppm is the concentration today and (410-280) / 410 = 0.317. Note that the 130 ppm that has accumulated in the atmosphere is 100% man made. Man's fingerprint is on those 130 ppm molecules. And I mean that literally because we can see it in the isotopic ratios of the carbon atoms.

CO2's heat trapping effect is modulated by two factors. 1) the outgoing longwave radiation flux and 2) the cross sectional area of CO2.

Outgoing longwave radiation could be different depending on a lot of factors. The more IR spectrum photons zipping out to space means a higher probability of one of them hitting a CO2 molecule. If the Earth had a high albedo (like if it were entirely covered in snow) then there wouldn't be as much IR flux because more of the incoming shortwave radiation would get reflected back into space without it getting converted into longwave radiation.

410 ppm of CO2 in the past wouldn't necessarily have the same effect in the past if the atmosphere were thinner or thicker in the past. It's the ppm that modulates the effect. It's actually the cross sectional area of the molecules. Remember, photons hit molecules and not more abstract concepts like ppm. This is why the greenhouse gas effect on Mars is small compared to Earth even though the concentration is 960,000 ppm. The concentration may be high relative to the other gas species, but if you don't have a lot of molecules overall to begin with you won't have a lot of CO2 either.

Bunk. Some models do better than others. And it's never binary. There is a spectrum of "rightness". Just because models don't make perfect predictions doesn't mean they aren't useful. And just because Lindzen cherry-picks the minority of models that don't do well with clouds doesn't mean his position is correct. The fact is that models actually do quite well at predicting the global mean surface temperature. And they do even better at predicting the overall heat uptake of the entire geosphere. Plus, Lindzen is a well known climate misinformer. His views represents a very small minority of scientific community. Nevermind, that they are wrong.

It's not perfect. But, it does work quite well. And note that AGW does not invoke any processes or physical laws that are any different today than in the past. The only difference is that AGW explicitly states that man made molecules of greenhouse gases and aerosols behave exactly the same as natural made molecules.

Note that Lindzen and other skeptic/denier's position is that man made CO2 molecules are magical in that they behave differently than natural made CO2 molecules. But, they never explains how those molecules acquired this unidentified magical physics defying property.

Furthermore, theories that specifically ignore mad made greenhouse gases are terrible at explaining the climate today. They are so bad, in fact, that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct in some cases (a la Easterbrook, Soon, Baliunas, D'Aleo, etc.) Lindzen's predictions are pretty terrible too. His 1989 MIT talk predicted no warming from 1989 to 2017. The Earth warmed by 0.7C pretty much on par with computer models at the time. See Hansen 1988. So the question for you is how did Lindzen get it so wrong compared to the scientific consensus at the time?

 

So the Maunder Minimum in solar activity caused the LIA cooling, but the multi-millennium 20th century maximum in solar activity didn't cause any warming...?

 

Pretty much everything you wrote there is wrong, lol...

Unfortunately I am on a business trip and can't properly respond... pesky thing that earning a living. You leftists should try it sometime

Will try to find a few minutes when I get home.

 

Of course it contributed to the warming. In fact, it is believed the modern maximum accounts for a significant or even most of the warming prior to WWII. But, keep in mind that the difference between the Maunder Minimum and Modern Maximum is only about 1 W/m^2 at most. The radiative forcing of CO2 is now about 2 W/m^2 relative to the pre-industrial era.

 

I'm not a leftist nor a liberal nor a Democrat.

 

They always say its "almost too late", its an emotional play. And the deadline always passes, and nothing ever happens. Peak oil, mass starvation due to overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, coastal cities flooding. Its always a scam.

And all their solutions will have no impact either. When the Kyoto plan was analyzed, it was determined that if it was implemented completely then the resulting change in the environment would be barely measurable.

Its all a scam.

But at least some of them are deciding to just throw up their hands and leave us alone. Maybe they recognize they were wrong, maybe they just don't care anymore. Doesn't matter as long as they just go home and stop trying to scam everyone.

 

While it may be true that mankind is incapable of mitigating potential climate change, this by itself is no reason to grab the six-pack and give up.

I would prefer we greatly reduce our carbon emissions because I don't like the looks, the smells, the breathing problems, living in constant pollution. I haven't seen the Milky Way in 60 years! Sure it costs more but so does my failing health and quality of life.

While we can guess mankind is incapable of mitigating this issue, we don't know how Earth might deal with it? Maybe we go tilt in 20-30 years or maybe 150-200 years? If it can be 150-200 years then we should do our best with our environment, but if it's 20-30 years then grab the six-pack and kick back...

 

It will probably begin getting bad in the 20-30 year time frame and be REALLY BAD in the 100yr. mark or so. The mitigation ideal is great but we humans cannot even agree the problem is real let alone what to do about it....politics and money prevent cooperation.

 

In some areas today it is already getting bad...and this is part of the problem in which many people in other areas are not experiencing the worst health/environmental effects so they don't relate. Idiots see it snowing and declare there can be no such thing as warming. I actually think Americans will feel serious pain sooner than 20-30 years as drought conditions worsen, as aquifers dry up, as lakes and streams dry up (look at Lake Mead and Lake Powell that serve water to 40 million Americans and food to the world), and the onslaught of raging forest fires. Look what Florence might do next week; https://www.clickorlando.com/news/n...th-as-a-major-hurricane-before-threatening-us

Forget science, forget AGW, forget all the political BS. It is common sense to me that when we place 7.5 billion people on Earth, that when we industrialize and burn fossil fuels and pollute, and when all of these increase more every day, all in a relatively closed system, that the outcome cannot be good...

 

Thus my pessimism and defeatist attitude. In my studies I have noted an aspect most people do not understand or believe in even though it is right in front of them. We have reached a tipping point trhat cannot be controlled in any way that is far worse that the CO2 crisis and though more temporary is far more damaging.

 

1) All of the evidence demonstrates negative feedbacks - not positive feedbacks.

The science is very well established - unfortunately for you doom sayers, CO2 is simply not what drives temperatures or climate.

If it did drive climate we would already be roasting; instead, we are simply emerging from a LIA and are not even as warm as during the MWP.

2) The "cooperation" of which you speak is nothing less than complete fascist control of the people by the evil alliance of corporations and government.

And while it is true that we already languish in a quasi fascist condition, we do so with at least nominal constraints upon the government.

And you want to remove those constraints and turn loose the horrors of unconstrained government upon the people, and call it "cooperation"??

Sorry, but no... I will not peacefully allow you to march me into serfdom.

 

Another religious fanatic.

Who believes in existence of LIA, MWP, feedbacks (but wouldn't know less explain and even less point to a single demonstration) and other fairly-tales because he was told to believe in such.

And who immideately switch to politics.


What does drive temperatures?

What is climate?

 

If you can figure out how to communicate to common people about pyroflatulence, lighting their farts on fire, and how this relates to global warming, and the escape of large amounts of methane, maybe a couple of them will begin to understand...

 

Doubtful. There are many deniers on here that are convinced that any molecule (whether it be CO2 or CH4) emitted by man is has this magical property that makes it defy the laws of physics. No amount of explaining will trump the magic fairy dust in their minds.

 

Water vapor increase is a very strong positive feedback. Albedo change from ice melt and methane emission are other positive feedbacks. The evidence indicates positive feedback is strong, as CO2 alone can only account for about half the observed warming.

Reality says the opposite, being there is no non-CO2 based theory which is successful at explaining observed climate.

Why? You're the only one saying that, so you need to explain it.

The world is warmer than it was at the start of the LIA, and warmer than the MWP, so that theory is plainly wrong.

Oh, you base your beliefs entirely on political conspiracy theories. You should have just told us that at the start.

 

To all of you "believers"...

- If the feedbacks are positive, why aren't the models in line with observations??

- If CO2 drives climate, and CO2 gas been steadily rising, why haven't we had any warming in 20 years??

- What are your "solutions"?? How would those "solutions" be enacted??