One of my biggest issues with the entire Climate Change debate is this;
One cannot have a civil, nuanced conversation about it with most people.

You have to either be a rabid “it’s all humanity’s fault and if you don’t think that way you’re a racist, bigoted, fascist!”
Or;
“You’re a complete drooling idiot, it’s all a hoax put forth by liberal air heads obsessed with their Green Agenda!”

As mentioned by another poster, there are a LOT of moving parts to climate change.
Is it a real thing? Sure it is.
Are we the sole cause? Most likely not.

quote:

Originally posted by hudr:
One of my biggest issues with the entire Climate Change debate is this;
One cannot have a civil, nuanced conversation about it with most people.

You have to either be a rabid “it’s all humanity’s fault and if you don’t think that way you’re a racist, bigoted, fascist!”
Or;
“You’re a complete drooling idiot, it’s all a hoax put forth by liberal air heads obsessed with their Green Agenda!”

As mentioned by another poster, there are a LOT of moving parts to climate change.
Is it a real thing? Sure it is.
Are we the sole cause? Most likely not.

I doubt that we're even 1% of the problem.

I consider it pretty arrogant to think that we can change weather or the climate.

My concern is many young conservatives (Ben Shapiro) are beginning to concede the basic premise that CO2 is causing it. CO2 amounts to roughly 800 giga tons. Man's contribution is 4 percent of that. In an atmosphere weighing 6 million billion tons there simply isn't enough CO2 to do what they say it does. Also, from 1937 to 1975 temperatures fell by a full degree on average while CO2 levels rose. That alone should falsify this stupid theory, but not when there's lots of money to be made and spent. This sparked the dooms day next ice age kick that I remember when I was in high school.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
This sparked the dooms day next ice age kick that I remember when I was in high school.

That may well come to be with the new grand solar minimum, out of Man's hands and useless for social engineering.

quote:

Climate Change

^^^ it does change, other than that it is just a political football.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
My concern is many young conservatives (Ben Shapiro) are beginning to concede the basic premise that CO2 is causing it. CO2 amounts to roughly 800 giga tons. Man's contribution is 4 percent of that. In an atmosphere weighing 6 million billion tons there simply isn't enough CO2 to do what they say it does. Also, from 1937 to 1975 temperatures fell by a full degree on average while CO2 levels rose. That alone should falsify this stupid theory, but not when there's lots of money to be made and spent. This sparked the dooms day next ice age kick that I remember when I was in high school.

goose, do you have any links to that? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to pass it on. Thanks!

There was literally was 3 miles of ice sitting above where my house it’s today. And in geological terms… Not that long ago.

Things change.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:


goose, do you have any links to that? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to pass it on. Thanks!

Boy, I've been arguing this topic for so long much is just committed to memory. The weights and values part came from Dr. Dixie Lee Ray's book Environmental Overkill starting at the bottom of page 217. She references from a National Review October 5, 1992 article by Dr. Van Zandt, professor of Physics. Purdue University. He completely destroys the man made CO2 theory. The temperature study came from a graph that's been around for awhile. This is a temperature study over lapped with a CO2 study.

CO2 Land by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

Sorry this one doesn't cite the source, but it was collected before scientists started fiddling with the data. The USHCN is land based temperature stations set up by NOAA. We could do a whole thread on that subject alone. I have no idea who compiled this data. Before 1974 CO2 data was done with a physical test. 1974 is about according to this graph shot up at its greatest and longest period of time. That the year the physical test was abandoned and Mauna Loa data started.

Here is what really hasn't been answered as far as I'm concerned. If for example you take an area the size of the Phoenix metro and within one hundred years it goes from desert to hundreds of square miles of blacktop and concrete, how does this heat trap affect the local weather? We know the heat island effect exists, but when done on such a massive scale, how exactly does it alter air currents, or does it at all? What I do know is that I can go into forests that I've been going to for the last forty years and I can see the changes.

I worked in this field most of my career, going around the world collecting data as an oceanographic research ship captain. I'm married to a Geologist. I have been on a first name basis (spent weeks or months at sea with) with most of the major players.

I can tell you a secret, the science follows the money. In order to keep their departments funded scientists have to bring in grant money. Most of that money comes from NSF (The National Science Foundation) a Federal agency. There's also ONR, NRL, NOAA, NASA, etc., all federal dollars. The Federal agencies during the Clinton years became staggeringly left wing (and did not swing back under Bush at all, and just a tiny bit under Trump They mostly actively resisted "on principle." Obama and now Biden have only accelerated the problem.

Back in the early days of "Global Warming" the senior guys running research departments and bringing in the big $$ all knew what the deal was. If you wanted to research, say, the herring population of the N. Atlantic, you had to title your grant request "The Effects of Global Warming on N. Atlantic Herring Populations". You simply could not get science funded if you didn't have a nod to "Global Warming." The folks approving the funding are all "true believers". Gradually, then suddenly as the older, sensible guys retired out, they were all replaced with ideologically pure "true believers."
I couldn't stand arguing with these intellectual pipsqueaks on the mess decks or bridge of my ship any longer, so I left the field in 2013 to work in offshore oil and gas. My "friends" from the environmental days have not spoken to me since.

Long story short; we don't know the overall effects of humans on the climate. We don't have a firm enough grasp on all the variables at play to build anything close to an accurate model. Currently models can only say, what they are programmed to say, there is no AI happening. You write a model that says the global mean temp is going to rise 10 degrees C over 100 years, that's what it will say. The models are complete shit. The climate has been both much warmer and much colder than it is today multiple times over the past 2 billion years or so, with no human input whatsoever.
Am I pro-pollution? Hell No!, but that's the brush I got painted with the instant I questioned the current Orthodoxy. It's now called "Climate Change" of course. Upton Sinclair's “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” writ large.

Now this is a USHCN site in Marysville, California. Here is the data set from that sight. Properly records the temperature fall from 1900 to about 1930. But, look at what happens after that. A cultist dream. None stop warming since then.

MARYSVILLE_ CA_ GISS _GISS plot of USHCN data_ by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

Now let's look at a photo of the Marysville sight.

Marysville issues1 by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

It was probably set up properly at first, but then urban sprawl caught up to it. MMTS is right next to a hot parking lot, building, AC units, reflecting glass from vehicles and the building. No wonder this data is the way it is. This is the methodology our government wants us to swallow so they can control. This came from a site called surfacestations.org. Sadly, it was hacked and damaged to the point of being useless. I used to have over 50 of these photos and matching data sets.

I believe that man contributes to a micro scale effect in localized areas. For example "Smog" was a big thing when I was younger and very obvious over large cities. And in the east, driving from Rhode Island to California, and traveling through the "rust belt", past oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial areas in the upper states east of the Mississippi, I remember the "blackness" of all everything and the thick, black smoke pouring from the smokestacks from coalfired plants.

And I do remember seeing litter on most highways and roads, as well as the visible pollution in the rivers.

But most all of that has been cleaned up, so the environment on many fronts is much less impacted by people than it has been in my lifetime. (So, yes mankind can mess things up, but I believe nature can deal with it without too much trouble).

"Nature" has made greater changes to the earth, and killed off more species than man has ever done, even though man has created the ability to destroy almost every living thing, I do not think we would succeed.

Since man's "industrial age" of the latter 1800s, and very heavy through the 1900's, it does not explain all the climate driven events prior. There were several very hot spells and some very heavy cold spells.

The arid band all across middle latitudes of Africa has not been a long event, it rather "young" in relation to time of mankind, and mankind did not bring that about. Weather changed, and as a result less water, reduced vegetation, increased change in heat/cooling dynamics, as well as available moister to create clouds, and rain, less cooling effect from clouds, and vegetation continued to decline until the cycle left it very arid and unable to "recover".

Likely that has occurred in cycles. Once weather patterns change far enough in one place going arid, another place is becoming "wetter". (all in the mid latitudes). The higher latitudes are less impacted, but during the "upheaval" there is a temporary "warming" of the polar areas to some degree, but that swings back when the "upheaval" abates.

It is all cyclic.

The sun is a tremendous player in all of this. It takes very little change for increase or decrease of the sun's output to have great effect on the weather patterns on earth.

Think of ringing a bell (the bell is earth), with a two sided hammer, one is iron faced, one is a dead-blow.

Now, whack the bell with the iron face and the bell goes from "peaceful" to "chaotic" ringing from the vibration set off by the hammer. Now, hit with a dead-blow, and leave the hammer against the bell, and the ringing will stop rather quickly. Both strikes change the dynamic of the state of the bell from one to the other to extreme.

The sun has that effect on the earth, to us, the "time" is long in happening, so we do not sense it.

Look at a year of seasons and how we almost do not notice day to day, the amount of increasing or decreasing daylight, or temps. But we are aware enough to know that it is a continual cycle.

Stretching the change of climate over more than our lifetime, and we have a much harder time perceiving it.

And being "curious" creatures, we do like to "know why", so we seek answers, and when we are unable to figure it out for ourselves for whatever reason, we seek answers from others. When others are knowledgeable and truthful, we can be satisfied and benefit from their input. When they are deceptive and evil, we can be frustrated and suffer from their agenda.

I am a cynic, but it does not mean I do not trust anyone about anything. You simply must prove to me your truth is Truth.

If I have a believe that is not true or not fact, show me, and I'll gladly abandon the worthless thing.

But I will never willingly trade truth for a lie.

This is what effects climate in the order of magnitude.

1. Solar output.
2. Distance from Earth to Sun.
3. Angle from Earth to Sun.
4. Position of continents as it related to ocean conveyers.
5. Composition of the atmosphere.

2 and 3 are covered in the Milankovitch Theories.

For the OP. Here is a study conducted for 6 months starting from January to August in 2019. The map shows where it was cooler or warmer and by how much.
2019 US by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

This is exhibit A when I say CO2 doesn't do what they say it does. This is a spectrograph study looking at what interacts with what, and at what wavelength. As we can see oxygen interacts with about the same percentage of inferred radiation as CO2 does, but we can't talk about that since oxygen makes up 20 percent of our atmosphere. CO2 interacts with IR on three small bands. Most CO2 doesn't interact with IR at all. But, water vapor does. Can't talk about that either. They'll cancel you if you do.

atmospheric_transmission by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

So, what happens when climate scientist talk to one another. From the infamous East Anglia email leak.

email2 by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

Here they admit to making up data.

Here's another.

email by Kent Matthew, on Flickr

Refers to critics as skeptics. Hate to tell you you're supposed to be as a scientist the skeptic. Also references the missing or made up data that they after the fact won't need to adjust. Can't adjust data you don't have. And, just exactly what does reduce the cooling mean? Are we trying to make it warmer in the past? Is that it?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
There was literally was 3 miles of ice sitting above where my house it’s today. And in geological terms… Not that long ago.

Things change.

Indeed. Aren’t the solar minimums on like 1000-year cycles?

https://www.goodreads.com/book...pable_Global_Warming

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Dr. S. Fred Singer.

Anyone remember when "skeptics" were a thing? How nostalgic. Skeptics once were an alternative view of a given narrative, afforded a hint of respect. Now disagree with group think and prepare for a flood of pejoratives and dehumanization.