4 ms·

You are mixing a lot of things in your post, I won't go into all details. But long term precise temperature measurements exist, they are the basis of all work a

by _ph_ 4y ago

You are mixing a lot of things in your post, I won't go into all details. But long term precise temperature measurements exist, they are the basis of all work about global warming. I am sure you can find them quickly if you browse the corresponding scientific literature. And of course there are plenty of calculations about the warming effect of CO2. Arrhenius published early calculations in 1874. And that directly leads us to the harming effect of human caused emissions onto the global climate. Humanity has increased the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200 years, most in the last 50. Which already has caused a significant warming, which is very well documented. There is plenty of rock solid science behind this.

graycat 4y ago
> Humanity has increased the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200 years, most in the last 50. Which already has caused a significant warming, which is very well documented. There is plenty of rock solid science behind this. Apparently humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure. Okay. Fine. That data is easy to find and is credible. Problem is, as I argued, with current science that change in CO2 does not necessarily mean a change in temperature. Apparently the warming effect of CO2 is just too small to detect. Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, (A) as I explained in detail, Al Gore badly misread the data in his graph and showed no evidence that CO2 had any effect, warming or cooling on the climate, (B) in the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age, we had significant warming/cooling without a role for CO2, (C) the warming early in the 1900s was likely from the end of the Little Ice Age and not from human sources of CO2, another case of temperature changes not caused by human CO2, (D) with the CO2 from WWII and the postwar boom, we had significant cooling from 1945 to 1970, a tough problem for the alarmists' arguments, (E) as in the famous reference I gave there were many studies, models, calculations evaluating the effects of CO2, and ALL the studies that predicted significant warming, including the "hockey stick", were badly wrong, a real shot in the gut of all modeling of the effects of CO2 that predict warming from human sources of CO2, (F) from the failed predictions of the modeling efforts, the science of global warming has lost its credibility, (G) similarly, from the failed predictions, the UN and IPCC have no credibility. The alarmists are stuck: (i) the empirical evidence from the 800,000 years of ice core data, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the the last 120 years do not support any claims of human sources of CO2 causing significant warming. (ii) As in the famous reference I gave, the modeling efforts lack all credibility. (iii) As I explained, the UN and its IPCC are not credible sources of science. Since ALL the modeling efforts that predicted significant warming failed, predictions of temperature increases in 2050, 2100, etc. are just silly talk. Actually, the significant increase in CO2 concentration with NO credible evidence of significant warming is good evidence that the warming effect of CO2 is just tiny, too small to observe. Lots of alarmists say there is lots of data showing the significant warming effects of CO2, but I've never seen a credible reference, graph, data set, etc. showing that. Instead I see a lot of stories like the snow in Scotland. But long ago I carefully studied the highly credible Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council ISBN: 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, 7 x 10, (2006) then and still now (I just checked) available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html Sorry, the solid, objective science that human CO2 has caused, is causing, or will cause significant warming just is not easy enough to find or not there. Again, net, so far, as best as I can tell from years of paying attention, there is no credible evidence that CO2 from human sources has caused, is causing, or will cause significant global warming. The credible evidence just is NOT there. Politics, stories, worries, claims -- lots of those. Credible evidence -- no. If you have some credible evidence, then trot it out. Your just saying I can find the evidence is not good enough. If the alarmists want to make their case, then they need to make public and easy to find, as easy to find as the story about the snows in Scotland, credible evidence of warming. That's why in my first post I begged for evidence from THERMOMETERS and not just some story about Scotland. The alarmists have to hurry because there are some cycles in the weather, e.g., from the 11 year cycles of sun spots, El Nino episodes, etc. that complicate the analysis. Meanwhile, to me the alarmism is a hoax and a scam to get money and power. It's clear that a lot of money and power are involved. And the pursuit of money and power are MUCH better explanations for the alarmism than any credible science about CO2.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  To get the science why more CO2 means more heat, look no further than Arrhenius, he described and calculated the phenomenum in the late 19th century. That is very basic and confirmed physics.
  - graycat 4y ago
    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave the reference to its absorption spectrum. From that, it causes some warming. And that is "very basic and confirmed physics". But that alone is, for practice, meaningless. Instead, the crucial question is, how much CO2 causes how much warming. Dozens of studies were done. No doubt the work of Arrhenius was considered. I gave the famous reference to the results of the studies. And the blunt fact is, all the studies, from Arrhenius and everything else, that predicted significant warming were wrong, badly wrong, because the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no evidence of the predicted warming or any significant warming at all. And now we do have significantly more CO2, and still we see no significant warming. Net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and really does cause warming, and that fact really is "very basic and confirmed physics", but the warming it causes is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, from Arrhenius, where is the "hockey stick", where is the warming? From 1945 to 1970, as CO2 was increasing, there was significant cooling. And since 1970, with more CO2, still there is no credible evidence of significant warming. And as I explained in detail, the empirical evidence doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, the (1) theory didn't work. And (2) the empirical data back 800,000 years doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, (1) and (2) both fail. Now the alarmists are left with no evidence, none, zero. Well, there is an explanation for the studies that failed. See "The truth about global warming" with Patrick Michaels at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-the-truth-about-global-warming https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-th... In short the explanation is: The studies that predicted warming were working with climate models. They didn't have enough data so put in some adjustable parameters. Then they assumed that the warming in the early 1900s was caused by CO2 and adjusted their parameters to fit that early 1900s temperature data. Then they applied their resulting model to more recent levels of CO2. From that, they got predictions of significant warming. But those predictions failed -- the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no credible evidence of significant warming. E.g., the West Side Highway in NYC is still high and dry. Of course, a big flaw was their assumption that the temperature changes of the early 1900s were caused by CO2 changes. But by now from (1) and (2), we know better, know that the warming caused by CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, the warming of the early 1900s was not caused by CO2. The likely cause was pulling out of the Little Ice Age. Whatever, we have two rock solid points, (1) the models fail and (2) the empirical data doesn't support CO2 warming. So, we are left with no credible evidence that human sources of CO2 have caused, are causing, or will cause significant warming. Indeed the evidence from the cooling of 1945 to 1970 and the current higher concentration of CO2 without significant warming is that the warming of CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. So, there's no "climate crisis". But plenty of people know this. But we still have people screaming about the climate crisis. For them, the science is just an excuse. For them, they are not afraid of the warming. Instead, from the hoax, scam of the climate crisis, they are making money. Soon the climate crisis will be over, will go the way of the ozone hole, low flow plumbing, and the hula hoop. People will give up on the climate crisis not because of science such as I am explaining but because of the reason for the screaming about the climate crisis -- nothing to do with science but just a way to make money. So, people are noticing how much the climate crisis is costing them and will stop the nonsense based on those costs. Electric vehicles (EVs)? The batteries are too expensive, don't last very long, are too expensive to replace, present one heck of a fire hazard, take too long to charge, and need more electric power than the electric grid can supply. The EVs have many fewer moving parts so have some potential of being much cheaper than gasoline powered internal combustion engines but in practice so far are more expensive, not less. As the climate crisis fad fades, the subsidies for EVs will fade. Musk stands to lose a bundle.

by _ph_ 4y ago

graycat 4y ago

> Humanity has increased the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200 years, most in the last 50. Which already has caused a significant warming, which is very well documented. There is plenty of rock solid science behind this. Apparently humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure. Okay. Fine. That data is easy to find and is credible. Problem is, as I argued, with current science that change in CO2 does not necessarily mean a change in temperature. Apparently the warming effect of CO2 is just too small to detect. Again, yet again, over again, once again, one more time, (A) as I explained in detail, Al Gore badly misread the data in his graph and showed no evidence that CO2 had any effect, warming or cooling on the climate, (B) in the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age, we had significant warming/cooling without a role for CO2, (C) the warming early in the 1900s was likely from the end of the Little Ice Age and not from human sources of CO2, another case of temperature changes not caused by human CO2, (D) with the CO2 from WWII and the postwar boom, we had significant cooling from 1945 to 1970, a tough problem for the alarmists' arguments, (E) as in the famous reference I gave there were many studies, models, calculations evaluating the effects of CO2, and ALL the studies that predicted significant warming, including the "hockey stick", were badly wrong, a real shot in the gut of all modeling of the effects of CO2 that predict warming from human sources of CO2, (F) from the failed predictions of the modeling efforts, the science of global warming has lost its credibility, (G) similarly, from the failed predictions, the UN and IPCC have no credibility. The alarmists are stuck: (i) the empirical evidence from the 800,000 years of ice core data, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the the last 120 years do not support any claims of human sources of CO2 causing significant warming. (ii) As in the famous reference I gave, the modeling efforts lack all credibility. (iii) As I explained, the UN and its IPCC are not credible sources of science. Since ALL the modeling efforts that predicted significant warming failed, predictions of temperature increases in 2050, 2100, etc. are just silly talk. Actually, the significant increase in CO2 concentration with NO credible evidence of significant warming is good evidence that the warming effect of CO2 is just tiny, too small to observe. Lots of alarmists say there is lots of data showing the significant warming effects of CO2, but I've never seen a credible reference, graph, data set, etc. showing that. Instead I see a lot of stories like the snow in Scotland. But long ago I carefully studied the highly credible Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council ISBN: 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, 7 x 10, (2006) then and still now (I just checked) available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html Sorry, the solid, objective science that human CO2 has caused, is causing, or will cause significant warming just is not easy enough to find or not there. Again, net, so far, as best as I can tell from years of paying attention, there is no credible evidence that CO2 from human sources has caused, is causing, or will cause significant global warming. The credible evidence just is NOT there. Politics, stories, worries, claims -- lots of those. Credible evidence -- no. If you have some credible evidence, then trot it out. Your just saying I can find the evidence is not good enough. If the alarmists want to make their case, then they need to make public and easy to find, as easy to find as the story about the snows in Scotland, credible evidence of warming. That's why in my first post I begged for evidence from THERMOMETERS and not just some story about Scotland. The alarmists have to hurry because there are some cycles in the weather, e.g., from the 11 year cycles of sun spots, El Nino episodes, etc. that complicate the analysis. Meanwhile, to me the alarmism is a hoax and a scam to get money and power. It's clear that a lot of money and power are involved. And the pursuit of money and power are MUCH better explanations for the alarmism than any credible science about CO2.

_ph_ 4y ago
To get the science why more CO2 means more heat, look no further than Arrhenius, he described and calculated the phenomenum in the late 19th century. That is very basic and confirmed physics.
- graycat 4y ago
  Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave the reference to its absorption spectrum. From that, it causes some warming. And that is "very basic and confirmed physics". But that alone is, for practice, meaningless. Instead, the crucial question is, how much CO2 causes how much warming. Dozens of studies were done. No doubt the work of Arrhenius was considered. I gave the famous reference to the results of the studies. And the blunt fact is, all the studies, from Arrhenius and everything else, that predicted significant warming were wrong, badly wrong, because the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no evidence of the predicted warming or any significant warming at all. And now we do have significantly more CO2, and still we see no significant warming. Net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and really does cause warming, and that fact really is "very basic and confirmed physics", but the warming it causes is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, from Arrhenius, where is the "hockey stick", where is the warming? From 1945 to 1970, as CO2 was increasing, there was significant cooling. And since 1970, with more CO2, still there is no credible evidence of significant warming. And as I explained in detail, the empirical evidence doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, the (1) theory didn't work. And (2) the empirical data back 800,000 years doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, (1) and (2) both fail. Now the alarmists are left with no evidence, none, zero. Well, there is an explanation for the studies that failed. See "The truth about global warming" with Patrick Michaels at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-the-truth-about-global-warming https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-th... In short the explanation is: The studies that predicted warming were working with climate models. They didn't have enough data so put in some adjustable parameters. Then they assumed that the warming in the early 1900s was caused by CO2 and adjusted their parameters to fit that early 1900s temperature data. Then they applied their resulting model to more recent levels of CO2. From that, they got predictions of significant warming. But those predictions failed -- the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no credible evidence of significant warming. E.g., the West Side Highway in NYC is still high and dry. Of course, a big flaw was their assumption that the temperature changes of the early 1900s were caused by CO2 changes. But by now from (1) and (2), we know better, know that the warming caused by CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, the warming of the early 1900s was not caused by CO2. The likely cause was pulling out of the Little Ice Age. Whatever, we have two rock solid points, (1) the models fail and (2) the empirical data doesn't support CO2 warming. So, we are left with no credible evidence that human sources of CO2 have caused, are causing, or will cause significant warming. Indeed the evidence from the cooling of 1945 to 1970 and the current higher concentration of CO2 without significant warming is that the warming of CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. So, there's no "climate crisis". But plenty of people know this. But we still have people screaming about the climate crisis. For them, the science is just an excuse. For them, they are not afraid of the warming. Instead, from the hoax, scam of the climate crisis, they are making money. Soon the climate crisis will be over, will go the way of the ozone hole, low flow plumbing, and the hula hoop. People will give up on the climate crisis not because of science such as I am explaining but because of the reason for the screaming about the climate crisis -- nothing to do with science but just a way to make money. So, people are noticing how much the climate crisis is costing them and will stop the nonsense based on those costs. Electric vehicles (EVs)? The batteries are too expensive, don't last very long, are too expensive to replace, present one heck of a fire hazard, take too long to charge, and need more electric power than the electric grid can supply. The EVs have many fewer moving parts so have some potential of being much cheaper than gasoline powered internal combustion engines but in practice so far are more expensive, not less. As the climate crisis fad fades, the subsidies for EVs will fade. Musk stands to lose a bundle.