5 ms·

Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. When the hyperbolic claims about Global Warming with runaway climate forcing failed, it was swif

Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. When the hyperbolic claims about Global Warming with runaway climate forcing failed, it was swiftly rebranded Climate Change. At which point, the critics became accurate, since climatic periods are measured in 30 year intervals, and weather != climate. Solar Radiance being the keymost driver of earth's temperature of course, varies due to the natural cycle and supercycles of the Sun [1] The longterm trend of deglaciation and CO2 levels rising back to nearer Earth's historical norms continues unabated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

deadbolt 4y ago
> Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. How would you define those two terms?
- transcriptase 4y ago
  One is an observable phenomenon. The other gets grant money in perpetuity no matter what the data says.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deadbolt 4y ago
    I wasn't asking you, but okay.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Climate Change could include onset of an ice age?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    Russian Climate Scientists readily talk about ice age onsets. When I was in my youth, that was the buzz at the time. My, how the winds have changed.
evol262 4y ago
GWB rebranded it as Climate Change, not anybody else. Solar forcing is completely accounted for in the models, in all areas (albedo, bouncing in the galactic plane, distance from the Sun). The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. Climactic periods are not "measured" in any kind of arbitrary 3 decade cycle. Even if you want to pretend that they are, and we are returning to some kind of baseline (which every bit of science says we are not -- we are going to dramatically overshoot it), humanity did not evolve under those "historical norms". Our society and agriculture and population patterns did not emerge under those "historical norms". Returning to those "historical norms" will mean the largest population migration in human history, with a large amount of it from nuclear states which already have shooting skirmishes in their borderlands facing an existential crisis over water (India, Pakistan, China). Those "historical norms" are not necessarily compatible with civilization. Before you talk about how much farmland it is going to "open", ask yourself how well the supply chain did during COVID. Then ask yourself what will happen to it during a population migration. Ask yourself what happens when deep water ports at low sea level start having problems, and how we would get crude to refineries to get bitumen to even make asphalt to create infrastructure in the new "open" land, how we'd transport concrete and steel there if there are interruptions in the supply chain which impact diesel production. Ask yourself how long it will take to transform old-growth forest and granite-filled glacial retreat zones in Canada into arable land, how easily we'll be able to get chemical fertilizers, etc. Even if you want to talk about how this is some kind of "historical norm", the question ultimately becomes not "is this anthropogenic?" (it is, but it doesn't matter), but "how do we intend to survive this as a species?"
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. You made an extraordinary claim "It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models." I am calling your bluff. Please provide evidence of six variable things (1) The change from Whitewash to semi-latex in the painting of Stevenson screens (the old paint vs the new paint) which is a feed into GHCN (2) The change in the sizes of some Stevenson screens in some countries records (230L to 60L) (3) Analysis of the greater accuracy of space based temperature measurement which deviate substantially from in-situ measurements (4) The removal of corrupted data sources like ASOS from the Climate Record, as ASOS as placed on hot airfields and is hit by prop blast and jetwash (5) Fixes to the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) readings to account for ship altitude, height, deviation from marine surface temperature, etc. (6) Weather Station gaps used in location where urbanized city centers are extrapolated for all nearby landscape (e.g. Africa) and the large gaps in the surface temps (Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia, Sahara, Amazon, Northern Canada)

deadbolt 4y ago

> Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. How would you define those two terms?

transcriptase 4y ago
One is an observable phenomenon. The other gets grant money in perpetuity no matter what the data says.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deadbolt 4y ago
  I wasn't asking you, but okay.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
Climate Change could include onset of an ice age?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  Russian Climate Scientists readily talk about ice age onsets. When I was in my youth, that was the buzz at the time. My, how the winds have changed.

evol262 4y ago

GWB rebranded it as Climate Change, not anybody else. Solar forcing is completely accounted for in the models, in all areas (albedo, bouncing in the galactic plane, distance from the Sun). The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. Climactic periods are not "measured" in any kind of arbitrary 3 decade cycle. Even if you want to pretend that they are, and we are returning to some kind of baseline (which every bit of science says we are not -- we are going to dramatically overshoot it), humanity did not evolve under those "historical norms". Our society and agriculture and population patterns did not emerge under those "historical norms". Returning to those "historical norms" will mean the largest population migration in human history, with a large amount of it from nuclear states which already have shooting skirmishes in their borderlands facing an existential crisis over water (India, Pakistan, China). Those "historical norms" are not necessarily compatible with civilization. Before you talk about how much farmland it is going to "open", ask yourself how well the supply chain did during COVID. Then ask yourself what will happen to it during a population migration. Ask yourself what happens when deep water ports at low sea level start having problems, and how we would get crude to refineries to get bitumen to even make asphalt to create infrastructure in the new "open" land, how we'd transport concrete and steel there if there are interruptions in the supply chain which impact diesel production. Ask yourself how long it will take to transform old-growth forest and granite-filled glacial retreat zones in Canada into arable land, how easily we'll be able to get chemical fertilizers, etc. Even if you want to talk about how this is some kind of "historical norm", the question ultimately becomes not "is this anthropogenic?" (it is, but it doesn't matter), but "how do we intend to survive this as a species?"

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. You made an extraordinary claim "It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models." I am calling your bluff. Please provide evidence of six variable things (1) The change from Whitewash to semi-latex in the painting of Stevenson screens (the old paint vs the new paint) which is a feed into GHCN (2) The change in the sizes of some Stevenson screens in some countries records (230L to 60L) (3) Analysis of the greater accuracy of space based temperature measurement which deviate substantially from in-situ measurements (4) The removal of corrupted data sources like ASOS from the Climate Record, as ASOS as placed on hot airfields and is hit by prop blast and jetwash (5) Fixes to the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) readings to account for ship altitude, height, deviation from marine surface temperature, etc. (6) Weather Station gaps used in location where urbanized city centers are extrapolated for all nearby landscape (e.g. Africa) and the large gaps in the surface temps (Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia, Sahara, Amazon, Northern Canada)