The U.S. could experience “off-the-charts” heat in under 20 years, thanks to climate changeComments
daniel wrote
Yes, and the coastline is shrinking from sea level rise too...
https://imgur.com/gallery/0C349u9
Say what you will about big banks, but they generally do their research. I doubt they would be offering 30 year mortgages on beachfront property if the risk was 100% loss.
mofongo wrote
Banks don't care, they still lent money to property purchases in areas with high risk of flood and tornadoes and it's not like you can unsell a house to the bank. You end up being the sucker that buys a beach front house that now can't sell because the coastline is now the livingroom.
Also, Insurance companies have stipulations to avoid paying as much as possible, they'll claim the coastline shift as an act of God.
daniel wrote
It should not be a contraversial position to say that the Sun is the primary driver of climate on Earth. It's also not wrong to state that the previous models have all failed to be accurate. I'm open to reasonable discussions on Earth's climate, but this "report" from the UCS is literally almost 30% 'just pictures of people sweating', and 0% 'satellite data'. Every corporation and their mother is on board with the 'green' agenda... The same banks would be in charge of managing the vast troves of cash they stand to gain from a carbon tax or other scheme. There are major problems with pollution and environmental issues which urgently need to be addressed, but science, true science, means a willingness to question even your most deeply held beliefs when reproducable and irrefutable data contradict them. I've been around a while, and I see lots of blatant fear mongering and sloganeering, littered with hyperbole (the world is going to end!). We stand to accomplish much more for the enviroment by simply planting trees and funding a few hundred landfill sites in Asia than any amount of 'green' technology could provide.
mofongo wrote
that the previous models have all failed to be accurate.
Because things turn out to be worse than what the models predict.
but science, true science, means a willingness to question even your most deeply held beliefs when reproducable and irrefutable data contradict them.
You should take you advice instead of going deep denialism.
I've been around a while, and I see lots of blatant fear mongering and sloganeering, littered with hyperbole (the world is going to end!).
Maybe you should stop visiting propaganda sites.
Also, obviously climate change is going to cause deaths. It's causing deaths right now, due to droughts, heat waves and everything these two entails.
We stand to accomplish much more for the enviroment by simply planting trees and funding a few hundred landfill sites in Asia than any amount of 'green' technology could provide.
Yes and no. You have lots of reading to do. But let's start with a video series, I recommend you the excellent Climate Change made easy series from Potholer54:
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
daniel wrote
It's much easy to decieve someone than convince someone that they have been deceived. If you could point to just one experimentally reproducable model of CO2 induced atmospheric warming at ~400 parts per million I would be happy to concede, unfortunately most people are only repeating things they've been indoctrinated to from an early age and not looking objectively at the math.
Do you happen to know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?
It's 0.04% or 0.0004 out of 1. Less than one half of one tenth of one percent. As CO2 increases, what gas or gases is it displacing? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Argon?
Where would CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere accumulate and be highest?
What does the thermal satellite data show about these regions?
What is specific heat?
What is the specific heat of water?
How much of the Earth's surface is covered in water/what is the total volume of water that would need to be heated?
How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of all that water (in joules)?
Just plug in the numbers. What is the net effect of CO2 on this model at 500 parts per million? 1000 parts per million? Etc.
Most of the scientific hegemony will use a lot of "woo-woo" magical explanations about 'the disrupted jet stream" or "ocean currents" or "runaway ice melting" to explain/justify their hyperbolic prognostications; the actual physics and math completely refute that possibility, and are not reproducable experimentally.
CO2 is a red herring and a backdoor for state control over ever aspect of your life from cradle to grave.
mofongo wrote
Also, visit the NASA page on global warming. Here is a handy visualization of years of hard data and the answer to several of your questions.
daniel wrote
We only have about 200 years of actual temperature records. A lot of that is piece-meal and certainly not homogenous in terms of the calibration of the instruments and locations of the readings. In terms of infrared/thermal satellite data, we only have about 60 or so years max. The rest is inferred. We can all make predictions, but none among us has a crystal ball. I think it's very premature to forcast the climate from the existing data. And I think it's very irresponsible to forcast 'the climate' which literally spans eons from such a small sample of data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum is a great place to start with space weather research.
mofongo wrote
Why do you think that global warming being natural is in any way better or more acceptable than it being manmade?
daniel wrote
https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html I think that there are multiple feedback loops, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, etc. We are definitely fucking with the carbon cycle as humans by pulling a lot out of the ground, but I think it's a minor problem compared to the real environmental degredation, most of that is from improper disposal/release of chemicals, toxic materials, nuclear waste, ocean contamination, and household waste. The plastic, heavy metals, slag, runoff, just junk pouring into rivers and oceans... That stuff is getting people sick now. Carbon is relatively benign in comparison, you're not going to collapse the food chain by adding more carbon, removing it yes, but not adding. You will collapse the foodchain by over fishing, deforestation, insect extinction, dumping an island of trash the size of Texas into the ocean, etc. I want to focus on solutions, the most cost effective and easy to implement ones first.
mofongo wrote (edited )
You're correct, all those are pressing issues. However, adding CO2 can cause environmental collapse. Simply look at ocean acidification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification which leads to dead zones:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) like the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea
Each and everyone exacerbate the other.
daniel wrote
The amount of CO2 is not without effect, but the premise for it influencing climate and temperature in the concentrations discussed lacks a mechanism, and lacks experimental reproducability. The problem with planting trees and landfilling is that is helps solve the problem and doesn't allow the state to exert complete control over the people.
mofongo wrote
Lol. Watch the video series i linked you. You'll get your science and experiments and hard data.
daniel wrote
I have personally analyzed thousands of models, not all of them climate related. Reproducable experiments are the only ones I care about. If you can demonstrate a reproducable experimental model where a change on the order of hundreds of parts per million of CO2 can somehow raise or lower the temperature of an isolated system with 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen, and a large volume of water closely approximating the ratios of those on Earth, while the enegy input approximating that of the Sun remains constant I will gladly concede. Just the physics of it do not allow for that to happen. There is no mechanism by which that can occur. It is mathamatically impossible. The only thing capable of generating that much energy to precipitate the types of climatic changes forcast (warmer or coolor) is the Sun.
The "93%" concensus is a manufactured fabrication of the establishment. Rather than accept they are wrong, they're doubling down. And not because they care about saving the Earth, but because they stand to gain trillions. Thousands of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and people much smarter than myself have looked at the object numbers.
You have to understand the property of specific heat because it's key to the physics. Water vapor is by far and away a much more potent "greenhouse gas" than CO2 by orders of magnitude because of its specific heat.
I'm going to watch the entire series you linked with an open mind. But you have to promise to look up at the giant ball of fire in the sky and keep an eye on the solar cycles and space weather.
mofongo wrote
I do and trust me when I tell you all that is taken into account. Water vapor, methane, loss of forest and phytoplankton, loss of ice mass, methane/CO2 release due to melting permafrost and continued use of coal and fossil fuel.
[deleted] 0 wrote
daniel wrote
What is there to reply to? I read the article (I posted it).
[deleted] 0 wrote
daniel wrote
Is it your contention that the Sun is not the primary driver of climate on Earth?
[deleted] wrote (edited )
[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )
daniel wrote
If I build 600 houses and bulldoze 5, net I am still ahead 595 houses. If vasts swaths (25-50% of all land mass on Earth) has shown significant increases in leaf cover, and several forrests in Czechia and elsewhere (the Amazon) have been destroyed accounting for ~10% of the total vegetated land mass (I'm being generous with that estimate, it's much less than 10% but lets just call it that for now) we are still net ahead increasing 15-40% . It's not some right-wing conspiracy that CO2 is a necessary nutrient for plants and hence all life on Earth, and that increasing the availability of CO2 will have (and has had) a fertilization effect on plant life. Scientific experiments (reproducable ones) have demonstrated many plants 'max out' their growth around 800 parts per million, beyond that other nutrients and inputs become the limiting factor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KZb2_vcNTg
[deleted] 0 wrote
daniel wrote
Very mature. You convinced me.
[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )
daniel wrote
You seem like a well adjusted person. I wish you all the best.
[deleted] 0 wrote
daniel wrote
I don't want to insult you, we're all entitled to our opinions. I am here to broaden my horizons and am open to evidence contrary to what I have discovered already. I am interested in reproducable science.
[deleted] 0 wrote
daniel wrote
You can say whatever you want about me, I don't mind. You're a stranger on the Internet. I hope I have shared information which although hasn't changed your mind at least persuedes you to do more research on your own. At the very least, it's piqued your interest.
welladjustedperson123 wrote
You sound like a well-adjusted person.
imafraidtotalk wrote
imagine thinking this is about the information and not the fact you literally smell your own shit every morning
daniel wrote
Clearly a lover of science and evidence-based conclusions.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
ziq OP wrote
What good is CO2 without water?
daniel wrote
What good are both CO2 and water without Sunlight? What good are CO2, Water, and Sunlight without Nitrogen? What good are CO2, Water, Sunlight, and Nitrogen without phosphorous? What good are CO2, Water, Sunlight, Nitrogen and Phosphorous without Sulfur, Magnesium, Calcium, etc. etc. etc. It takes lots of stuff (some in extremely small trace amounts like copper and selenium) to make plants grow. But most of a plant's mass comes from carbon in the atmosphere.
ziq OP wrote
If 7-11 months of the year are completely dry and extremely hot, none of that stuff is going to help plants grow.
imafraidtotalk wrote
but nasa said the planet green
daniel wrote
I'll tell you what. If raddle and myself are still around 40 years from now we can revisit this conversation and we'll have the evidence to inform our conclusions.
daniel wrote
So the hypothesis goes. But upon evaluation and testing, there is no evidence that hypothesis is correct. If you can point to an experimentally reproducable physical model where a change on the order of hundreds of parts per million of CO2 can raise the energy of a system proportional to the Earth-Sun enough to increase the temperature I would gladly concede. But it not possible without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The "greenhouse effect" is a gross oversimplification. The education system must start indoctrinating children to such ideas when they are in kindergarden beacuse they don't have the mental facilties yet to make reasoned inferences based on reality. It's the same reason they can believe in things like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The notion that increasing the concentration of a gas that is 0.0004 out of 1 to 0.0005 out of 1 will somehow magically increase the temperature-retention ability of a system enough to raise the energy on the orders of magnitude required is just as absurd as to suggest a grown man can land a sleigh on my roof and fit down the chimney. There is no math that can make those numbers come to fruition, even at concentrations far higher than the worst predictions, the physical mechanism for that pronounced effect does not exist and is not reproducable experimentally.
mofongo wrote (edited )
Laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption
You seem to be particularly interested in laboratory experiments on carbon dioxide absorption. As an excellent starting point, I can recommend the (currently) 26 publications in AGW Observer's list of papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties. If you're really keen to see experimental confirmation that CO2 can still absorb radiation even at atmospheric concentrations, you could take a look at (for example) Taylor and Yates (1957), Yates and Taylor (1960), or Streete (1968), all of which clearly demonstrate that CO2 absorption bands are present in normal atmospheric air.
You can read more here: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/7502/is-there-any-experiment-to-prove-that-co2-with-the-atmosphere-concentration-can
Also here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
You can see the experiment being reproduced by the myth busters, here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
Finally, stop using Google, I recommend duckduckgo.com or searx.me.
daniel wrote
There is clear and overwhelming evidence that the climate (which spans millions of years) was much hotter in the past when CO2 levels far lower than today. Ice core samples and the geologic record show this. The young sun paradox theory is one explanation warmists use to justify this. CO2 samples from ice cores are implored and used by alarmists all the time when convenient, but ignored when the evidence doesn't fit the narrative. That's not science, that's propaganda. Use your own reasoning. There is no physical, chemical, or mathematical basis for a change in concentration on the order of 0.02% to be capable of influencing a system on the scale alleged. CO2 is not some magical material that can insulate the Earth like a blanket, it is a gas. The ideal gas law and math still apply.
Moltres wrote (edited )
Welcome to a new episode of Use your own understanding!!!
Take this sentence:
CO2 is not some magical material that can insulate the Earth like a blanket, it is a gas. The ideal gas law and math still apply.
And answer the following:
-
Why is the earth hotter than the moon, which is closer to the sun?
-
Why is Venus significantly hotter than the earth?
-
Can gas get heated? If it does, what happens?
-
Do different gases have different physical properties? What do physics say? What does your science high school teacher say?
-
Are you even out of high school?
-
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
daniel wrote
I'm an engineer, thanks. Also got a full ride on an academic scholarship to any state school of my choice (Edward J. Bloustein distinguished scholar). I'm also probably older than you and most of the people on this site, but glad that you asked. You can crack open a book for the answers to your other questions if you really want to know. But comparing Earth to the moon or venus has no bearing on an experimentally reproducable model in which you increase the quantity of CO2 by 0.0001 out of 1. In fact do you know how much CO2 would be required to raise a systems temperature on the scale of the Earth-Sun? Hint: it's a lot higher than 1 hundredth of one percent. How much of the Earth's heat comes from its molten core?
Moltres wrote
Let's quack things a little, who has traditionally funded climate 'skepticism':
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oil+Lobby+climate+denial+sponsor&t=fpas&ia=web
daniel wrote
And the list for who funds its promotion? Is there a computer large enough to contain it?
Moltres wrote
Very good, Daniel! You're able to keep your previous believes despite evidence of the contrary, so scientist of you!
I just want you to know that you're a very good skeptic and very capable thinker, not at all a contrarian. It doesn't matter that your beliefs align with the establishment you hate so much, not at all. So keep it up sir/madam and godspeed.
daniel wrote
That's the thing about predictions, making more of them does not increase the accuracy, only the confidence. It's astonishing to see increased confidence after repeated failures of accuracy. Ignoring the hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of years of irrefutable geological records which demonstrate both much higher and much lower temperatures during times when CO2 levels are both much higher and much lower than they are presently doesn't seem to bother you or many others. Is it some logical fallacy in your thinking which allows you to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence contrary to your hypothesis or have you just seen so many predictions that your confidence in them is that high that you are unwilling to see the lack of accuracy.
[deleted] wrote
daniel wrote
There have been several periods of glaciation over the past 800,000 years. That is universally accepted. The CO2 records throughout that time does not correlate at all with the cyclical cooling and warming of record. A reasonable person can look at the data (of which there is massive amounts) and conclude that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate, furthermore its impact, contribution and sensitivy are small as is its composition of the atmosphere. Beyond that, the only true objective source global atmosphereic temperature data and to a lesser degree surface data is from satellites. There are numerous factors involved with surface temperature measurment integrity, such as the urban heat island effect and beyond that there is problems with integrity of the selection of that data. Weather anomalies are occuring constantly and should not be used at all in any context to spin the climate. It's a major sample selection bias given prior to satellites almost all surface measurements are local, not global. It's irresponsible to make predictions like that which have no testable (reproducable) basis in reality.
Moltres wrote
You seriously don't read, do you?
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.
daniel wrote
Of course there is correspondence but if you look closely at the data you will see that CO2 increases after the temperature, and not the other way around. Sea water, permafrost, ice, etc. release more disolved gases as its temperature rise.
[deleted] wrote
daniel wrote
A random GIF from a climate change org site is not a substitute for terrabytes of actual numerical data. CO2 is not the causative agent. You will see other gases concentrations increase with increased temperature as well, moreover you see wide swings in temperature over long periods of time where CO2 levels remain relatively high. When temperatures spike, more disolved gases are freed up, those gases take longer to get resequestered back into storage. They are still just trace gases, concentrations so low and diffuse that they are measured in ppm.
[deleted] wrote
daniel wrote
Note, the data for nitrous oxide and methane also share the same trend. How shocking. I bet if you find one for argon you'll see the same thing. Surely you don't want to propose argon is the primary driver of the glaciation, despite its concentration being greater than CO2? If you are looking for data, that sites got plenty. Pick your poison. A good place to start is the 4000 years of temperature data, and cross referencing that with last 4000 of disolved gases from whereever you want. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true
Moltres wrote
Could it be that methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases as well? And that when one increases it creates a feedback loop that also raises the others (and temperature)? Could this be the reason why they correlate with each other across the record?
Why does it hurt so much to think?
daniel wrote
The Sun is the primary driver of the climate, trace gases are not. The education system has failed in raising a generation of critical thinkers. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, it revolves around the gravitational center of the solar system which is influenced by the orbit of the planets. Those planets also have most of the angular momentum of the solar system, their periodic (cyclical) actions influence fluctuations in the activity of the Sun and thus the climate on Earth. The Sun also has internal cyclical mechanisms the manifest in fluctuations in solar activity, which also influence climate on Earth. Space weather and solar angular momentum are much more reliable predictors of climate than are trace gases, which are only useful after the fact.
daniel wrote
because the data doesn't coincide with that hypothesis. the dissolved trace gases follow the temperature, not the other way around.
[deleted] wrote
daniel wrote
right, but Argon is also increasing, as are other trace gases. both the increases and decreases in temp (reglaciation) proceed their corresponding increase/decrease in gases, not the other way around.
Moltres wrote
Do you mean that climate is a system composed of many parts that CO^2 is nothing but a part? Then what is the importance of CO^2?
Could it be that its raise was the initial trigger event?
Could it be that is the one most easily and conveniently dealt with? Coal and oil
What sort of thing humans use that produce CO^2 that could possibly be regulated? Coal and oil
Is there any part of the establishment that could be harmed by such regulations? Coal and oil
If there are, they would have to be huge corporations with lots of money to be able to affect public policy and opinion? Coal and oil
So powerful and so entrenched in the establishment that they could convince governments to go to war for their prime matter! Coal and oil
What kind of business has such interests, such money and power? Coal and oil
NO! It's something more sinister! The sunlight panel industry! It makes sense, too! All cars run on solar panel.
daniel wrote
All I'm asking for is reproducable physical science, which of course refutes completely the AGW 'greenhouse gas' hypothesis and hence is never part of the discussion. Quick! More pictures of people sweating! Climate sensitivity to CO2 is nowhere near as high as claimed by AGW proponents, which is why there is no reporducable physical model which results in anything close to the predicted changes. Their models are not mathematically sound or based in objective science. You have been lied to and inculcated into a cult mindset. The amount of CO2 required to change the climate is several orders of magnitude higher than an additional 0.0001 (aka going from ~400 ppm to ~500 ppm), so much so that it is all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.
Moltres wrote
all but impossible to produce through human activity alone.
Only you has said that, I haven't said it, no scientist has said that, mofongo even listed lots of things that has affected the climate change we're seeing. You should look back on that.
Only two entities benefit from the belief that only CO^2 emissions cause climate change. The first is the government because they can use as an election platform, make policies that barely do anything and don't affect the bottom line of the oil giants, look as good guys and ultimately prevent any revolt. The second one are oil companies because then they don't have to deal with the other practices, say deforestation, assassination, oil spills, war, etc, etc. Of course, they can lobby down any regulation that they don't like and propose changes that they have already made for profit in disguise of "progress".
imanengineer wrote
mfw when you ignore it anyway
imanengineer wrote
I'm also old as fuck so you better shut your mouth tHiNkInG fOr YoUrSeLf!1
daniel wrote
I agree with literally everything the corporate media and establishment academia approve. I am a revolutionary. I think for myself
Seems legit.
imanengineer wrote
assumes the source of my information without knowing anything else and also ignoring any evidence that doesn't neatly fall into your little sphere.
Seems legit.
imanengineer wrote
I'm an engineer and older than you so it's fine that I ignore anything anyone says, but because I'm an engineer and older than you I'm right!
mofongo wrote
It's like you didn't watch the videos nor read any of the links I provided you (all of which are very short). You're not interesting in improving your understanding, I'm no longer interested in this conversation. Don't reply to me anymore.
daniel wrote
Show me the myth busters where they fill one transparent box with 0.04% CO2 and compare it to another with 0.05% CO2, versus filling a box with 100% CO2 or 100% methane. But using literally 1000000 times the concentration increase is totally a scientificly valid comparison. Please, absolute rubbish.
imanengineer wrote
mfw when you only point out the weakest link
Seems legit.
daniel wrote
Strange that you would consider the fundamental AGW hypothesis, namely that minute (0.02%) changes to the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere are responsible for increasing the temperature of the entire planet, the "weakest link". That is literally exactly what the hypothesis is claiming.
daniel wrote
the paper referenced in the article (https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/07/killer-heat-analysis-full-report.pdf) is light on the details. weather and weather anomalies occur all the time and are not wholly representative of climate trends. we could experience "off-the-charts" cold in under 20 years too. or we could also experience mild temperatures, or a drought, or a flood. or an earthquake. one thing is certain, climate models and predictions from the past 40 years have not proven to be correct, and trillions of dollars of monied interests have embedded themselves into every fiber of this issue, corrupting science, tainting the data, and making a political issues out of physics, biology, chemistry, and math. I urge you to read John Bates' (former NOAA scientist/whistleblower) original post from Judith Curry's blog. I also encourage you to read more from Dr. Curry and what she calls the "uncertainty monster".