patrick.net

These charts aren't difficult.

What are you suggesting they imply?

410 ppm of co2 is perfectly healthy for plants and people. life thrives at ppm into 1000.

"Record" temps since 1880? Lol, that's a time snapshot of climate history and considering the flawed methods that have changed over the years, do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

If the evidence is there I havent seen it.

Big Question: Why did temps fall when we began spewing, without the least controls, huge amounts of coal into the atmosphere in the 19th Century?

Also, if the temps were generally rising since the 1930s, as the above chart claims, why were scientists considering an impending Ice Age in the 1970s claiming that we had decades of cooling?

We went up not a single degree celsius in 40 years, when it was repeatedly claimed we'd see 1 degree rises "By the end of the decade/next 10-15 years" since at the mid 1980s?

Finally, where's the big sea level rises?

We can all have fun w models! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/have-humans-postponed-the-next-ice-age/

From CBOETrader's article:

The recent study showed—through simulations—that humans narrowly missed an ice age just before the Industrial Revolution and probably postponed the next one by at least 50,000 years. Researchers note that with the large quantities of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, the “probability of glacial inception during the next 100,000 years is notably reduced.”

Laying the baseline 'scuses for when all those model predicted temperature and sea level rises do not occur.

CBOEtrader says

do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

Ah so we moved the goal post from "Show me we're beating new temp records on a regular basis." to "explain me why 0.8 degree is a problem"?

Got it.

Do you think 2 degree is a problem? 5 degree? 10 degree?
Just wondering.

HonkpilledMaster says

Finally, where's the big sea level rises?

That's cause we just started. Ice will melt for hundreds of years just with the CO2 we added so far.
It may take 5000 yrs to melt Antarctica. Better hope we have an other source of energy before then.

HeadSet says

From CBOETrader's article:

The recent study showed—through simulations—that humans narrowly missed an ice age just before the Industrial Revolution and probably postponed the next one by at least 50,000 years. Researchers note that with the large quantities of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, the “probability of glacial inception during the next 100,000 years is notably reduced.”

Laying the baseline 'scuses for when all those model predicted temperature and sea level rises do not occur.

New models suggest we were right all along!

Heraclitusstudent says

CBOEtrader says

do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

Ah so we moved the goal post from "Show me we're beating new temp records on a regular basis." to "explain me why 0.8 degree is a problem"?

No fool, this isn't a record. We have gone down last 2 years and we are comparing to 140 years = nothing.

Calling this a record is a lie

Heraclitusstudent says

Do you think 2 degree is a problem? 5 degree? 10 degree?
Just wondering.

You will have to prove why .8 degrees isn't just sampling error. Our methods have drastically changed over the years and still have enormous limitations.

THEN you will need to explain why it's a problem. Historical fluctuations are far more extreme.

It may take 5000 yrs to melt Antarctica. Better hope we have an other source of energy before then.

Just think of how easier it will be to drill at the South Pole without all that ice in the way!

Ok....so we have a time equivalent to all of recorded history to adapt with science?

(dark blue 1000–1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455–471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000–1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759–762.

(light blue 1000–1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270–277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402–1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929–2941.

(light turquoise 831–1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250–2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200–1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200–1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500–1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1–1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613–617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600–1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675–677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856–2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

R U Ready for Peak electric rates from 3-8pm or 4-9pm when the sun don't sunshine (but demand is high)? Fasten your safety belts.and get out the batteries....
General Electric to scrap California power plant 20 years early
GE is selling the California power plant site to a company that makes battery storage, which is increasingly used to make wind and solar power available when needed, replacing the need for some fossil fuel plants.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because for the past 15 yrs I've been reading people like you on Internet forums that GW is a fad, that such and such is the last nail of the coffin of that hoax, etc, etc...

For the last 40 years i have been hearing the climate is about to change catastrophically. In the 70s it was "the ice age is coming". Nuclear winter was the big story in the 80s. Since the early 90s through the late 00s the story has been global warming. Most recently the moniker climate change has been used to take into account hurricanes, rain, unprecedented snowpacks and the lack of predicted temperature spike.

I've never argued against climate change. I've argued against alarmism. Children are taught fear and lies.

All the chicken little shits should shut up.

Heraclitusstudent says

In the meantime, we're still beating new temp records on a regular basis and all evidence shows it is happening.

And yet 2018 was the 4th warmest year and 2019 promises to be colder.
Heraclitusstudent says

At what point do you admit defeat?

I am just educating the ignorant.

"If the stock market is increasing, how can every day not be the highest the market has ever been ?"

Why argue with people that don't know what a trend is ?

Heraclitusstudent says

moved the goal post

You fell in to your own trap.

You're arguing with people that are in an anti science anti knowledge bubble, that is, when it pleases them. It's not just Brietbart and Fox, it's twitter and social media - the same monster that helped create the young SJW wackos.

Also, I think there is a personality type, that loves the idea of thinking they knew things before others SO MUCH, that in this case, they feel that if somehow climate change is not happening, they will get much more "I told you so" pleasure from thinking to themselves, and telling other for the rest of their lives that they knew all along, than the shame and embarrassment of having parroted the AGW denial narrative, if they slowly have to admit it they were probably wrong.

Where as the normal intelligent person that also understands the probabilistic nature of this type of thing, simply wants us to act based on the extremely high probability that AGW is real (and potentially life changing for humanity - even if it's after we are gone)).

Everything on that blue screen list is a good idea. Those items can only be accomplished by limiting First World Population to a resource sustainable level.

Trouble is, AGW types have no interest in that. Just argue that AGW is true, push voting Democrat as atonement, and never discuss real solutions to pollution and resource depletion. If anyone does bring up solutions, just push the discussion back to arguing with deniers.

marcus says

Why argue with people that don't know what a trend is ?

All your personal attacks don't hide the fact that the temperature has not really gone up.

"What if it is a big hoax and we hike the cost of energy for nothing?"

- Economic decline
- Famine
- War
- Genocide
- Poverty

HeadSet says

If anyone does bring up solutions, just push the discussion back to arguing with deniers.

I find this to be mostly straw man bullshit.

I'd be the first to agree that democrats are almost as far from talking about real solutions as republicans.

Both parties are married to the importance of GDP growth as a measure of economic success. And that's tied to population growth.

Also second and third world population growth is a problem too, relative to long term impact on resources. This stuff gets way more narly than than abortion question, which we blow out of proportion. And I would agree with those that say the value of human life, does enter in to these questions, making them tough to grapple with.

So it's not just that we don't discuss real solutions, we don't discuss the problems that those solutions might address, in a meaningful way.

Maybe you're right ? It's too boring to address problems that we damn well should be able to at least agree on and address.

socal2 says

"What if it is a big hoax and we hike the cost of energy for nothing?"

But that's not going to happen. THe worst thing that would happen is that governments do some subsidies (profitable long term investment) and accelerate the advance of cheap solar, or safer nuclear or whatever.

IT's only bad for fossil fuel industries.

Look at Germany and what they've done with solar and wind. Arguably too much too fast, but it's not cause massive strife.

"for nothing"

It can't be for nothing. WE don't have infinite fossil fuels, and burning it pollutes, even if somehow AGW was false.

Onvacation says

All your personal attacks don't hide the fact that the temperature has not really gone up.

Can you agree that there are millions of people smarter than you that disagree with you on this ?

Hell you don't even seem to agree with yourself.

Onvacation says

I've never argued against climate change.

marcus says

socal2 says

...THe worst thing that would happen is that governments do some subsidies (profitable long term investment) and accelerate the advance of cheap solar, or safer nuclear or whatever.

The worst thing that would happen is the attitude which is built on "whatever" part. "Let's spend money on something, as long as it sounds good to our camp and we can wrap it up nicely".

Solutions vary from "economically viable, and will make the world a better place even if GW scare is not real" to "non-scalable non-solutions pushed by politicians with agenda using PP slides and scare tactics".

At this time, I suspect that latest gen nuclear power is the former, while wind and solar are the latter.

Your camp puts limited resources into what are likely inferior solutions (wind/solar). Meanwhile, you attempt to secure ideological superiority by using umbrella term "whatever". It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

mostly_reader says

Meanwhile, you attempt to secure ideological superiority by using umbrella term "whatever". It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

That "whatever" was just a place you chose to argue. You're right, that it's a weak part of my point. But it was just laziness on my part, combined with the assumption that govenrment combined with markets sometimes actually work.

I agree about later generation nuclear. Even it has the drawback though, that it's a massive investment with better and safer technologies sure to come later. But I honestly don't get why we aren't further into development (actually implenmentation) stages of thorium or whatever the experts decide is the safest most economically sound reactors to build now.

But I disagree that solar and wind are non-solutions. People have been saying that for decades, with cost now lower than anyone thought possible and dropping. The jury is out. Solar might not be scalable in the sense that one day electric utilities will all have massive solar farms. But it's scalable in the sense that a lot of homes and other sites (too vague and maybe another attempt at something that should be be noted) ) are already using it.

But that's not to say it will win out long term.

mostly_reader says

It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

Weird flex.

Maybe you're right ? It's too boring to address problems that we damn well should be able to at least agree on and address.

Now back to our regular scheduled program of arguing with deniers....

"Whatever" is not just a weak part. It's a way to blur the line between inferior (but heavily supported) technology and a superior one, and to put those responsible for misdirected funds in the clear. It's a way to justify in public opinion investments in solar - by putting it in the same compartment as nuclear (in this case) and creating an umbrella item: "alternative energy". Nice. Scroll forward: "All those tax rebates for solar roofs? We've invested in alternative energy, and see how well alternative energy does!"

"Sky is falling, we MUST do something!", followed by forceful (i.e. tax-sponsored) implementation of bad ideas, followed by jumping on a bandwagon of a good idea, followed by blurring the line between the two, followed by righteous "we told you so!" - this pattern is too familiar to call it's recognition a weird flex. I view solar (which was shoved down our throats) different from nuclear (which wasn't)

Solar is getting cheaper, sure. Cheaper than what? Cheaper than what it was before. But there's still tax credit in 2018 for installing a solar roof, and that's most of what I need to know on the subject.

socal2 says

"What if it is a big hoax and we hike the cost of energy for nothing?"

- Economic decline
- Famine
- War
- Genocide
- Poverty

Actually solar and winds are already the cheapest form of energy in many places.
They are because we already invested a lot of money in these, and nothing bad happened to the economy.

Not to mention that gas reserves are more quickly becoming more and more expensive to exploit. The cheapest places to exploit are already dry. Only the most expensive places remain. Shale wells in the US will dry quickly and requires more and more new drilling. Literally trillions are invested in finding and drilling to new oil. Not only that but drilling itself and purifying oil requires energy, so that the energy return on the energy invested to drill is getting smaller.

So no matter what, we are bound to invest fortunes in transforming the way we get and consume energy. There is no way around this.

marcus says

Look at Germany and what they've done with solar and wind. Arguably too much too fast, but it's not cause massive strife.

It's been a disaster. Real electric costs for Commercial and Residential has doubled, almost no significant progress on the electric generation mix, and it proved that solar/wind is utterly unreliable.

Heraclitusstudent says

In the meantime, we're still beating new temp records on a regular basis and all evidence shows it is happening.

Coldest summer in a long time here.

marcus says

"If the stock market is increasing, how can every day not be the highest the market has ever been ?"

Why argue with people that don't know what a trend is ?

Heraclitusstudent says

moved the goal post

You fell in to your own trap.

You're arguing with people that are in an anti science anti knowledge bubble, that is, when it pleases them. It's not just Brietbart and Fox, it's twitter and social media - the same monster that helped create the young SJW wackos.

Also, I think there is a personality type, that loves the idea of thinking they knew things before others SO MUCH, that in this case, they feel that if somehow climate change is not happening, they will get much more "I told you so" pleasure from thinking to themselves, and telling other for the rest of their lives that they knew all along, than the shame and embarrassment of having parroted the AGW denial ...

Energy independence on that list is a FUCKING LIE. Who has all of the Rare Earths that are needed for all of these "Renewable" sources. Not USA!

We will be dependent upon when the sun shines or when the wind blows, as there isn't enough known lithium in the whole world to provide battery backup/load shift power to supply even just every house/business in only the USA with 48 hours of power. We all know there will be periods of time where there will be less power produced via solar/wind in a 24 hour period to carry you over to the next day.

Booger says

Coldest summer in a long time here

Happy second day of summer.

Booger says

Coldest summer in a long time here.

Fucking oven here...80+ at night

marcus says

WE don't have infinite fossil fuels

This is perhaps best argument against fossils...no one can argue against that

ForcedTQ says

We all know there will be periods of time where there will be less power produced via solar/wind in a 24 hour period to carry you over to the next day.

Nobody is saying we can get everything from solar and wind.

ForcedTQ says

Energy independence on that list is a FUCKING LIE

Why ?

Why couldn't you have solar, wInd and 4th generation nuclear. THere are ways to do nuclear that are WAY safer than the reactors built 20 to 50 years ago.

We need to wake the fuck up and figure out how to make the electricity for all the electric vehicles.

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

marcus says

wind

Wind does have a YUUGE problem

Wind turbines kill a rather staggering 600,000 to 900,000 bats every year, according to a new study. But this does not mean we should start shutting down wind farms.

Dead bats have been found at almost every wind energy facility where someone has looked for them, and researchers have tried to use these numbers to estimate how many bats die every year. Mark Hayes, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, analyzed published findings and places the number at more than 600,000. This number is probably conservative, he says in a new paper published in the December issue of the journal BioScience.
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek-squad/wind-turbines-kill-more-600000-bats-year-what-should-we-do/

marcus says

"for nothing"

It can't be for nothing. WE don't have infinite fossil fuels, and burning it pollutes, even if somehow AGW was false.

Argue against pollution, I am with you.

Tell children that the temperature is going to spike and the world will be flooded and there will be mass wetbulb death unless you recycle; that I have a problem with.

marcus says

Can you agree that there are millions of people smarter than you that disagree with you on this ?

You do realize that the temperature supposedly went up less than 1 degree over the last century and is now going down, don'tcha?

All these "smart people" can disagree all they want. Facts are facts and co2 caused AGW has been disproven by the fact that co2 has risen and temperatures are falling.

Onvacation says

Facts are facts

Yes. There you are correct.

Climate is complex. Ice on parts of the planet melts when it gets warmer. Why should it be surprising that at this stage of AGW it's an uptrend that includes down swings ?

Thank goodness that's the case, or it would be all over, if every month was hotter on average for the planet than the same month the previous year. That would have to lead very quickly to an exponential increase in temps and the end of all life on earth.

The data you like to cite is taking an anomolous hot February of 2016 and compare that to a cool February two years later.


Onvacation says

I've never argued against climate change. I've argued against alarmism

You are arguing against climate change. As for alarmism ? We have entrenched fossil fuel interests (who btw pay for some of the propaganda that deniers eat up). It's not being alarmist to be in favor of honest discussion of this issue, and reasonable movement in the direction of clean energy.