Climate Change Anyone?

WrongHanded

Active member
You're falling for a very common misconception.

CO2 doesn't lead warming, it follows it.

Once you understand this point you'll see that the whole climate change/global warming scam is just that, a scam, another way to control people.





Historically (and by that I mean with palaeo data) that is true. There has been a lag of CO2 content trends compared to temperature trends in the natural glacial/inter-glacial cycle. I understand it, and have mentioned it previously. It's buried up thread somewhere. So it's not news to me, though it is important. It's also well documented and thoroughly accepted by climate scientists. But what is happening now is not the same. Warmer temperatures are not causing us to burn fossil fuels and emit CO2.

What scientists have predicted and then measured is that the increase in CO2 levels above the levels observed in the palaeo data, have caused the lower atmosphere to warm, whilst causing the upper atmosphere to cool. This was explained by an Evangelical Christan from Texas, who is also a well know climate scientist. She has over 80 peer reviewed papers on climate science, and believes (or rather, knows) modern climate change is manmade. She explains it in church as the extra CO2 acting like a blanket over the Earth. A little simplistic but basically the CO2 is trapping hear in the lower atmoshpere which is preventing that heat reaching the upper atmosphere, and thus it is cooling up there.

This is her: http://www.katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/category/faith/
 
Last edited:

WrongHanded

Active member
Wow, NOAA is showing drought in the desert regions... Smoking gun right there... Drought in Indiana... We call it a dry year and they usually come in threes if my grandfather is to be believed. As for Chicago... perhaps they have just placated the spirit of global warming and have been spared the effects??? Glory be to Algore and the sacred hockey stick...

Again, you've missed my point.

On that page it clearly shows a prediction for a cooler than average winter in some regions, and a warmer than average winter in other. And my point was that what happens in one city (or even one region) does not always directly correlate with what happens elsewhere. Therefore, when it comes to climate, it is not possible to measure the whole, by measure just a small part.

And you still haven't answered my question Selena. Do you believe the data, or not?
 

Selena

Member
Again, you've missed my point.

On that page it clearly shows a prediction for a cooler than average winter in some regions, and a warmer than average winter in other. And my point was that what happens in one city (or even one region) does not always directly correlate with what happens elsewhere. Therefore, when it comes to climate, it is not possible to measure the whole, by measure just a small part.

And you still haven't answered my question Selena. Do you believe the data, or not?

You have accurately predicted drought in the desert... the data must be blessed. You have convinced me about your straw. Blessed be Algore. And since I have neither time nor interest to research the cities that may have had the changes for you then you must be correct under your appeal to authority.

Now, let's go through this one more time. whether the data is re4al or not is irrelevant. The defining test of the hypothesis is whether or not the data can be used to predict future events. So far that ability has not been shown. Even then for hypothesis to graduate up to theory you need to show the other possibilities of the event are not the sole cause. For example, the el nino/nina droughts in the American Southwest could easily be explained by volcanic/seismic activity in the Pacific "ring of fire." The possibility is enough to disprove the hypothesis and needs to be address by the holder. Likewise, Chicago not having any recent "record" events is enough to disprove the hypothesis and needs to be proven an anomaly by the holder. Your statement says essentially- The model works, just not in Chicago and I don't need to prove it works anywhere else.
 
Last edited:

WrongHanded

Active member
You have accurately predicted drought in the desert...

No. I didn't predict drought anywhere. I told you that's what I believe we will see in the near future. That's not a prediction. And I didn't mention the desert. That was you. What you've done is used part of a link I shared - which I shared for an entirely different purpose than predicting drought - and fabricated a claim based from it. I made no such claim, and certainly did not post the link with that regard.

Now, let's go through this one more time. whether the data is re4al or not is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If you don't believe the data, any conclusions or predictions that could come from it are meaningless. So do you believe the data, or not?

The defining test of the hypothesis is whether or not the data can be used to predict future events.

Which climate science has successfully done in terms of increased global average temperatures at surface levels, cooling in the upper atmosphere, and increased frequency and severity of weather patterns such as tropical storms. It's not going to provide at detailed map of the future. If you expect that, you expect far too much.

Even then for hypothesis to graduate up to theory you need to show the other possibilities of the event are not the sole cause.

So show some other possibilities for what climate science has correctly predicted, such as those I mentioned above.

Regarding Chicago's weather anomalies. Weather is not climate. But climate is based on weather trends. However, local weather is not global weather. Therefore, local climate is not global climate. But that doesn't change the fact that if you look at Chicago's average annual temperature by year through the decades, you'll see it trends up. I'm sure you can find that one by yourself. I did.
 

Selena

Member
{snip}

Regarding Chicago's weather anomalies. Weather is not climate. But climate is based on weather trends. However, local weather is not global weather. Therefore, local climate is not global climate. But that doesn't change the fact that if you look at Chicago's average annual temperature by year through the decades, you'll see it trends up. I'm sure you can find that one by yourself. I did.


I'm sure I could... but I still haven't been convinced it's worth the effort. And yes, after the expense of insane amounts of capital the scientists now "predict" ... Oddly enough... after the outlay of all that capital they are predicting conditions that have been happening since the end of the Younger Dryas period about 12 thousand years ago.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I'm sure I could... but I still haven't been convinced it's worth the effort. And yes, after the expense of insane amounts of capital the scientists now "predict" ... Oddly enough... after the outlay of all that capital they are predicting conditions that have been happening since the end of the Younger Dryas period about 12 thousand years ago.

So do you believe the data, or not? You seem very tied to this line about predictions, and what predictions you see have been wrong (though you are quite happy to ignore the ones that have been correct). You seem happy to believe the palaeo data with which you are comparing some of these failed predictions. Do you believe the average global annual temperature data collected since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

Again, what other possibilities are there to explain the upward trend in average global annual temperatures in the lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution began? And the cooling of the upper atmosphere that scientists correctly predicted? You said there were other possibilities. So what are they?
 

Ivy Mike

Member
You're falling for a very common misconception.

CO2 doesn't lead warming, it follows it.

Once you understand this point you'll see that the whole climate change/global warming scam is just that, a scam, another way to control people.



This article you posted would seemingly dispute the very thing you're saying. CO2 tends to amplify warming periods. The reason is that lighter molecules like O2 and N2 which make up the bulk of our atmosphere, are not massive enough to stop the types of radiation that cause a warming effect on the Earth. Specifically, the sunlight comes in, warms the surface and is reflected back into space. The radiation passes right through the N2 and O2 which are not massive enough to slow or stop it.
CO2 is a considerably more massive molecule and is able to block UV and infrared radiation. An increased concentration would trap more heat in the atmosphere. That's why we observe warming after an increase in atmospheric CO2. It takes a lot of energy to increase temperatures on a global scale and that means it takes time. Furthermore, lower solar outputs can slow the pace of warming as exacerbated by CO2 by simply pumping less energy onto the surface of the planet. It doesn't mean the CO2 doesn't speed the warming process. It means you turned down the temperature.
That's kind of arguing that the recipe a baker uses isn't responsible for the quality of the cake, all while turning down the temperature of the oven while nobody is looking.

So yes, the warming periods are noticed after the increase in CO2, but that is normal because it takes time to increase the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and takes more time to increase the temperature of something as massive as Earth.
 

TomJ

Member
It's November and it's 72 degrees in Chicago. If this is global warming I'll take it. To help make sure it keeps going I left my F150 running all night with a brick on the accelerator and am burning chunks of coal in the firepit in my yard.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
It's November and it's 72 degrees in Chicago. If this is global warming I'll take it. To help make sure it keeps going I left my F150 running all night with a brick on the accelerator and am burning chunks of coal in the firepit in my yard.

I wonder how much you'd like next summer if the temperature differential we're seeing now in comparison to average were to continue. I know I wouldn't like it at all, but then anything above core body temperature is thoroughly unpleasant to me. Particularly if I'm welding 1/16" dual shield all day.

Obviously it would be preferable if the climate were constantly at spring/fall typical temperatures. But that's not how the planet rotates. Warmer winters will mean warmer summers too.
 

Selena

Member
It's November and it's 72 degrees in Chicago. If this is global warming I'll take it. To help make sure it keeps going I left my F150 running all night with a brick on the accelerator and am burning chunks of coal in the firepit in my yard.
Better yet, plant fast growing trees for the carbon credits and burn them after six months or so. I would suggest "Austrees" as they grow quickly, burn well and transpire a lot of water making them ideal for areas condemned as "wetlands."
 
Top