Climate Change is a Hoax

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Why doesn't it affect the body, and what does that have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

It doesn't affect the 10 micron radiating body because the body is already in a higher energy state than that of the 15 micron EM wave length, so the latter can not be thermalized it will be reflected or scattered no energy transfer takes place. This rejection of lower energy wave lengths is in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[tmcom]

Seems that Heinekenhunter has responded, or is crying in his beer!

So one crying and one in denial, so far so good.

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Seems that Heinekenhunter has responded, or is crying in his beer!

So one crying and one in denial, so far so good.

Daww, you missed me. Heineken sucks by the way, as does the climate change denialism in this thread. 

P.s I'm always lurking.

[Farmer77]

9 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Heineken sucks by the way,

 

[Doc Socks Junior]

On 8/22/2019 at 3:17 PM, lost_shaman said:

It doesn't affect the 10 micron radiating body because the body is already in a higher energy state than that of the 15 micron EM wave length, so the latter can not be thermalized it will be reflected or scattered no energy transfer takes place. This rejection of lower energy wave lengths is in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Yeah, there really ain't much I can do to reach you.

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Yeah, there really ain't much I can do to reach you.

You don't know that. State a case against what I said. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You don't know that. State a case against what I said. 

I do know that.  This thread has been active for a while, remember?

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I do know that.  This thread has been active for a while, remember?

Yes, this thread and the ones before it have been ongoing for a while that is true. Plenty of time for you to have made a case but you don't. I assume because you don't have one to make other than to throw insults around unwarranted. 

[skookum]

My problem with climate change science and the way it is pushed on us. 

I am 46 years old and seem to have lived a life of doomsday science predictions.

When I was at primary school nuclear holocaust was a real probability along with detailed descriptions of nuclear winter.

This was followed by acid rain and how all the forests will be destroyed shortly after the millennium.

The destruction of the ozone layer by CFC and how the polar icecaps will be melted by 1999.

In 1980's we had various talkers come in  to school about an energy crisis. At the time they were telling us that by the time we reach 17 petrol would unlikely be available for cars.

In between we have had peak oil, peak food, peak water.

I am not saying climate change is rubbish but you have to see my point of view. 

All the so called doomsday studies have failed to be accurate (not including climate change). To be honest human CO2 shouldn't be a problem as fossil fuels should have run dry or will very shortly according to extensive studies.

Anyone who would have questioned an energy crisis predicted as being absolutely certain in the 1980's/1990's would have been branded a heretic like today if the question climate science.

Like I say I am not denying but very cautious how the bandwagon moves in favour of popular belief that often involves lots of money for studies.

 

 

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, skookum said:

My problem with climate change science and the way it is pushed on us. 

I am 46 years old and seem to have lived a life of doomsday science predictions.

When I was at primary school nuclear holocaust was a real probability along with detailed descriptions of nuclear winter.

This was followed by acid rain and how all the forests will be destroyed shortly after the millennium.

The destruction of the ozone layer by CFC and how the polar icecaps will be melted by 1999.

In 1980's we had various talkers come in  to school about an energy crisis. At the time they were telling us that by the time we reach 17 petrol would unlikely be available for cars.

In between we have had peak oil, peak food, peak water.

I am not saying climate change is rubbish but you have to see my point of view. 

All the so called doomsday studies have failed to be accurate (not including climate change). To be honest human CO2 shouldn't be a problem as fossil fuels should have run dry or will very shortly according to extensive studies.

Anyone who would have questioned an energy crisis predicted as being absolutely certain in the 1980's/1990's would have been branded a heretic like today if the question climate science.

Like I say I am not denying but very cautious how the bandwagon moves in favour of popular belief that often involves lots of money for studies.

Don't worry it is rubbish, and is becoming more rubbishly by the day believe me l am 51, lol.

Just watch the Congressional hearing on climate change, video l posted here and elsewhere recently, for solid evidence that there is no impending doom. The only doom is the poor freezing to death due to F...wits, messing with our grid.

But since billions of dollars are on the line, the impending doom will continue, eventhough there isn't any.

Iceland is melting, (eventhough it is gaining) one of our poles, is shrinking, (possibly true, but the other pole is gaining) and an easy way to decide this matter is look at a live feed of one of the US coastlines, or Ours or The island grounp near us.

If these situations where true, we would be seeing obvious signs of our oceans going up, we see no change or very little!

But the faithful, will cling on no matter how much silly hard evidence is given.

[Tatetopa]

9 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Iceland is melting, (eventhough it is gaining) one of our poles, is shrinking, (possibly true, but the other pole is gaining) and an easy way to decide this matter is look at a live feed of one of the US coastlines, or Ours or The island grounp near us.

If these situations where true, we would be seeing obvious signs of our oceans going up, we see no change or very little!

But the faithful, will cling on no matter how much silly hard evidence is given.

Even if nothing is happening, this is not much of a statement.  If sea level were rising at a mm per year, it might not be noticeable for 10 or 20 more years.  It would take 1000 years at that rate to rise a meter and flood coastal cities.  Not on our radar even if true, we would likely discount it as you do.

'Humans are more geared to respond to immediate danger like saber tooth tigers and  charging mammoths.  

I doubt any of our Neanderthal ancestors at the end of the last Ice Age noticed that it was getting warmer from day to day.

Course they adapted or died anyway when the environment changed and the game went away.  Good for us yes?  Maybe good for somebody else next time.

[lost_shaman]

14 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I doubt any of our Neanderthal ancestors at the end of the last Ice Age noticed that it was getting warmer from day to day.

 

To be fair the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors, they contribute about 4% of non-sub-Saharan African DNA. We interbred with them at some point and then shed most of their DNA. 

The last of Neanderthals died out or interbred with us between 40,000 ka and 28,000 ka at the latest before things got really cold around 25,000 ka. 

Edit: Consequently our direct ancestors did notice the warming thousands of years later and began cultivating crops in the warmer weather and on newly cold liberated land. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Tatetopa]

13 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

To be fair the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors, they contribute about 4% of non-sub-Saharan African DNA. We interbred with them at some point and then shed most of their DNA. 

The last of Neanderthals died out or interbred with us between 40,000 ka and 28,000 ka at the latest before things got really cold around 25,000 ka. 

Edit: Consequently our direct ancestors did notice the warming thousands of years later and began cultivating crops in the warmer weather and on newly cold liberated land. 

Edited 3 minutes ago by lost_shaman

Accurate and true. I was leaning on my 4% Neanderthal genes  pretty heavily.  

To you edit, did our ancestors notice the warming over generations, or did each generation take what they found as  the norm? 

[lost_shaman]

22 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Even if nothing is happening, this is not much of a statement.  If sea level were rising at a mm per year, it might not be noticeable for 10 or 20 more years.  It would take 1000 years at that rate to rise a meter and flood coastal cities.  Not on our radar even if true, we would likely discount it as you do.

You know when Amerinds lived on the Bering land bridge between 22,000 and 18,000 ka years ago, Sea Level was around 140 meters lower than it is today. There also evidence that sea level has been much higher in terms of meters since then. So a one meter rise or fall is well within the realm of less than 1% of natural variability.

[Tatetopa]

20 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The last of Neanderthals died out or interbred with us between 40,000 ka and 28,000 ka at the latest before things got really cold around 25,000 ka. 

An article I just read about Iberian climate puts those two date close enough to be overlapping within the margin of error.

[lost_shaman]

4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

To you edit, did our ancestors notice the warming over generations, or did each generation take what they found as  the norm? 

Hard for me to say or get in the mind so to speak for any given generation. That said many cultures have left evidence of being highly in tune with the seasons and they clearly passed these traditions on to subsequent generations.  

[Tatetopa]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

You know when Amerinds lived on the Bering land bridge between 22,000 and 18,000 ka years ago, Sea Level was around 140 meters lower than it is today. There also evidence that sea level has been much higher in terms of meters since then. So a one meter rise or fall is well within the realm of less than 1% of natural variability.

Sure I do.  Natural variability of a meter means good bye to Florida as the Sunshine state and spring break destination though.  It  would of course be no laughing matter in Bangladesh and parts of Southeast Asia I reckon.

So it seems like a population of 7 billion people is supported on a razor's edge within natural variability.

[lost_shaman]

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

An article I just read about Iberian climate puts those two date close enough to be overlapping within the margin of error.

I've never read anything that shows Neanderthals survived past 25,000 years ago. Most sources date their demise as a stand alone species at around 35,000 years ago.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Sure I do.  Natural variability of a meter means good bye to Florida as the Sunshine state and spring break destination though.  It  would of course be no laughing matter in Bangladesh and parts of Southeast Asia I reckon.

So it seems like a population of 7 billion people is supported on a razor's edge within natural variability.

There really is no getting around the fact that many people live in tenuous places. Unfortunately natural variability is out of our control. 

Population is on track to level off at 10 billion people and we can most likely swing that agriculturally speaking. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

19 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes, this thread and the ones before it have been ongoing for a while that is true. Plenty of time for you to have made a case but you don't. I assume because you don't have one to make other than to throw insults around unwarranted. 

I've made many cases.  Every time I do, you ignore them, shift the focus somewhere else, and then go right back to repeating the same tripe.  Or you just continue making the claims repetitively anyway.

Thus, I realize you have no interest in actual discussion.  Rather, this is a soapbox for you.

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I've made many cases. 

Since you first showed up all you've done is insult. You haven't attempted to discuss the topic. Your posts here are just distractions, an attempt to derail. You believe all the Alarmism but you can't defend it.

[Doc Socks Junior]

26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Since you first showed up all you've done is insult.

Incorrect. 

26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You haven't attempted to discuss the topic.

Also incorrect. 

26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Your posts here are just distractions, an attempt to derail.

Also incorrect. 

26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You believe all the Alarmism but you can't defend it.

Also incorrect.

[Doc Socks Junior]

I think this paper has been referenced earlier in the thread, but I thought I'd post a link to it so some people on this thread get some useful information.  In between the yammering from the conspiracy theorists.  I realized that denial isn't the right word to use in reference to people who can't figure out climate science.  I mean, sure, they do deny all sorts of basic facts, but at the end of the day it's all another conspiracy theory.  Anyways.  Some of the tripe that the resident conspiracy theorists insist on propagating regardless of veracity concerns Mann's 'hockey stick'.

Which, wow, just realized it's over 20 years old now.  Neat.

Here there's an independent re-analysis of it.  And it turns out, neither Wahl nor Ammann, has said anything that confuses the brains of conspiracy theorists over email.  Thus, one could hope, they can get over their reliance on quote mining leaked emails.

Quote

The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed.

https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

[Guest]

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

When I was at primary school nuclear holocaust was a real probability along with detailed descriptions of nuclear winter.

That didn't happen because nuclear holocaust was averted - accidentally, I think.  We can count ourselves lucky on that one.

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

This was followed by acid rain and how all the forests will be destroyed shortly after the millennium.

This problem was solved by the EPA.  We instituted improved scrubbers and cut the use of high-sulphur coal.  Also, pollution from smelters was curtailed.  The science was right - we solved the problem.

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

The destruction of the ozone layer by CFC and how the polar icecaps will be melted by 1999.

Two different issues.  We stopped the ozone hole by outlawing CFC's, the chemical that destroys ozone.  I think I was the last forester in Colorado to use CFC-propelled tree marking paint.

CFCs are a greenhouse gas, but there is so little of them in the atmosphere, they have almost no effect on temps/climate.

The Arctic icecap started summer meltoffs in the 1950s.  Reductions in winter ice were first noted in the 1970s.  BTW:  that was noticed by US submarines doing ice surveys to find out where they could laucnh missiles.  We still have polar ice caps, but they are rapidly melting.  Glaciers are in retreat, but so far, only one has totally disappeared.

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

In 1980's we had various talkers come in  to school about an energy crisis. At the time they were telling us that by the time we reach 17 petrol would unlikely be available for cars.

Mostly, that was an artificial crisis created by OPEC in an effort to get higher prices on their crude.  The effort worked for awhile, but then we found the Bakken.  And now there's another oil field in New Mexico.  OPEC's monopoly was broken.

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

In between we have had peak oil, peak food, peak water.

Peak oil in the US happened about n1970.  Oil use started to fall off, exacerbated by OPEC.  Then we found two huge new oil fields.  If one tracks the per capita use of energy, year zero is about 1920.  Peak oil is about 1970 and by 202 we would have returned to the same per capita energy use as we had in 1920.  Some new oil fields have delayed all that about twenty years, but the problem still exists.

Peak food?  The world produces almost enough food to feed itself and always has.  Most people could benefit from a few more calories, or better yet, more protein.  So peak food is going to occur when we reach peak population - about ten billion people in 2100.  After that, one way or another we're going to see a decline in food/population.

Peak water?  In the US the water tables are dropping.  In particular, the Ogalallah and Snake River water tables.  In California, salt already encroaches on farmland.  A tomato farmer I used to know now raises dairy cattle - too much salt to grow tomatoes.  Techniques like flushing salt out of the soil and growing plants on elevated mounds where they don't get as much salt can only go so far.  We are already making changes, we will make more.

On 8/24/2019 at 8:31 PM, skookum said:

Anyone who would have questioned an energy crisis predicted as being absolutely certain in the 1980's/1990's would have been branded a heretic like today if the question climate science.

Like I say I am not denying but very cautious how the bandwagon moves in favour of popular belief that often involves lots of money for studies.

Most of the things you list are problems that were solved.  The science was right and we took action.  That is exactly what needs to be done with climate change.

Doug

[Guest]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:47 PM, tmcom said:

If these situations where true, we would be seeing obvious signs of our oceans going up, we see no change or very little!

I study the southern Great Plains.  Since 1920, local temps have risen two degrees F.  Since 2000, they have risen 0.8 F.  We also see increasing precip - 1.12 points on the Palmer Drought Severity Index over the last 100 years.

Eastern red-cedar now invades rangelands.  Pine beetles are killing whole forests.  These are climate-related events that didn't occur before the mid-1970s.  Climate change is there for you to see if you open your eyes and look.

Doug