The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

From the comments, FWIW:

@johnharris8394 -- 2 hours ago
co2 only effect a small range of light frequencies. This is old news Scott and yes all scientists agree about the frequencies but not on the co2 percentage. The vast majority of co2 is not man made. And [redacted] you UN.

[Piotrsko]

Snow in the summer sierras isn't that rare, particularly on the road up the tioga pass backside into Yosemite. Just need to be above 9000 ft during summer thunderstorm

Some parts of ocean are getting hotter, heat has to come from somewhere

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Snowing in California, in August. Up in the Sierra Nevada, but still...

Scott Adams today references news from Richard Lindzen and William [somebody] suggesting more CO2 has a non-linear effect. I tried DuckDuckGo and Start Page and couldn't find a reference.

Any idea?

In other news: www.newscientist.com: Part of the Atlantic is cooling at record speed and nobody knows why
"After over a year of record-high global sea temperatures, the equatorial Atlantic is cooling off more quickly than ever recorded, which could impact weather around the world"

Beaufort Gyre, anyone. Northern Europe would be a clean slate. They could build nuclear-heated geodesic domes over the cathedrals.

1) It was a 'dusting' of snow, above 8,000-feet.
2) Global warming IS 'non-linear', going back to Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' and beyond. And why the field scientists are astounded at what they're witnessing.
3) The Atlantic is a little cooler right now because of weeks of Saharan dust coming off the west coast of Africa, suppressing tropical storm development.
4) The 'global' ocean 'HEAT CONTENT' is at an all-time record high. An isolated region of 'cooling' would have to affect the 'overall', in order to alter the trajectory.
5) The 'Gulf Stream' thermohaline cycle has 'slowed' by 30% so far, which 'WOULD' reduce the amount of 'heat' being transported north to the Equator. Perhaps this is what they're talking about.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I didn't dig deeper, mostly because I believe it's either fake news, or well established news.

If I had to guess, my assumption is the fact that it takes an increasing amount of energy to maintain an increased temperature, not that it has anything to do with a particular property of CO2 concentration. That alone accounts for a non-linear effect.

1) The 'amount' of ultraviolet radiation we receive from the Sun is the source of the energy budget Climate scientists use when considering climate change.
2) This amount of solar energy hasn't changed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
3) It's the 'greenhouse effect' that has changed.
4) With more greenhouse gases in the Troposphere, long-wave infrared radiation, converted from solar UV radiation striking the Earth's surface ( which used to radiate back into space) cannot radiate back to space, because of the 'greenhouse effect.'
5) 'Non-linearity' has to do with self-reinforcing feedback loops, associated with a warming planet.
6) Venus is 'hotter' than Mercury, even though Mercury is closest to the Sun. If you examine Mercury's exospheric chemistry to that of Venus' atmosphere, you'll find the explanation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

From the comments, FWIW:

It will be an extreme challenge for whatever a John Harris is, to argue his point about where atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from, considering 'man's' annual fire, larger than the entire planet by a factor of 1.7 X.

[freebeard]

considering 'man's' annual fire, larger than the entire planet by a factor of 1.7 X.

Okay, let's consider it. ...man's annual 'fire',,, Includes what, obvs internal and external combustion. Rust? Respiration and f*rts from herd animals? Leftist's arson?

Entire planet's what? Surface area? Land area? Fires from natural causes like lightning?

1.7X. is that 170% or 17,000%?

For me it's an argument for prieta terra, everywhere and all the time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Okay, let's consider it. ...man's annual 'fire',,, Includes what, obvs internal and external combustion. Rust? Respiration and f*rts from herd animals? Leftist's arson?

Entire planet's what? Surface area? Land area? Fires from natural causes like lightning?

1.7X. is that 170% or 17,000%?

For me it's an argument for prieta terra, everywhere and all the time.

1) I'm limiting my discussion to carbon dioxide produced by man's combustion of fossil fuels of all stripes. Nothing else.
2) I wrote that man's fire was 1.7-times the size of the entire surface of Earth. That's exactly what I meant.
3) Anthropogenic carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels has been compared to 'world forest equivalent' ( WFE ) units of measure.
4) If you take the surface area of all the world's forests combined, this represents one WFE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) If you covered the entire surface of the Earth with 100-year-old Oak trees ( land, deserts, canyons, hills, mountains, volcanos, lakes, rivers, glaciers, sea ice, oceans, and polar ice caps ), so, all you could see from space was Oak forest, then set it all blaze each year, the amount of carbon dioxide produced would represent about 59% of what's released every year by humans burning fossil fuels ( oil, coal, natural gas ).
6) If you burn the Earth, plus 70% of a second Earth, each year, then you will have produced the same amount of carbon dioxide equal to what humans put into the atmosphere every year.
7) The area of an oak forest with an area equal to 1.7 Earth surface areas, is equal to the number of WFE equivalencies we burn each year.

[aerohead]

Wow, this is going WAY back!
SCIENCE, Volume 246, 1 December 1989, pages 1118,1119, Research News, had an article:
''Greenhouse Skeptic Out in the Cold' A prominent meteorologist says the greenhouse warming will probably be a bust; experts in and out of the climate community staunchly disagree with the latest iconoclast'
Lindzen had coauthored a letter to oilman President George Bush in support of a report by the George C. Marshall Institute, which dismissed the current forecasts of greenhouse warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of 1989, James Hansen's 1988 general circulation model, with coal-fired power plant atmospheric sulfate aerosol effects added, had perfectly predicted 'reality'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindzen had, as it turns out, a bizarre theory about a so-called negative feedback mechanism involving dry air transport into the troposphere which would negate the effects of increased carbon dioxide. He offered no 'model,' no 'math', no calculations, no observed evidence supporting the so-called mechanism.
And Lindzen admitted that the model-predicted, 2-degree Celsius global warming Climate Sensitivity to carbon dioxide, was consistent with the observed warming.
Even Harvard educated, Sloan Professors at MIT, and members of the National Academy of Sciences must be 'scientific.'

[freebeard]

The salient tipping point is public opinion.

Climate Tipping Points are Real, Stop Denying It

[redpoint5]

Haven't listened yet, but humans adapt to climate by leveraging energy to their advantage. They need cheap, abundant, and reliable energy to maximize their ability to contend with a naturally inhospitable environment. The tipping point for humanity is when enough people are duped into being on the side of an inhospitable, uncaring nature, rather than human flourishing.