[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

Are subsides for oil and gas also forced wealth redistribution by the government?

If ao, do you oppose these subsidies?

[late]

Bottom line

That implies you have more skill at climatology than a thousand climatologists.

This from a guy with the analytical ability of a grade school child no older than 7.

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American, you asserted that, and I quote....

This is not correct, and I presented the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event as a counter-example. Do you deny that it is a valid counter-example?

I have already backed off the original claim and said that my source may have excluded the K-T mass extinction, because it wasn't a natural earth based process. It came from outer space and in a flashed heated the earth a lot.

It seems like you changed the subject from the effects of the meteor strike lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, to the temp increase in this case happened more than 8000 times faster than the temp is increasing now.

I had already admitted I was wrong, and you ignored it to make an argument without evidence to support it, and then when I do my best to refute your point, you just change the subject, instead of admitting you were wrong.

.

[Potemkin]

I have already backed off the original claim and said that my source may have excluded the K-T mass extinction, because it wasn't a natural earth based process. It came from outer space and in a flashed heated the earth a lot.

It seems like you changed the subject from the effects of the meteor strike lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, to the temp increase in this case happened more than 8000 times faster than the temp is increasing now.

I had already admitted I was wrong, and you ignored it to make an argument without evidence to support it, and then when I do my best to refute your point, you just change the subject, instead of admitting you were wrong.

.

Neither of us really know what the fuck we're talking about, let's be honest here. Neither of us is a climate scientist. The best we can do is point out each other's howlers, but that's all. Lol.

[Steve_American]

I'd like to summarize my position on the question of how much faster the climate is changing now compared to mass extinctions in the past.

1] This point was made in reply to the point of the fact that the climate is always changing. and therefore changes now are "no big deal".
2] As a result of point #1, I assert that because there has been no meteor strike now, we can exclude the K-T mass extinction, because now there are only earth based causes and changes in solar output.

So, my clarified point is => The climate and especially temps now are changing about 8000 times faster than at any time in earth's past excepting the K-T mass extinction, because we know its cause was not related to the current causes.

That the rate of change matters in terms of the effects of the changes on life forms on earth.

I illustrated this by comparing people's loss of income of $0.01/day to a loss of $80/day (=8000 X faster). So, $0.01/day = $3.65/year compared to $29,200/year. Which is a total loss of income of $36.50 per decade compared to $292,000 per decade. [I'm assuming that the reduction is ongoing for a very long time, is always the same, and all else is equal, so no inflation, etc.]

.

[Truth To Power]

So, my clarified point is => The climate and especially temps now are changing about 8000 times faster than at any time in earth's past excepting the K-T mass extinction, because we know its cause was not related to the current causes.

But that's still false and absurd nonscience. Google "Younger Dryas" and start reading.

That the rate of change matters in terms of the effects of the changes on life forms on earth.

Where do you get this nonscience? The recent rate of temperature change is not even particularly unusual, let alone 8K times faster than ever before.

You need to exercise more discernment in what you choose to believe.

[Pants-of-dog]

But that's still false and absurd nonscience. Google "Younger Dryas" and start reading.

The Younger Dryas was not a global climate change.

The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and it resulted in a decline of temperatures in Greenland by 4~10 °C (7.2~18 °F),[3] and advances of glaciers and drier conditions over much of the temperate Northern Hemisphere. A number of theories have been put forward about the cause, and the most widely supported by scientists is that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole, was interrupted by an influx of fresh, cold water from North America into the Atlantic.[4]

The Younger Dryas did not affect the climate worldwide. In the Southern Hemisphere and some areas of the Northern Hemisphere, such as southeastern North America, a slight warming occurred.[5]

The Younger Dryas is named after an indicator genus, the alpine-tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, as its leaves are occasionally abundant in late glacial, often minerogenic-rich sediments, such as the lake sediments of Scandinavia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

In contrast, the current anthropogenic climate change is global.

Where do you get this nonscience? The recent rate of temperature change is not even particularly unusual, let alone 8K times faster than ever before.

You need to exercise more discernment in what you choose to believe.

What do you mean by “not…unusual”? Please be precise.

[Truth To Power]

The Younger Dryas was not a global climate change.

Yes it was.

The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and it resulted in a decline of temperatures in Greenland by 4~10 °C (7.2~18 °F),[3] and advances of glaciers and drier conditions over much of the temperate Northern Hemisphere. A number of theories have been put forward about the cause, and the most widely supported by scientists is that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole, was interrupted by an influx of fresh, cold water from North America into the Atlantic.[4]

The Younger Dryas did not affect the climate worldwide. In the Southern Hemisphere and some areas of the Northern Hemisphere, such as southeastern North America, a slight warming occurred.[5]

No, the Southern Hemisphere was just less affected because it is almost all ocean, especially in the most sensitive latitudes of 40-70 where the Northern Hemisphere is mostly land.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Wikipedia is William Connolley's personal anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda blog. It rigorously enforces censorship of factual climate-related information and provides a platform for anti-scientific AGW gaslighting and scaremongering.

In contrast, the current anthropogenic climate change is global.

But very small. The natural component is far larger.

What do you mean by “not…unusual”? Please be precise.

Not beyond the limits of expected natural variability.

[late]

Not beyond the limits of expected natural variability.

Nope, the rate is higher.

Kids, the guy is either a fruitcake or a paid troll, or both. The warming was found in the 70s, and that it is being caused by humans has never been seriously challenged,

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes it was.

No, the Southern Hemisphere was just less affected because it is almost all ocean, especially in the most sensitive latitudes of 40-70 where the Northern Hemisphere is mostly land.

Really? How does that work?

Most of the entire northern hemisphere cools quickly and dramatically while the rest of the world warms slightly and you are claiming this means that the rest of the world cooled less than the northern hemisphere?

Wikipedia is William Connolley's personal anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda blog. It rigorously enforces censorship of factual climate-related information and provides a platform for anti-scientific AGW gaslighting and scaremongering.

The it would be easy for you to find evidence that the Younger Dryas was worldwide.

But very small. The natural component is far larger.

If this were a complete sentence that was clearly written, it would be easier to address.

Are you claiming that the amount of warming from natural factors is larger than the amount of warming from anthropogenic factors?

Not beyond the limits of expected natural variability.

Since you cannot be clear and precise about this, I am tempted to ignore it. It seems like you are being deliberately vague.

[Truth To Power]

Nope, the rate is higher.

No it isn't. You simply made that up.

Kids, the guy is either a fruitcake or a paid troll, or both.

You refute yourself.

The warming was found in the 70s,

In the 70s it had been cooling for decades.

and that it is being caused by humans has never been seriously challenged,

That is a bald fabrication.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it isn't. You simply made that up.

You refute yourself.

In the 70s it had been cooling for decades.

That is a bald fabrication.

Can you cite a serious challenge to the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) theory?

[late]

In the 70s it had been cooling for decades.

Only 2 research facilities had enough computing power to do the work, at that time. They found warming independently.

[Truth To Power]

Only 2 research facilities had enough computing power to do the work, at that time.

Wrong.

They found warming independently.

No they didn't.

[Truth To Power]

Can you cite a serious challenge to the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) theory?

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... ar2019.pdf

[late]

Wrong.

No they didn't.

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.  

But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research. 

They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

I've posted that before, and you know it. Which suggests to me that you're a paid troll.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019.pdf

Would you like me to read that for you and figure out what the argument is?

[Steve_American]

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019.pdf

Lurkers, this is most of the Executive Summary in that report.

Snip the 1st 25%. This
is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what would be expected from solar irradiance
alone, and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process.
Three main theories have been put forward to explain the solar–climate link, which are:
• solar ultraviolet changes
• the atmospheric-electric-field effect on cloud cover
• cloud changes produced by solar-modulated galactic cosmic rays (energetic particles
originating from inter stellar space and ending in our atmosphere).
Significant efforts has gone into understanding possible mechanisms, and at the moment
cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s cloud cover seems rather promising in explaining the size of
solar impact. This theory suggests that solar activity has had a significant impact on climate
during the Holocene period. This understanding is in contrast to the official consensus from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where it is estimated that the change in
solar radiative forcing between 1750 and 2011 was around 0.05 W/m2, a value which is entirely negligible relative to the effect of greenhouse gases, estimated at around 2.3 W/m2.
However, the existence of an atmospheric solar-amplification mechanism would have implications for the estimated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, suggesting that it is much
lower than currently thought.
In summary, the impact of solar activity on climate is [I don't see any actual evidence that it is, so I would change this to "it may be"] much larger than the official consensus suggests. This is therefore an important scientific question that needs to be addressed by the scientific community.

That last sentence of the summary says it all. As I read it, it says something like, "We don't know yet what this effect is, how large it is, or anything concrete. But, we think it is worth looking into, and *hope* will prove that there is nothing we can do to stop climate change."

This is the best that TtP can find to provide some evidence that his POV is correct. IMHO, this falls far short of proving anything. But, I just read the summary.

Also, IMHO, this has been looked at by other scientists and they found no 'there' there. But, I'm just assuming this based on my understanding of how the scientific community works.

.

[Steve_American]

Duplicate post

[Truth To Power]

Would you like me to read that for you and figure out what the argument is?

I know what it says, thanks.