Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[snowlover91]

What was this interesting article? I see a lot bias and assumptions replies here. Many written by some darn smart folks on both sides of this very controversial topic. Cherry picked up examples for whatever point is trying to be made.

Do science. Be skeptical. Always. Question everything. The very things that make you uncomfortable is exactly what you need to be scientific about. It’s not about winning an argument/being right. It’s about what is logical and can be measured and proven with the tools we have.

It is not science to use examples of folks freaking out in the 1920’s. We just have proof that some folks freaked out in the 1920’s. Were there were folks freaking over the opposite?

Einstein’s biggest blunder might be true?

Let’s say I’m skeptical of both sides and just want to know which one is right. I’ve seen zero that makes me any less skeptical of the other. Stop trying to tell a side. Try instead to discover the truth.

You can read a good deal of what I've posted previously in this thread surrounding the subject but I'll summarize a few main points here. I used to be in favor of AGW and changed my position after studying various research being done (that is conveniently left out by mainstream news outlets). You'll find that news outlets make their money via "clickbait" these days. Extreme weather, events, politics, etc generate clicks which brings them $$ in their coffers. News media outlets today (both conservative, liberal and anything in between) generally care less about the truth and more about reporting things that will bring in more revenue. The reason the mention about the news reports is that scientists in the 1920s thought the Arctic ice would soon disappear and the world was doomed. Nearly 100 years later and very little has changed.

Going further it's reasonable to look at the world and see that the weather events, patterns, etc. are not static and constantly changing. Science that has studied weather in the past via tree cores and other techniques have found interesting results pointing to a climate that regularly changes over time. There is much debate, especially today, on whether various natural cycles (solar, ocean currents, feedbacks, etc) play a significant or minimal role in temperature changes like the overall warming we've seen in recent years.

Then there is the question of data density, proper siting, changes to siting, instrument accuracy, the "heat island" effect on temperatures, and other factors that can affect the results of temperature records too. Do you think a weather station sited like this one below is in the proper location to not be affected by external factors, like asphault?



How about this one?



Certainly not all are like this but there are examples out there of poor placement of temperature sensors that are influenced to the warm side by urbanization. Here is a link to the article and here is a link to the study that was recently released with the main summary below.
"These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology."

Here's an article discussing the Sahara Desert and how it changed years ago.

 

[pcbjr]

You can read a good deal of what I've posted previously in this thread surrounding the subject but I'll summarize a few main points here. I used to be in favor of AGW and changed my position after studying various research being done (that is conveniently left out by mainstream news outlets). You'll find that news outlets make their money via "clickbait" these days. Extreme weather, events, politics, etc generate clicks which brings them $$ in their coffers. News media outlets today (both conservative, liberal and anything in between) generally care less about the truth and more about reporting things that will bring in more revenue. The reason the mention about the news reports is that scientists in the 1920s thought the Arctic ice would soon disappear and the world was doomed. Nearly 100 years later and very little has changed.

Going further it's reasonable to look at the world and see that the weather events, changes, etc. are not static and constantly changing. Science that has studied weather in the past via tree cores and other techniques have found interesting results pointing to a climate that regularly changes over time. There is much debate, especially today, on whether various natural cycles (solar, ocean currents, feedbacks, etc) play a significant or minimal role in temperature changes like the overall warming we've seen in recent years. Then there is the question of data density, proper siting, changes to siting, instrument accuracy, and other factors that can affect the results of temperature records too. Do you think a weather station sited like this one below is in the proper location to not be affected by external factors, like asphault?

View attachment 19927

How about this one?

View attachment 19928

Certainly not all are like this but there are examples out there of poor placement of temperature sensors that are influenced to the warm side by urbanization. Here is a link to the article and here is a link to the study that was recently released with the main summary below.
"These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology."

Here's an article discussing the Sahara Desert and how it changed years ago.

A change of position is never a bad thing, so long as it and the prior position were both truly and carefully studied before doing. Great post!

 

[snowlover91]

A change of position is never a bad thing, so long as it and the prior position were both truly and carefully studied before doing. Great post!

Absolutely, especially if a sensor is moved from an area that has become heavily urbanized to more of a remote location that will have less "heat island" and urbanization influences. At the same time there are many stations that used to be completely rural in open fields and near forests that are now surrounded by concrete, asphalt, metal, and other aspects of a city. The EPA website makes note of how significant the heat island effect can be on temperatures, "The term 'heat island' describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C). Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality."

When looking at the overall climate we have very little long term records that have been observed to base the idea of a "normal" climate globally on. The satellite era began in the late 70s, data density of observations is increasing quickly in the technology age but we don't have hundreds or thousands of years of reliable global observations to base things off of. Much has to be done with ice cores, tree rings, and other various proxies to "reconstruct" what the data indicates the climate may have been like in the past. While this is an incredibly useful tool it is prone to errors and not as good as observational data. We simply do not have a long term understanding of how our climate works, changes and even what is truly "normal" if there even is such a thing. What I do know is that the evidence indicates our climate has shifted many times in the past to warmer and colder states and it will continue to do so.

A good example of alarmist and scientific predictions that so far have not yet materialized concerns the polar bear population. We were told by scientists and experts that the melting sea ice would cause them to all die out eventually. The reality? Check out the stats in this report. I'll post a few key excerpts below.

"Data published since 2017 show that global polar bear numbers have continued to increase slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice in 2018 was again at a low level not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur."

"National Geographic received such a profound backlash from its widely viewed ‘this is what climate change looks like ’ starving polar bear video, released in late 2017, that in 2018 it made a formal public apology for spreading misinformation."

"The territory of Nunavut, where most polar bears in Canada live, is now poised to make human safety their priority in managing growing populations of bears."

 

[BHS1975]

You don’t need tons of data to show there’s an issue when you can see ice that’s been around for thousands of years is melting like gangbusters recently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowlover91]

You don’t need tons of data to show there’s an issue when you can see ice that’s been around for thousands of years is melting like gangbusters recently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And there were periods in the earth's history where there was no ice either, possibly only a few thousand years ago according to this research. Here's an excerpt below discussing this NATURAL and CYCLICAL change.

"Numerous palaeoclimate archives and numerical simulations suggest that the Arctic was warmer than present day during early and middle Holocene with peak air temperatures occurring at slightly different times in different regions (Kaufman et al., 2004, Renssen et al., 2012). While reconstructing paleo-sea ice extent from proxies is a challenging task (de Vernal et al., 2013), there are several independent studies of Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies suggesting that parts of this period was also characterized by less sea ice over large areas and potentially even sea ice free summers (e.g. Vare et al., 2009, Hanslik et al., 2010, Funder et al., 2011, Müller et al., 2012). The cause of this sea-ice minimum, occurring between about 6000 and 10,000 years BP, is often attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles (Jakobsson et al., 2010, Polyak et al., 2010, Müller et al., 2012).

And here is one person's summary of that article.
"To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.

That the Arctic sea ice disappeared each August or September in those days does not seem to have done harm (remember that melting sea ice, as opposed to land ice, does not affect sea level), and nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming. Indeed, the reverse was the case: evidence from stalagmites in tropical caves, sea-floor sediments and ice cores on the Greenland ice cap shows that temperatures gradually but erratically cooled over the next few thousand years as the obliquity of the axis and the precession of the equinoxes changed. Sunlight is now weaker in July than January again (on global average).

Barring one especially cold snap 8,200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past ten millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out"

 

[Webberweather53]

And there were periods in the earth's history where there was no ice either, possibly only a few thousand years ago according to this research. Here's an excerpt below discussing this NATURAL and CYCLICAL change.

"Numerous palaeoclimate archives and numerical simulations suggest that the Arctic was warmer than present day during early and middle Holocene with peak air temperatures occurring at slightly different times in different regions (Kaufman et al., 2004, Renssen et al., 2012). While reconstructing paleo-sea ice extent from proxies is a challenging task (de Vernal et al., 2013), there are several independent studies of Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies suggesting that parts of this period was also characterized by less sea ice over large areas and potentially even sea ice free summers (e.g. Vare et al., 2009, Hanslik et al., 2010, Funder et al., 2011, Müller et al., 2012). The cause of this sea-ice minimum, occurring between about 6000 and 10,000 years BP, is often attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles (Jakobsson et al., 2010, Polyak et al., 2010, Müller et al., 2012).

And here is one person's summary of that article.
"To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.

That the Arctic sea ice disappeared each August or September in those days does not seem to have done harm (remember that melting sea ice, as opposed to land ice, does not affect sea level), and nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming. Indeed, the reverse was the case: evidence from stalagmites in tropical caves, sea-floor sediments and ice cores on the Greenland ice cap shows that temperatures gradually but erratically cooled over the next few thousand years as the obliquity of the axis and the precession of the equinoxes changed. Sunlight is now weaker in July than January again (on global average).

Barring one especially cold snap 8,200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past ten millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out"

Those changes and the cherry-picked bolded statements however don't actually address what's causing today's changes, only making a statement of what's practically an accepted fact in the climate community that before the industrial revolution, natural variability played the largest or at least as large of a role as humans in forcing the climate (yes, there's lots of evidence that shows our farming practices beginning ironically 6-8K ya played a major role in raising methane and carbon dioxide levels relative to where they should have been had orbital forcing acted alone).

"... nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming.
Yes, there was no tipping point in that particular regime because orbital forcing swung back in the other direction and greenhouse gases were relatively lower and in the context of stereotypical mid-late holocene concentrations during interglacials. However, this is really a piss-poor attempt at what's really an apples-oranges argument against AGW especially in the context of the modern, post-industrial revolution era, where the main driver of long-term climate change is (&/or definitely becoming) radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions, whose levels completely dwarf anything that was observed in the prior 800,000 (+) years. The only analog that provides any morsel of noteworthy context whatsoever to modern climate change is the PETM, and even as impressive as the rise in GHG concentrations were in that era, it simply pales in comparison to what we're doing today. Fact of the matter is as much as people like yourself want to believe, we don't actually have any reasonable precedent to how rapidly we're adding carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs to the atmosphere, it hasn't happened at such a rabid pace as far as we know at any point in earth's history. As much as I'd also like to believe that this is well within the context of long-term natural variability and "cyclical", evidence has only continued to mount against such a proposition and certainly continuing to throw more GHGs into the atmosphere (at an accelerating rate mind you) is only going to make matters worse & further augment the human contribution to the overall climate, however large or small you're assuming it already is

 

[snowlover91]

Those changes and the cherry-picked bolded statements however don't actually address what's causing today's changes, only making a statement of what's practically an accepted fact in the climate community that before the industrial revolution, natural variability played the largest or at least as large of a role as humans in forcing the climate (yes, there's lots of evidence that shows our farming practices beginning ironically 6-8K ya played a major role in raising methane and carbon dioxide levels relative to where they should have been had orbital forcing acted alone).

"... nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming.
Yes, there was no tipping point in that particular regime because orbital forcing swung back in the other direction and greenhouse gases were relatively lower and in the context of stereotypical mid-late holocene concentrations during interglacials. However, this is really a piss-poor attempt at what's really an apples-oranges argument against AGW especially in the context of the modern, post-industrial revolution era, where the main driver of long-term climate change is (&/or definitely becoming) radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions, whose levels completely dwarf anything that was observed in the prior 800,000 (+) years. The only analog that provides any morsel of noteworthy context whatsoever to modern climate change is the PETM, and even as impressive as the rise in GHG concentrations were in that era, it simply pales in comparison to what we're doing today. Fact of the matter is as much as people like yourself want to believe, we don't actually have any reasonable precedent to how rapidly we're adding carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs to the atmosphere, it hasn't happened at such a rabid pace as far as we know at any point in earth's history. As much as I'd also like to believe that this is well within the context of long-term natural variability and "cyclical", evidence has only continued to mount against such a proposition and certainly continuing to throw more GHGs into the atmosphere (at an accelerating rate mind you) is only going to make matters worse & further augment the human contribution to the overall climate, however large or small you're assuming it already is

I think you missed my point. Despite the warming which occurred in the past that was natural, mankind thrived quite well and adapted. The disappearance of Arctic ice did little to no harm and no "tipping point" was reached. I have no doubt mankind will adjust to the current/future warming whether it is mainly due to anthropogenic influences, external/natural ones or a combo of both.

Also, I posted evidence on previous pages about how the use of fossil fuels has actually helped to promote human life and stability rather than eradicate it. One excerpt is below - source.

"In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has declined globally by 93%–98% since the 1920s. In the U.S., morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago. Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global and U.S. mortality.

These improvements reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Finally, mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.

According to CDC data, extreme cold, on average, claims more lives than extreme heat, tornados, floods, lightning, and hurricanes combined."

"Many environmentalists and like-minded politicians have proposed the expenditure of trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One stated rationale is to forest all hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming-induced increases in extreme weather events projected by questionable climate models. The result would be to diminish, if not curtail, the economic development and hydrocarbon-fueled technology that has resulted in enormous actual reductions in such mortality. In contrast, human well-being could be greatly improved by devoting much smaller sums to alleviating the health and safety problems responsible for most premature mortality (see Table 2)."

And let me add that I'm all for taking care of the planet and using the resources we have efficiently and responsibly. At the same time, "green" technologies need to be carefully examined and scrutinized to see if they truly are beneficial and "green" or not. The rising costs associated with green energy like solar panels and wind energy is concerning, especially for the lower to middle class who struggle to make ends meet as is. Look at the riots that have happened in other countries at times in protest to various "green" measures like a carbon tax.

The reliability issues are also a problem, especially when high demand hits due to hot or cold weather. What happens if in the dead of winter a "green" power grid goes down without adequate backups (likely fossil fuel based) and people lose heat to their homes for hours or days? How many people will be wiped off the map if such an event were to happen without proper planning and backup power sources? And in the event of the failure of a green energy grid to provide ample power, the most likely resort would be back to fossil fuel based power sources.

The way resources are gathered and processed to produce things like lithium batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and then how they are disposed of in an economical and environmentally friendly way are also big issues to consider. The amount of land that would need to be utilized to power various countries with solar and wind power at current technology levels is also a huge problem. The possible health side effects and hazards to animal/bird life (especially wind turbines) is something to consider as well. How does one determine what is truly "green" without adequately discussing and analyzing these areas?

Going a step further, even if the US were to gain control of carbon emissions and many other countries, how do you stop a country like China or India or other countries and regulate their growth? If the US and other countries were to work together to reach a goal only to see China and other countries make up that difference, what real progress has been made if not everyone cooperates and other countries simply keep up the Co2 growth?

As you can see there are a lot of issues that we face if we do indeed move towards reducing carbon emissions. The cost of doing so (for tax payers especially), whether or not these "green" energy sources are viable for powering large nations reliably, the possible effects on wildlife and even the weather (wind turbine mixing) are all important factors worth considering. Unfortunately I rarely if ever hear any of the concerns and issues addressed when people discuss green energy, they simply say we must move to it no matter the cost.

I will say the company who makes my weather station recently released a solar panel so now it is powered 100% by the sun

 

[BHS1975]

The little ice age abruptly ended at the start of the industrial revolution. Coincidence?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowlover91]

The little ice age abruptly ended at the start of the industrial revolution. Coincidence?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are various factors that have been studied as possible causes, a few main ideas are below.

“Yet while the dips in solar activity correlate well with the LIA, there are other factors that, in combination, may have contributed to the climate change:

• Volcanic activity was high during this period of history, and we know from modern studies of volcanism that eruptions can have strong cooling effects on the climate for several years after an eruption.
• The ‘ocean conveyor belt’ – thermohaline circulation – might have been slowed down by the introduction of large amounts of fresh water e.g. from the Greenland ice cap, the melting by the previous warm period (the Medieval Warm Period).
• Sudden population decreased caused by the Black Death may have resulted in a decrease of agriculture and reforestation of agricultural land. https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm”

 

[BHS1975]

You must be a Tim Ball fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowlover91]

You must be a Tim Ball fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No idea who he is but the site I took the info from is a prominent AGW site.

 

[Webberweather53]

I think you missed my point. Despite the warming which occurred in the past that was natural, mankind thrived quite well and adapted. The disappearance of Arctic ice did little to no harm and no "tipping point" was reached. I have no doubt mankind will adjust to the current/future warming whether it is mainly due to anthropogenic influences, external/natural ones or a combo of both.

Also, I posted evidence on previous pages about how the use of fossil fuels has actually helped to promote human life and stability rather than eradicate it. One excerpt is below - source.

"In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has declined globally by 93%–98% since the 1920s. In the U.S., morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago. Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global and U.S. mortality.

These improvements reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Finally, mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.

According to CDC data, extreme cold, on average, claims more lives than extreme heat, tornados, floods, lightning, and hurricanes combined."

"Many environmentalists and like-minded politicians have proposed the expenditure of trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One stated rationale is to forest all hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming-induced increases in extreme weather events projected by questionable climate models. The result would be to diminish, if not curtail, the economic development and hydrocarbon-fueled technology that has resulted in enormous actual reductions in such mortality. In contrast, human well-being could be greatly improved by devoting much smaller sums to alleviating the health and safety problems responsible for most premature mortality (see Table 2)."

And let me add that I'm all for taking care of the planet and using the resources we have efficiently and responsibly. At the same time, "green" technologies need to be carefully examined and scrutinized to see if they truly are beneficial and "green" or not. The rising costs associated with green energy like solar panels and wind energy is concerning, especially for the lower to middle class who struggle to make ends meet as is. Look at the riots that have happened in other countries at times in protest to various "green" measures like a carbon tax.

The reliability issues are also a problem, especially when high demand hits due to hot or cold weather. What happens if in the dead of winter a "green" power grid goes down without adequate backups (likely fossil fuel based) and people lose heat to their homes for hours or days? How many people will be wiped off the map if such an event were to happen without proper planning and backup power sources? And in the event of the failure of a green energy grid to provide ample power, the most likely resort would be back to fossil fuel based power sources.

The way resources are gathered and processed to produce things like lithium batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and then how they are disposed of in an economical and environmentally friendly way are also big issues to consider. The amount of land that would need to be utilized to power various countries with solar and wind power at current technology levels is also a huge problem. The possible health side effects and hazards to animal/bird life (especially wind turbines) is something to consider as well. How does one determine what is truly "green" without adequately discussing and analyzing these areas?

Going a step further, even if the US were to gain control of carbon emissions and many other countries, how do you stop a country like China or India or other countries and regulate their growth? If the US and other countries were to work together to reach a goal only to see China and other countries make up that difference, what real progress has been made if not everyone cooperates and other countries simply keep up the Co2 growth?

As you can see there are a lot of issues that we face if we do indeed move towards reducing carbon emissions. The cost of doing so (for tax payers especially), whether or not these "green" energy sources are viable for powering large nations reliably, the possible effects on wildlife and even the weather (wind turbine mixing) are all important factors worth considering. Unfortunately I rarely if ever hear any of the concerns and issues addressed when people discuss green energy, they simply say we must move to it no matter the cost.

I will say the company who makes my weather station recently released a solar panel so now it is powered 100% by the sun

I definitely did not miss the mark here, on the contrary I think you did here in a big way. Trying to conflate modern climate change with pre industrial climate especially with how mankind was impacted several thousand years ago versus today is again an apples-oranges comparison and one you definitely should not be trying to make. Adapting to relatively slower climate change in a primarily agrarian society with only a small global population thousands of years ago is not a valid comparison to one one that's technologically advanced (& heavily relies on said technology) being increasingly forced by those same several billion people.

For starters, we didn't a) have several billion people on this planet, over a whole order of magnitude more inhabit this planet today, that alone would increase the risk from similar climate change substantially placing more people in harm's way, b) tons of infrastructure in place that relies in large part on the current climate (related to the next point) c) tens-hundreds of millions of extremely vulnerable populations live near coastal communities that are going to be substantially affected by sea level rise in ways that are potentially dangerous to those very populations d) reliance on technology which is related to the myriad of infrastructure that also in essence means we're simply more susceptible to even relatively minute climate change today than we were thousands of years ago, and the list could really go on & on after this juncture.

"Also, I posted evidence on previous pages about how the use of fossil fuels has actually helped to promote human life and stability rather than eradicate it."

Like the old saying goes, too much of a good thing is actually bad for you, and this case is really no different. Continued reliance on fossil fuels into the future only increases the human footprint on the global climate even tens of thousands of years beyond the point in which we stop emitting, and without diversifying our energy pallet, this makes us inherently susceptible to energy shortages or conflict when said energy source becomes scarce or is vehemently manipulated by the select few who harbor it.

in any case, the author of the linked article, Indur M. Koklany, is politically motivated by fossil fuel shills such as Exxon-Mobil who has heavily funded the heartland institute that's funding this author, which in essence is a climate change denial think tank w/ again, political motivations thanks in large part to funding from big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil (& almost certainly others). Ironically, the Heartland Institute no longer discloses their sources of funding probably in a feeble effort to hide their true intentions. I thus definitely wouldn't consider this author or the linked article above a reliable, unbiased one or consider it a credible source whatsoever. Not surprisingly, like many supposed "skeptics" on AGW, the author is anything but an expert on climate or atmospheric science despite the fact they have a PhD behind their name, given that they don't have a degree or even a minor in atmospheric science. Therefore, it's thus really not a coincidence that they're skeptical on the issue given that they understand little about the what's actually causing climate change in the first place and that they're funded by fossil fuel interests.

Unfortunately, the above really destroys any shred of credibility in the cherry-picked quotes you took from said article.

 

[BHS1975]

We need to get off fossil fuels and go to all renewables and do away with money if we want our civilization to continue and advance. Otherwise greed will destroy our civilization. The reason why we don’t detect other civilizations like ours in the universe is because they have either wiped themselves out or that they moved on and are so advanced that they are now undetectable via EM emissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelJ]

We need to get off fossil fuels and go to all renewables and do away with money if we want our civilization to continue and advance. Otherwise greed will destroy our civilization. The reason why we don’t detect other civilizations like ours in the universe is because they have either wiped themselves out or that they moved on and are so advanced that they are now undetectable via EM emissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water... I think I will just trust God has planned for all these humanoid foibles and see what happens. Get rid of money, seriously? Just remember, when you ask for total safety and security, you will get total control from those who are making these decisions

 

[snowlover91]

I definitely did not miss the mark here, on the contrary I think you did here in a big way. Trying to conflate modern climate change with pre industrial climate especially with how mankind was impacted several thousand years ago versus today is again an apples-oranges comparison and one you definitely should not be trying to make. Adapting to relatively slower climate change in a primarily agrarian society with only a small global population thousands of years ago is not a valid comparison to one one that's technologically advanced (& heavily relies on said technology) being increasingly forced by those same several billion people.

For starters, we didn't a) have several billion people on this planet, over a whole order of magnitude more inhabit this planet today, that alone would increase the risk from similar climate change substantially placing more people in harm's way, b) tons of infrastructure in place that relies in large part on the current climate (related to the next point) c) tens-hundreds of millions of extremely vulnerable populations live near coastal communities that are going to be substantially affected by sea level rise in ways that are potentially dangerous to those very populations d) reliance on technology which is related to the myriad of infrastructure that also in essence means we're simply more susceptible to even relatively minute climate change today than we were thousands of years ago, and the list could really go on & on after this juncture.

"Also, I posted evidence on previous pages about how the use of fossil fuels has actually helped to promote human life and stability rather than eradicate it."

Like the old saying goes, too much of a good thing is actually bad for you, and this case is really no different. Continued reliance on fossil fuels into the future only increases the human footprint on the global climate even tens of thousands of years beyond the point in which we stop emitting, and without diversifying our energy pallet, this makes us inherently susceptible to energy shortages or conflict when said energy source becomes scarce or is vehemently manipulated by the select few who harbor it.

in any case, the author of the linked article, Indur M. Koklany, is politically motivated by fossil fuel shills such as Exxon-Mobil who has heavily funded the heartland institute that's funding this author, which in essence is a climate change denial think tank w/ again, political motivations thanks in large part to funding from big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil (& almost certainly others). Ironically, the Heartland Institute no longer discloses their sources of funding probably in a feeble effort to hide their true intentions. I thus definitely wouldn't consider this author or the linked article above a reliable, unbiased one or consider it a credible source whatsoever. Not surprisingly, like many supposed "skeptics" on AGW, the author is anything but an expert on climate or atmospheric science despite the fact they have a PhD behind their name, given that they don't have a degree or even a minor in atmospheric science. Therefore, it's thus really not a coincidence that they're skeptical on the issue given that they understand little about the what's actually causing climate change in the first place and that they're funded by fossil fuel interests.

Unfortunately, the above really destroys any shred of credibility in the cherry-picked quotes you took from said article.

Mankind has shown the ingenuity to adapt to changing climate conditions and utilize various technologies over the course of time. The point still stands that the warming in the past did NOT send earth into a tipping point and had little to no effect on the cultures at that time. Let me put it another way. The alarmist predictions have proven completely wrong. The polar bears are thriving. Hurricanes in the Atlantic and tornado activity have been on a downtrend for quite awhile now. We’ve been 30+ years into the warming cycle ongoing and have yet to see anything unusual in the weather world. In fact, one of the worst droughts and heatwaves in the US was back in the 1930s, the Dustbowl days. What evidence do you have that the warming of the earth either is or will be seriously detrimental to humanity?

Regarding the author, it’s a common tactic to attack the author and say he’s funded by xx company and doesn’t have any climate science knowledge so therefore his data isn’t trustworthy. AGW advocates do this all the time as do skeptics. Rather than attacking the person and the stats in his article, can you provide evidence that fossil fuel use has not had such a positive impact on society and mortality rates due to extremes in weather? If you distrust his stats it would be helpful to provide some research indicating fossil fuels haven’t had the mortality reduction and benefits to humanity he claims.

Also I’d like to hear your thoughts for how reduction in carbon emissions can be done in a cost effective way on a global scale without reducing the reliability of power grids, using up vast chunks of land and causing excessive waste as these “green” energy methods are implemented and materials mined for the demand (requiring equipment that burns fossil fuel btw).

 

[snowlover91]

Whether people realize it or not fossil fuels have a profound and significant impact on our economy, medical care and daily life. These quotes are taken from a favorite source of yours but they are nevertheless true and can be independently verified quite easily.

“Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern agriculture. Fossil fuels power the tractors and trucks used to plant and harvest crops and deliver them to market; they serve as the feed stock for the chemical pesticides and fertilizers used to grow ever greater amounts of food on increasingly less land; and they power the refrigeration and dry storage units that allow crops to be safely stored for long periods of time without spoiling. In short, fossil fuels make it possible for farmers to feed the planet’s growing population, while allowing nature to reclaim former fields for wildlife habitat.

Fossil fuels are also the bedrock of modern medicine, which has reduced infant mortality and increased lifespans. Contemporary health care depends on sterile plastics made from fossil fuels, including: IV drip bags and tubing, medical machinery, electronics casings, and syringes.

Hospitals, ambulances, operating rooms, emergency rooms, and clinics open 24 hours per day, seven days per week cannot exist, let alone function, without coal, natural gas, and oil. Medical refrigeration units, CT scanning machines, MRIs, X-rays, laser scalpels, ventilators, incubators, and even lights require reliable electric power, which fossil fuels provide overwhelmingly in a more affordable and dependable manner than alternative sources.”

Let me ask you this. Were the global economy to move away from fossil fuel use, how would life in general suffer, especially hospitals that MUST have reliable power and backup power to keep people alive and provide proper medical care? Let’s say a big hail storm or tornado comes up and knocks out large solar farms that supply power to the hospital. What do they use for power now that the solar farm has been destroyed and will take considerable time to get back up and running? What about people who were dependent on that solar farm and now have to wait weeks for the grid to be restored and have no way to access backup power since generators and fossil fuels would be off limits? People with medical issues that have machines at home to keep them alive or that need to refrigerate medicine to keep them alive would be in serious trouble, would they not?

While we are at it, what about air travel and all the equipment/cars/industries that use fossil fuels? Do you drive an electric or green car or a gas guzzler? Do you turn your AC up to prevent from using excess energy, say to 80F in the summer even if it’s uncomfortable, and have you converted your entire house to being solar powered? Or are you enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels in comfort while saying we need to get rid of them and move to less reliable methods?

 

[snowlover91]

We need to get off fossil fuels and go to all renewables and do away with money if we want our civilization to continue and advance. Otherwise greed will destroy our civilization. The reason why we don’t detect other civilizations like ours in the universe is because they have either wiped themselves out or that they moved on and are so advanced that they are now undetectable via EM emissions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What steps have you taken to get rid of fossil fuel use in your own life? What kind of car do you drive? Did you get rid of your AC unit? Is your place of dwelling entirely solar powered? Better make sure not to use or buy anything made with plastic or that was shipped to your door by amazon or manufactured in a facility that uses fossil fuels.

 

[Webberweather53]

Mankind has shown the ingenuity to adapt to changing climate conditions and utilize various technologies over the course of time. The point still stands that the warming in the past did NOT send earth into a tipping point and had little to no effect on the cultures at that time. Let me put it another way. The alarmist predictions have proven completely wrong. The polar bears are thriving. Hurricanes in the Atlantic and tornado activity have been on a downtrend for quite awhile now. We’ve been 30+ years into the warming cycle ongoing and have yet to see anything unusual in the weather world. In fact, one of the worst droughts and heatwaves in the US was back in the 1930s, the Dustbowl days. What evidence do you have that the warming of the earth either is or will be seriously detrimental to humanity?

Regarding the author, it’s a common tactic to attack the author and say he’s funded by xx company and doesn’t have any climate science knowledge so therefore his data isn’t trustworthy. AGW advocates do this all the time as do skeptics. Rather than attacking the person and the stats in his article, can you provide evidence that fossil fuel use has not had such a positive impact on society and mortality rates due to extremes in weather? If you distrust his stats it would be helpful to provide some research indicating fossil fuels haven’t had the mortality reduction and benefits to humanity he claims.

Also I’d like to hear your thoughts for how reduction in carbon emissions can be done in a cost effective way on a global scale without reducing the reliability of power grids, using up vast chunks of land and causing excessive waste as these “green” energy methods are implemented and materials mined for the demand (requiring equipment that burns fossil fuel btw).

Wow there's a lot of wild assumptions in here, hopefully I can tackle some of them.

"The point still stands that the warming in the past did NOT send earth into a tipping point and had little to no effect on the cultures at that time."

Again it's a completely futile point because as aforementioned you're really comparing apples-oranges here:
"we didn't a) have several billion people on this planet, over a whole order of magnitude more inhabit this planet today, that alone would increase the risk from similar climate change substantially placing more people in harm's way, b) tons of infrastructure in place that relies in large part on the current climate (related to the next point) c) tens-hundreds of millions of extremely vulnerable populations live near coastal communities that are going to be substantially affected by sea level rise in ways that are potentially dangerous to those very populations d) reliance on technology which is related to the myriad of infrastructure that also in essence means we're simply more susceptible to even relatively minute climate change today than we were thousands of years ago,"

We’ve been 30+ years into the warming cycle ongoing and have yet to see anything unusual in the weather world.

This is obviously a loaded statement w/ far-flung assumptions that have little basis in fact or reality. A) we've been warming for centuries, not 30 years, b) "we have yet to see anything unusual in the weather world" You don't seem to understand the difference between weather & climate. Let's just get this straight, weather is not climate, sure the PDF of phenomena are going to continue shifting in a direction that reflects warming but there's also a considerable amount of internal variability that masks such changes. Just because through your biased lens you don't see any changes or in your own backyard doesn't mean they're not happening. You don't suppose it's unusual whatsoever for the planet to have NOT ONE below average month (against the 20th century average) since the mid-1990s or that we have similar natural forcing now to earlier in the previous century, actually with even lower solar activity that so many skeptics claimed would cause global cooling (which failed to come to fruition, shocker) yet the climate is much warmer (i.e. what's happening lately isn't just "natural" even as much as you'd like to ignore that)

"it’s a common tactic to attack the author and say he’s funded by xx company and doesn’t have any climate science knowledge so therefore his data isn’t trustworthy. AGW advocates do this all the time as do skeptics. Rather than attacking the person and the stats in his article"

It's also a common tactic by deniers like yourself to complain about what are completely valid attacks on the integrity of the information being presented. You don't think it's important to know the interests and integrity of the authors in a given article when assessing the validity of a piece of information? The harsh reality you're not willing to accept and completely deny is this author is funded by fossil fuel interests which are motivated by politics and their own interests, with little regard to actual science. For starters, he only has degrees in mechanical engineering, I would not consider him an expert by any means on either weather or climate or anything related to it. If you'd rather listen to those who aren't even in this field for one thing, let alone well respected, published experts on the topic, you're really only hurting yourself. He's funded $1000/month by the Heartland Institute (& likely a lot more from other interests) who is again funded by Exxon-Mobil among others to publish denial articles with cherry picked facts and skewed information. You don't suppose being funded tens of thousands of dollars on annual basis by fossil fuel corporations who would rather us continue to use fossil fuels at an ever-increasing rate would not significantly sway or bias your opinion in any regard? In any case, if he tried to publish this article in a respected journal (AMS, BAMS, Monthly Weather Review, etc.) he'd be torn to shreds. His article definitely has facts in it, but they're cherry picked with the intention to support a singular viewpoint which is being supported by fossil fuel interests, thus I would not consider him or the information that you're providing from it a credible source of information on this topic.

Also I’d like to hear your thoughts for how reduction in carbon emissions can be done in a cost effective way on a global scale without reducing the reliability of power grids, using up vast chunks of land and causing excessive waste as these “green” energy methods are implemented and materials mined for the demand (requiring equipment that burns fossil fuel btw

There's a lot of pure nonsense in the above statement like "excessive waste" claim wrt green energy which is hilarious when you actually look at how we obtain fossil fuels (fracking for example is extremely detrimental to the environment and has been directly linked to earthquakes for instance) and it sounds like you really have not done a lot of legitimate research on this topic and are instead choosing to sell one side of the issue, effectively meaning that what I would respond to you with would have very little, if any effect on your opinion on this topic in large part because it would force you to completely change your world views which isn't happening overnight let alone in one forum post.

 

[Webberweather53]

Whether people realize it or not fossil fuels have a profound and significant impact on our economy, medical care and daily life. These quotes are taken from a favorite source of yours but they are nevertheless true and can be independently verified quite easily.

“Fossil fuels are the foundation of modern agriculture. Fossil fuels power the tractors and trucks used to plant and harvest crops and deliver them to market; they serve as the feed stock for the chemical pesticides and fertilizers used to grow ever greater amounts of food on increasingly less land; and they power the refrigeration and dry storage units that allow crops to be safely stored for long periods of time without spoiling. In short, fossil fuels make it possible for farmers to feed the planet’s growing population, while allowing nature to reclaim former fields for wildlife habitat.

Fossil fuels are also the bedrock of modern medicine, which has reduced infant mortality and increased lifespans. Contemporary health care depends on sterile plastics made from fossil fuels, including: IV drip bags and tubing, medical machinery, electronics casings, and syringes.

Hospitals, ambulances, operating rooms, emergency rooms, and clinics open 24 hours per day, seven days per week cannot exist, let alone function, without coal, natural gas, and oil. Medical refrigeration units, CT scanning machines, MRIs, X-rays, laser scalpels, ventilators, incubators, and even lights require reliable electric power, which fossil fuels provide overwhelmingly in a more affordable and dependable manner than alternative sources.”

Let me ask you this. Were the global economy to move away from fossil fuel use, how would life in general suffer, especially hospitals that MUST have reliable power and backup power to keep people alive and provide proper medical care? Let’s say a big hail storm or tornado comes up and knocks out large solar farms that supply power to the hospital. What do they use for power now that the solar farm has been destroyed and will take considerable time to get back up and running? What about people who were dependent on that solar farm and now have to wait weeks for the grid to be restored and have no way to access backup power since generators and fossil fuels would be off limits? People with medical issues that have machines at home to keep them alive or that need to refrigerate medicine to keep them alive would be in serious trouble, would they not?

While we are at it, what about air travel and all the equipment/cars/industries that use fossil fuels? Do you drive an electric or green car or a gas guzzler? Do you turn your AC up to prevent from using excess energy, say to 80F in the summer even if it’s uncomfortable, and have you converted your entire house to being solar powered? Or are you enjoying the benefits of fossil fuels in comfort while saying we need to get rid of them and move to less reliable methods?

Lol, the heartland institute is not a reliable or credible source of information on climate change. Again, while some of these statements have limited basis in fact they're clearly being skewed extremely heavily in the direction that satisfies the interests of their investors which are fossil fuel corporations. Yawn.

 

[Tarheel1]

What steps have you taken to get rid of fossil fuel use in your own life? What kind of car do you drive? Did you get rid of your AC unit? Is your place of dwelling entirely solar powered? Better make sure not to use or buy anything made with plastic or that was shipped to your door by amazon or manufactured in a facility that uses fossil fuels.

I got dual exhaust and no catalytic converter, to do my part! I never want to see snow again!