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 --, 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 --, 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!

 

[Webberweather53]

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.

It's the literal equivalent of asking a serial killer on death row to write an op-ed piece on their thoughts about the death penalty, of course they're going to only have negative things to say no matter how true they may seem to the untrained eye. Similarly, asking an organization funded heavily by fossil fuel corporations to provide their thoughts on how fossil fuels have changed the world will only yield a positive spin on how they've benefited mankind. It's an extremely biased source of information that's only going to present one side of the issue which in this case is similar to what snowlover91 has done w/ both climate change and fossil fuels.

I really thought information like this was common sense, akin to when your school teacher asks you to cite your sources on a final paper (in order to check for their credibility) but I guess that really doesn't matter in today's world. Smh

 

[Webberweather53]

The most damning, undeniable piece of evidence that the warming in the troposphere is attributable to the "blocking effect" by greenhouse gases in the troposphere from fossil fuel combustion in addition to lingering impacts from CFCs that were popular several decades ago is the significant, long-term downward trend in stratospheric temperatures as measured by remote sensing instruments aboard satellites. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, HCFCs (which are the replacement for CFCs as designated under the Montreal Protocol) block outgoing longwave infrared radiation emitted from earth's surface before it reaches the stratosphere, causing the stratosphere to cool while the troposphere warms as a result.

 

[BHS1975]

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.

Not many other than saving power and reducing waste which is why we need government envolvement to get everyone to change the way they live and move to a green economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Webberweather53]

The most damning, undeniable piece of evidence that the warming in the troposphere is attributable to the "blocking effect" by greenhouse gases in the troposphere from fossil fuel combustion in addition to lingering impacts from CFCs that were popular several decades ago is the significant, long-term downward trend in stratospheric temperatures as measured by remote sensing instruments aboard satellites. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, HCFCs (which are the replacement for CFCs as designated under the Montreal Protocol) block outgoing longwave infrared radiation emitted from earth's surface before it reaches the stratosphere, causing the stratosphere to cool while the troposphere warms as a result.

View attachment 19991

Before a certain someone here tries to proclaim that there hasn't been a significant drop off in "x" years or that the trend is skewed by volcanic eruptions, note that the tropical lower stratosphere temperatures between the major eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo were at a significantly higher, stable base state around 1985-1990 and thus not influenced by volcanic eruptions (because it only takes a few years for most of the IR absorbing sulfates from volcanoes to fall out of the stratosphere), since which time we haven't reached that level. It's clearly cooling...

 

[Webberweather53]

Not many other than saving power and reducing waste which is why we need government envolvement to get everyone to change the way they live and move to a green economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In addition to the often misguided perception of costs wrt reducing fossil fuel energy now vs consequences from AGW later esp for vulnerable populations, without support from the government and/or society in general, asking people to change their own misconstrued, politically-laced world views on AGW (as we can see here how difficult that is), the move to a green economy is not likely any time in the future. I'm totally okay with a slower move towards cleaner, green energy, certainly switching from coal to natural gas is a baby step in the right direction. As long as we don't decide to go out & burn methane hydrates (whose consequences on AGW would pale in comparison to CO2 & there's twice as much reserves of methane hydrate vs all other fossil fuels combined) we should hopefully continue on in this direction

 

[MichaelJ]

Let me say here that I DO think mankind has an effect on this planets Climate but not all related to CO2 output. Other factors cause as much, if not more, than the fossil fuel industry. There are 7 billion people on this planet that need places to live and ways to transport themselves and the building of concrete, asphalt and other materials structures does cause warming through the heat island effect. How much is certainly up for debate and extremely hard to quantify except between a range of numbers which obviously has error margins. I also think there are MANY things about our atmosphere we have probably not even discovered yet which could have effects on long term Climate. Just within the past 50 years we have massively increased our knowledge of how the system works ( AMO, PDO, MJO, El Nino, La Nina, QBO, and others) and have narrowed the error margins because of it. However, to think we have determined what all is involved as factors is the height of human conceit. We do not know (except by computer models) how much increase we will have and the subsequent causes for it regardless of all the talk of tipping points and feedback mechanisms nor their magnitude.
AGW adherents do themselves a huge disservice when they make predictions of disaster which fail to materialize repeatedly and lose the public's interest when they are way off or downright wrong. It is like the old story of the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and was tuned out by everyone when he was wrong again and again. Obviously not all of those people make these outlandish projections but the ones that do are the ones trumpeted by the media because, well because it is "news" and they have to report something. Just as most skeptics (please do not use the word deniers as it is equated with the holocaust) do not deny there is no warming or else that it is ALL natural variations. How much warming that will occur is the largest debate from where I stand and where others on both sides are currently at. The "it is not warming because it is natural" and the "we are all killing the planet by using fossil fuels" are the extremes and most of us are probably somewhere in the middle. That is why, like Webber said, I don't try to post a comment on every claim issued because it is unlikely to change anyone here's mind. Not that I want to squelch debate, just think it can be counter productive when the name calling starts.

 

[BHS1975]

Let me say here that I DO think mankind has an effect on this planets Climate but not all related to CO2 output. Other factors cause as much, if not more, than the fossil fuel industry. There are 7 billion people on this planet that need places to live and ways to transport themselves and the building of concrete, asphalt and other materials structures does cause warming through the heat island effect. How much is certainly up for debate and extremely hard to quantify except between a range of numbers which obviously has error margins. I also think there are MANY things about our atmosphere we have probably not even discovered yet which could have effects on long term Climate. Just within the past 50 years we have massively increased our knowledge of how the system works ( AMO, PDO, MJO, El Nino, La Nina, QBO, and others) and have narrowed the error margins because of it. However, to think we have determined what all is involved as factors is the height of human conceit. We do not know (except by computer models) how much increase we will have and the subsequent causes for it regardless of all the talk of tipping points and feedback mechanisms nor their magnitude.
AGW adherents do themselves a huge disservice when they make predictions of disaster which fail to materialize repeatedly and lose the public's interest when they are way off or downright wrong. It is like the old story of the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and was tuned out by everyone when he was wrong again and again. Obviously not all of those people make these outlandish projections but the ones that do are the ones trumpeted by the media because, well because it is "news" and they have to report something. Just as most skeptics (please do not use the word deniers as it is equated with the holocaust) do not deny there is no warming or else that it is ALL natural variations. How much warming that will occur is the largest debate from where I stand and where others on both sides are currently at. The "it is not warming because it is natural" and the "we are all killing the planet by using fossil fuels" are the extremes and most of us are probably somewhere in the middle. That is why, like Webber said, I don't try to post a comment on every claim issued because it is unlikely to change anyone here's mind. Not that I want to squelch debate, just think it can be counter productive when the name calling starts.

This is exactly why we need leaders to make decisions and get the ball rolling on doing the right thing just with reducing cfcs for example, by the way China is screwing it up right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowlover91]

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.

Actually it is relevant for this reason. Early civilizations didn’t have the type of understanding of weather we do today or ability to predict it 5-15 days out like we can today. They had simpler irrigation for their farms, if at all, and when drought hit many areas didn’t have the ability to mass import food from other countries as we do today. People died when drought and floods hit. Yes there were far less people at that time but they were also less advanced and able to cope with weather and the changes in general. Despite that humanity survived and adapted over the years. We have the ability today to deal with things and forecast the weather in ways early cultures could never even dream of.

I’m aware of how dark money and funding affects the outcomes of researchers. I’m also aware that it isn’t just the skeptical side that benefits from the funding but also the other side as well. Regardless the point of the author still stands unless you can prove otherwise. Can you prove that mortality due to extreme weather events has not been positively influenced/reduced by the advent and use of fossil fuels?

You also didn’t mention what steps you’ve taken to reduce your carbon footprint. I ask again, have you stopped using amazon and any shipping service that uses fossil fuels to deliver the product to your door? Do you use your AC in comfort or have you taken steps to refuse using it to reduce co2 emissions? What about the car you drive, is it green or a gas guzzler? Is your dwelling 100% solar powered? Do you fly?

What I quoted from the Heartland Institute is true whether it comes from them or anyone else. It is irrefutable fact that hospitals are completely reliant on fossil fuels as is farming. Again the below quotes can be independently verified and observed as true, the importance of fossil fuels in the life of farmers and medical care is irrefutable.
“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 again. 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?

Changing power grids in a cost effective and reliable way, especially for a country the size of the US or China, is a monumental task. Planning for reliable backup methods should solar or wind energy fail is critical. Providing a 100% reliable backup is critical especially for hospitals and those who require medical devices or refrigerated medicines to survive.

 

[Webberweather53]

Let me say here that I DO think mankind has an effect on this planets Climate but not all related to CO2 output. Other factors cause as much, if not more, than the fossil fuel industry. There are 7 billion people on this planet that need places to live and ways to transport themselves and the building of concrete, asphalt and other materials structures does cause warming through the heat island effect. How much is certainly up for debate and extremely hard to quantify except between a range of numbers which obviously has error margins. I also think there are MANY things about our atmosphere we have probably not even discovered yet which could have effects on long term Climate. Just within the past 50 years we have massively increased our knowledge of how the system works ( AMO, PDO, MJO, El Nino, La Nina, QBO, and others) and have narrowed the error margins because of it. However, to think we have determined what all is involved as factors is the height of human conceit. We do not know (except by computer models) how much increase we will have and the subsequent causes for it regardless of all the talk of tipping points and feedback mechanisms nor their magnitude.
AGW adherents do themselves a huge disservice when they make predictions of disaster which fail to materialize repeatedly and lose the public's interest when they are way off or downright wrong. It is like the old story of the Boy who cried Wolf too many times and was tuned out by everyone when he was wrong again and again. Obviously not all of those people make these outlandish projections but the ones that do are the ones trumpeted by the media because, well because it is "news" and they have to report something. Just as most skeptics (please do not use the word deniers as it is equated with the holocaust) do not deny there is no warming or else that it is ALL natural variations. How much warming that will occur is the largest debate from where I stand and where others on both sides are currently at. The "it is not warming because it is natural" and the "we are all killing the planet by using fossil fuels" are the extremes and most of us are probably somewhere in the middle. That is why, like Webber said, I don't try to post a comment on every claim issued because it is unlikely to change anyone here's mind. Not that I want to squelch debate, just think it can be counter productive when the name calling starts.

The media has a tendency to sensationalize AGW and exacerbate specific view points to opposing sides of the political spectrum (yes I'll use political spectrum here because there's a strong correlation between political affiliation and pov on AGW in the US and it's obvious which sides of the aisle support a particular view point), I however do not consider myself to fall into this mode as I'm a stout conservative who was once a staunch "denier" or "skeptic" or any other term you'd like to use but have learned after nearly a decade of delving into this topic and receiving schooling for several years that my world views in general especially on climate change were completely and utterly wrong. Deep down, I was really clinging to just a few pieces of misconstrued information from a myriad of sources who weren't either experts in the field, actually possessed little interest in the science of climate change, had their own personal, political, or financial gain to present an anti-AGW POV, etc, and feel ashamed for how I used to approach AGW and attack those who supported it w/ claims that while true to some level really did little if anything to address the scientific questions at hand which still linger to this day. If you actually are able to see past the alarmist points of view on the issue and get down to the physical basis for climate change by reading the literature published in reputable journals by experts on this topic, you'll see that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion is the primary agent for AGW but as you briefly alluded to, other factors like methane from land use changes & agriculture (this has actually been occurring for several thousand years), HCFCs, Nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapor (which positively feeds back as a result of warming from these other GHGs), etc. all have their own part to play in addition to other unforeseen variables.

Above all else, the real fact of the matter is that adding these gases to the atmosphere through our own activities which have obviously led to our current prominence on this planet, increases absorption of outgoing infrared radiation in the troposphere which warms the planet that's an indisputable fact, what's actually debated is how much this actually contributes to climate change. There's very high confidence in the atmospheric science community that this effect is significant larger than other known "natural" sources of climate change and that confidence is only going to grow the more GHGs are added, and furthermore even if we stopped emitting now, it would take the climate system several thousand years (or more) to fully adjust to this new equillibrium we have forced this planet into (thanks mainly to the oceans) and more time (hundreds of thousands of years) for the planet's geology (mainly via weathering of rocks which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere) to remove said CO2.

On a personal level, I definitely think mankind will find a way to adjust and adapt to this problem (many solutions are already being developed to try & remove CO2 from the atmosphere) but this is by far & away a bigger challenge than anything we've come across to date wrt climate. Our track record before the industrial revolution will provide little, if any apples-apples guidance on how we'll fare and have to cope with these changes and this new ever-growing challenge.

 

[snowlover91]

The media has a tendency to sensationalize AGW and exacerbate specific view points to opposing sides of the political spectrum (yes I'll use political spectrum here because there's a strong correlation between political affiliation and pov on AGW in the US and it's obvious which sides of the aisle support a particular view point), I however do not consider myself to fall into this mode as I'm a stout conservative who was once a staunch "denier" or "skeptic" or any other term you'd like to use but have learned after nearly a decade of delving into this topic and receiving schooling for several years that my world views in general especially on climate change were completely and utterly wrong. Deep down, I was really clinging to just a few pieces of misconstrued information from a myriad of sources who weren't either experts in the field, actually possessed little interest in the science of climate change, had their own personal, political, or financial gain to present an anti-AGW POV, etc, and feel ashamed for how I used to approach AGW and attack those who supported it w/ claims that while true to some level really did little if anything to address the scientific questions at hand which still linger to this day. If you actually are able to see past the alarmist points of view on the issue and get down to the physical basis for climate change by reading the literature published in reputable journals by experts on this topic, you'll see that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion is the primary agent for AGW but as you briefly alluded to, other factors like methane from land use changes & agriculture (this has actually been occurring for several thousand years), HCFCs, Nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapor (which positively feeds back as a result of warming from these other GHGs), etc. all have their own part to play in addition to other unforeseen variables.

Above all else, the real fact of the matter is that adding these gases to the atmosphere through our own activities which have obviously led to our current prominence on this planet, increases absorption of outgoing infrared radiation in the troposphere which warms the planet that's an indisputable fact, what's actually debated is how much this actually contributes to climate change. There's very high confidence in the atmospheric science community that this effect is significant larger than other known "natural" sources of climate change and that confidence is only going to grow the more GHGs are added, and furthermore even if we stopped emitting now, it would take the climate system several thousand years (or more) to fully adjust to this new equillibrium we have forced this planet into (thanks mainly to the oceans) and more time (hundreds of thousands of years) for the planet's geology (mainly via weathering of rocks which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere) to remove said CO2.

On a personal level, I definitely think mankind will find a way to adjust and adapt to this problem (many solutions are already being developed to try & remove CO2 from the atmosphere) but this is by far & away a bigger challenge than anything we've come across to date wrt climate. Our track record before the industrial revolution will provide little, if any apples-apples guidance on how we'll fare and have to cope with these changes and this new ever-growing challenge.

I have no doubt mankind will find ways to adapt and thrive in the changes ahead, on that we agree.

Not many other than saving power and reducing waste which is why we need government envolvement to get everyone to change the way they live and move to a green economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don’t need the government to get involved and control how we live but you do hit on a key point. The AGW movement would ultimately require a much higher involvement from the government in telling people what they can and can’t do, controlling the economy and other areas all in the name of saving our planet. There is a lot of money and political motivation for endorsing AGW disaster scenarios and one reason why many of them go around endorsing it. Meanwhile, they fly around all over the world and enjoy all the other comforts and benefits of fossil fuels. If politicians or anyone is truly serious about climate change, they must first demonstrate their own commitment to living and sacrificing comforts in a green way that reduces their carbon footprint like they want the rest of us to do.

 

[snowlover91]

The most damning, undeniable piece of evidence that the warming in the troposphere is attributable to the "blocking effect" by greenhouse gases in the troposphere from fossil fuel combustion in addition to lingering impacts from CFCs that were popular several decades ago is the significant, long-term downward trend in stratospheric temperatures as measured by remote sensing instruments aboard satellites. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, HCFCs (which are the replacement for CFCs as designated under the Montreal Protocol) block outgoing longwave infrared radiation emitted from earth's surface before it reaches the stratosphere, causing the stratosphere to cool while the troposphere warms as a result.

View attachment 19991

I saw some interesting information the other day about how China has for years been using banned ozone depleting substances. Whether it’s true or not who knows but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they and some other countries were.

Interesting graph btw. I find it interesting that since roughly 1995 there is very little variation or trend, should it not continue going down as emissions go up? It seems like most of the drop is 1980-1995 and then it stabilizes?

 

[Webberweather53]

Actually it is relevant for this reason. Early civilizations didn’t have the type of understanding of weather we do today or ability to predict it 5-15 days out like we can today. They had simpler irrigation for their farms, if at all, and when drought hit many areas didn’t have the ability to mass import food from other countries as we do today. People died when drought and floods hit. Yes there were far less people at that time but they were also less advanced and able to cope with weather and the changes in general. Despite that humanity survived and adapted over the years. We have the ability today to deal with things and forecast the weather in ways early cultures could never even dream of.

I’m aware of how dark money and funding affects the outcomes of researchers. I’m also aware that it isn’t just the skeptical side that benefits from the funding but also the other side as well. Regardless the point of the author still stands unless you can prove otherwise. Can you prove that mortality due to extreme weather events has not been positively influenced/reduced by the advent and use of fossil fuels?

You also didn’t mention what steps you’ve taken to reduce your carbon footprint. I ask again, have you stopped using amazon and any shipping service that uses fossil fuels to deliver the product to your door? Do you use your AC in comfort or have you taken steps to refuse using it to reduce co2 emissions? What about the car you drive, is it green or a gas guzzler? Is your dwelling 100% solar powered? Do you fly?

What I quoted from the Heartland Institute is true whether it comes from them or anyone else. It is irrefutable fact that hospitals are completely reliant on fossil fuels as is farming. Again the below quotes can be independently verified and observed as true, the importance of fossil fuels in the life of farmers and medical care is irrefutable.
“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 again. 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?

Changing power grids in a cost effective and reliable way, especially for a country the size of the US or China, is a monumental task. Planning for reliable backup methods should solar or wind energy fail is critical. Providing a 100% reliable backup is critical especially for hospitals and those who require medical devices or refrigerated medicines to survive.

Extreme weather however isn't that reflective of climate change though because as you integrate over less time and focus on individual events the attribution to actual, long-term climate decays. What's more reflective of climate changes are alterations in extreme events and/or just "regular" weather over a long period of time, that's the real issue here and at many levels it's hard to attribute specific human causalities and hardship to these cases.

I’m also aware that it isn’t just the skeptical side that benefits from the funding but also the other side as well.

This is a very short-sighted statement broad brushed statement, for one speaking as a poor college student and being involved in academia for the last several years in multiple universities in this other side of the issue you're speaking of that supposedly has all this money and funding at our disposal, if there were massive funding benefits for being a staunch climate change supporter the rest of my colleagues, professors, and I would like to know. Funding in academia is exceptionally difficult to come by at all, if we really needed to publish on climate change to get funding dollars that'd be great, but sadly that's anything but the truth. The other side however has tens-hundreds of billions of dollars in backing from oil companies which are among the most prominent corporations on the face of the earth, it's really not a contest here.

What I quoted from the Heartland Institute is true whether it comes from them or anyone else.

It's not an irrefutable fact that hospitals are completely 100% reliant on fossil fuels, there are many now that have begun switching over to green energy sources. Again, your source is heavily biased in favor of fossil fuels, you're going to find little-if anything negative against them, thus you're only cherry picking information you want to hear from one side of the issue (as usual).

"You also didn’t mention what steps you’ve taken to reduce your carbon footprint. I ask again, have you stopped using amazon and any shipping service that uses fossil fuels to deliver the product to your door? Do you use your AC in comfort or have you taken steps to refuse using it to reduce co2 emissions? What about the car you drive, is it green or a gas guzzler? Is your dwelling 100% solar powered? Do you fly?"

Your creation of strawmen here in a feeble attempt to distract and derail this discussion away from the actual science behind AGW instead focus on personal attacks is pretty hilarious. As for me, I don't use amazon & don't have any intentions of doing so in the future, your piss-poor attempt at accusing me of doing so is also in of it itself comical, nice try but you failed miserably.

As for AC, that's literally everyone here if you're in the southern US but ours comes from natural gas which burns much cleaner than coal or other traditional fossil fuels but still emits harmful greenhouse gases, we are planning to eventually install solar panels on our house. My car is a 2001 ford F150 w/ 250,000 miles on it, it burns a ton of gas but it's all I can currently afford (if only some of that climate change funding was at my disposal (lol)), my next purchase will be a compact, more fuel efficient vehicle. Obviously, I've already stated our house is nowhere close to being 100% green. What else would you like to know? My credit card information, my SSN, my date of birth? What kinds of steaks and hamburgers I like to eat? Jeez lol this is becoming a extravagant.


Let me ask you this again. 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?

You have to understand that at no juncture in this discussion have I even mildly suggested we have to immediately cut back on fossil fuels to literally 0, while nice as that seems, that's completely and utterly unrealistic, accusing me of supporting that view point is shameful on your end especially when one of my responses above clearly denotes where I stand on this issue. No different from mass media you've chosen to completely blow my stance on the issue out of proportion, thus you wonder why it's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on this topic. I could ask a similar question wrt what you're going to do when we actually run out of a particular source of fossil fuels but I'm sure that's something you nor the heartland institute would want to hear.

 

[accu35]

Wow!!! Big talk up in here

 

[Webberweather53]

I have no doubt mankind will find ways to adapt and thrive in the changes ahead, on that we agree.



We don’t need the government to get involved and control how we live but you do hit on a key point. The AGW movement would ultimately require a much higher involvement from the government in telling people what they can and can’t do, controlling the economy and other areas all in the name of saving our planet. There is a lot of money and political motivation for endorsing AGW disaster scenarios and one reason why many of them go around endorsing it. Meanwhile, they fly around all over the world and enjoy all the other comforts and benefits of fossil fuels. If politicians or anyone is truly serious about climate change, they must first demonstrate their own commitment to living and sacrificing comforts in a green way that reduces their carbon footprint like they want the rest of us to do.

There's so much misconstrued politically driven vitriol in this statement with a few points with a little basis in fact I wouldn't know where to begin and again there's absolutely no way I'm changing your staunch personal opinions on the subject in one blog post on a forum so it's really not worth discussing here as it'll do absolutely nothing to change your mind.

It however appears blatantly obvious from this quote that your POV on AGW and everything you've been touting up to this point is influenced and biased far more by your own political and world views rather than the actual science behind it which is what I actually care about above all else. The science behind AGW supports those in favor of it which is an overwhelming majority of the atmospheric science and climate community. As for the policies, they're a completely different issue altogether but it's very clear that something needs to be done asap to curtail our footprint on the global climate.

 

[Webberweather53]

I saw some interesting information the other day about how China has for years been using banned ozone depleting substances. Whether it’s true or not who knows but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they and some other countries were.

Interesting graph btw. I find it interesting that since roughly 1995 there is very little variation or trend, should it not continue going down as emissions go up? It seems like most of the drop is 1980-1995 and then it stabilizes?

There are competing influences from greenhouse gases in the troposphere blocking outgoing IR and recovery of ozone in the lower stratosphere following the montreal protocol, if GHGs weren't impacting stratospheric temperatures, we should see notable rise in temperatures in the lower stratosphere, instead that's not happening. Solar activity also contributes more directly (but still elusive at best) to stratosphere temperature variability, and at higher levels in the stratosphere away from the main ozone layer, temperatures are cooling more markedly over the post 1995 period in question.

AMSU channel 13 (middle stratosphere) for instance shows very marked cooling in concert w/ the little-no trend in the lower stratosphere over the same period.

 

[snowlover91]

Extreme weather however isn't that reflective of climate change though because as you integrate over less time and focus on individual events the attribution to actual, long-term climate decays. What's more reflective of climate changes are alterations in extreme events and/or just "regular" weather over a long period of time, that's the real issue here and at many levels it's hard to attribute specific human causalities and hardship to these cases.

I’m also aware that it isn’t just the skeptical side that benefits from the funding but also the other side as well.

This is a very short-sighted statement broad brushed statement, for one speaking as a poor college student and being involved in academia for the last several years in multiple universities in this other side of the issue you're speaking of that supposedly has all this money and funding at our disposal, if there were massive funding benefits for being a staunch climate change supporter the rest of my colleagues, professors, and I would like to know. Funding in academia is exceptionally difficult to come by at all, if we really needed to publish on climate change to get funding dollars that'd be great, but sadly that's anything but the truth. The other side however has tens-hundreds of billions of dollars in backing from oil companies which are among the most prominent corporations on the face of the earth, it's really not a contest here.

What I quoted from the Heartland Institute is true whether it comes from them or anyone else.

It's not an irrefutable fact that hospitals are completely 100% reliant on fossil fuels, there are many now that have begun switching over to green energy sources. Again, your source is heavily biased in favor of fossil fuels, you're going to find little-if anything negative against them, thus you're only cherry picking information you want to hear from one side of the issue (as usual).

"You also didn’t mention what steps you’ve taken to reduce your carbon footprint. I ask again, have you stopped using amazon and any shipping service that uses fossil fuels to deliver the product to your door? Do you use your AC in comfort or have you taken steps to refuse using it to reduce co2 emissions? What about the car you drive, is it green or a gas guzzler? Is your dwelling 100% solar powered? Do you fly?"

Your creation of strawmen here in a feeble attempt to distract and derail this discussion away from the actual science behind AGW instead focus on personal attacks is pretty hilarious. As for me, I don't use amazon & don't have any intentions of doing so in the future, your piss-poor attempt at accusing me of doing so is also in of it itself comical, nice try but you failed miserably.

As for AC, that's literally everyone here if you're in the southern US but ours comes from natural gas which burns much cleaner than coal or other traditional fossil fuels but still emits harmful greenhouse gases, we are planning to eventually install solar panels on our house. My car is a 2001 ford F150 w/ 250,000 miles on it, it burns a ton of gas but it's all I can currently afford (if only some of that climate change funding was at my disposal (lol)), my next purchase will be a compact, more fuel efficient vehicle. Obviously, I've already stated our house is nowhere close to being 100% green. What else would you like to know? My credit card information, my SSN, my date of birth? What kinds of steaks and hamburgers I like to eat? Jeez lol this is becoming a extravagant.


Let me ask you this again. 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?

You have to understand that at no juncture in this discussion have I even mildly suggested we have to immediately cut back on fossil fuels to literally 0, while nice as that seems, that's completely and utterly unrealistic, accusing me of supporting that view point is shameful on your end especially when one of my responses above clearly denotes where I stand on this issue. No different from mass media you've chosen to completely blow my stance on the issue out of proportion, thus you wonder why it's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on this topic. I could ask a similar question wrt what you're going to do when we actually run out of a particular source of fossil fuels but I'm sure that's something you nor the heartland institute would want to hear.

The quote I provided from the Heartland Institute never mentioned hospitals as 100% reliant on fossil fuels, it simply stated the key role they do play in agriculture and the medical field. Sure hospitals may implement green energy in the form of solar or wind power but they will still depend heavily on fossil fuels. I’m not aware of any in the US that are not reliant on fossil fuels, which specific ones are you taking about?

I’m not trying to accuse you of anything. My point is that anything you buy is shipped thanks for fossil fuels powering boats, trucks and planes. Whether a person buys from amazon, a retailer, grocery store, or anywhere else the product was likely delivered on a truck powered by a fossil fuel. Sure there are exceptions but our current society and the global economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Regarding AC, solar panels and vehicles, there really isn’t a clean way to address AC at this time, solar panels are expensive to get installed on a house and we can get more fuel efficient vehicles but they all have their limits. The reason more Americans aren’t making these changes, and businesses too, is simply because of the very reason you mentioned (money). Over time as costs decrease and technologies make them more efficient I believe there will be a strong shift towards cleaner or green energies.

Having said that, there is always the concern of fossil fuels and other materials we use running out. That’s a reality we face not just for fossil fuels but other areas as well. As I’ve said before, I have no issue with companies and individuals switching to more energy efficient methods on their own terms and money. I also have no issue with innovation and welcome alternative energy sources and advancement in these areas. I have no doubt that at some point in the future we will be able to shift away from fossil fuels to more effective, cheaper and cleaner methods of energy production and transport but right now we just aren’t there imo.

Regarding funding, I’ve posted information on it previously in this thread. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that people aren’t being benefited or influenced by it. Judith Curry has discussed it a good bit on her website and there are other sources you can read that discuss it. The money is on both sides of the AGW debate not just one.

This is not the place for political discussion and I’m not going to get into my views on it. My point remains the same. If politicians and those saying we need to make changes are truly serious, they should lead by example with doing everything they can in their own personal lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Maybe if people saw them doing that they would be inspired to make changes as well and take them more seriously. The truth is people are afraid of what it would take to accomplish the lofty climate change goals in reducing carbon footprints; namely, the government control and cost of such an endeavor.

Finally, I ended up rejecting AGW as the primary cause for our warming after studying the science myself and reading both sides of the issue. Yes, carbon emissions have played a role in warming the world there is no doubt about that. I also believe natural cycles have played a significant role that is enhanced by the carbon emissions. At the same time I am not buying the alarmist scenarios of mass extinction and similar rhetoric that are often espoused.

 

[Webberweather53]

The quote I provided from the Heartland Institute never mentioned hospitals as 100% reliant on fossil fuels, it simply stated the key role they do play in agriculture and the medical field. Sure hospitals may implement green energy in the form of solar or wind power but they will still depend heavily on fossil fuels. I’m not aware of any in the US that are not reliant on fossil fuels, which specific ones are you taking about?

I’m not trying to accuse you of anything. My point is that anything you buy is shipped thanks for fossil fuels powering boats, trucks and planes. Whether a person buys from amazon, a retailer, grocery store, or anywhere else the product was likely delivered on a truck powered by a fossil fuel. Sure there are exceptions but our current society and the global economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Regarding AC, solar panels and vehicles, there really isn’t a clean way to address AC at this time, solar panels are expensive to get installed on a house and we can get more fuel efficient vehicles but they all have their limits. The reason more Americans aren’t making these changes, and businesses too, is simply because of the very reason you mentioned (money). Over time as costs decrease and technologies make them more efficient I believe there will be a strong shift towards cleaner or green energies.

Having said that, there is always the concern of fossil fuels and other materials we use running out. That’s a reality we face not just for fossil fuels but other areas as well. As I’ve said before, I have no issue with companies and individuals switching to more energy efficient methods on their own terms and money. I also have no issue with innovation and welcome alternative energy sources and advancement in these areas. I have no doubt that at some point in the future we will be able to shift away from fossil fuels to more effective, cheaper and cleaner methods of energy production and transport but right now we just aren’t there imo.

Regarding funding, I’ve posted information on it previously in this thread. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that people aren’t being benefited or influenced by it. Judith Curry has discussed it a good bit on her website and there are other sources you can read that discuss it. The money is on both sides of the AGW debate not just one.

This is not the place for political discussion and I’m not going to get into my views on it. My point remains the same. If politicians and those saying we need to make changes are truly serious, they should lead by example with doing everything they can in their own personal lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Maybe if people saw them doing that they would be inspired to make changes as well and take them more seriously. The truth is people are afraid of what it would take to accomplish the lofty climate change goals in reducing carbon footprints; namely, the government control and cost of such an endeavor.

Finally, I ended up rejecting AGW as the primary cause for our warming after studying the science myself and reading both sides of the issue. Yes, carbon emissions have played a role in warming the world there is no doubt about that. I also believe natural cycles have played a significant role that is enhanced by the carbon emissions. At the same time I am not buying the alarmist scenarios of mass extinction and similar rhetoric that are often espoused.

"The quote I provided from the Heartland Institute never mentioned hospitals as 100% reliant on fossil fuels, it simply stated the key role they do play in agriculture and the medical field."

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there actually any difference between being "completely reliant" (as you stated earlier) and 100% reliant on something? Quite frankly me nor any other reasonable individual would see one, you obviously made a bold statement and have hence started backpedaling now claiming it plays a "key role" which doesn't carry exactly the same weight nor meaning whether you'd like to admit that or not. Many of your responses are riddled with logical inconsistencies such as these, this is only one of many.

"Regarding funding, I’ve posted information on it previously in this thread. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that people aren’t being benefited or influenced by it. Judith Curry has discussed it a good bit on her website and there are other sources you can read that discuss it. The money is on both sides of the AGW debate not just one."

You've posted information, most of it from non-credible sources, being that I'm actually in academia on the "other side" of the debate I probably actually know what I'm talking about and there's comparably little money being thrown at researchers to make extravagant AGW claims. This is really just another broad brushed claim by you that has little basis in fact or reality and is mainly driven by your own very narrow, extremely limited perception of how academia actually works.

Perhaps if you actually went to college in the first place and tried to attain a masters of PhD in climate science or meteorology, as opposed to hunting, pecking, quoting, & hiding behind a few tidbits of information from blogosphere, non-published, unreliable sources that only support your own hard opinion on the subject you'd quickly see how little funding there is for anything really, much less for a subset of the field. It's a struggle every single semester to have funding in academia to be even modestly functional, I wish we had as much as you think we do. Ignorance like yours is bliss...

This above statement shows everyone that you really don't know what you're talking about here on this particular issue. The funding and potential capital from big oil on the other side from companies like Exxon-Mobil completely dwarfs academia even though you trying to make yourself believe both sides have relatively equivalent amounts of funding. Not to mention, the sources of funding from academia tend to be associated more with those that actually have a legitimate interest in the science of climate change (NSF, NASA, AMS, etc) rather than those in the denier/skeptical/"non-holocaust" camp which are almost exclusively from political entities or big corporations with a clear interest in fossil fuels or maintaining our current lifestyle at the expense of our children, grandchildren, etc.

 

[snowlover91]

"The quote I provided from the Heartland Institute never mentioned hospitals as 100% reliant on fossil fuels, it simply stated the key role they do play in agriculture and the medical field."

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there actually any difference between being "completely reliant" (as you stated earlier) and 100% reliant on something? Quite frankly me nor any other reasonable individual would see one, you obviously made a bold statement and have hence started backpedaling now claiming it plays a "key role" which doesn't carry exactly the same weight nor meaning whether you'd like to admit that or not. Many of your responses are riddled with logical inconsistencies such as these, this is only one of many.

"Regarding funding, I’ve posted information on it previously in this thread. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that people aren’t being benefited or influenced by it. Judith Curry has discussed it a good bit on her website and there are other sources you can read that discuss it. The money is on both sides of the AGW debate not just one."

You've posted information, most of it from non-credible sources, being that I'm actually in academia on the "other side" of the debate I probably actually know what I'm talking about and there's comparably little money being thrown at researchers to make extravagant AGW claims. This is really just another broad brushed claim by you that has little basis in fact or reality and is mainly driven by your own very narrow, extremely limited perception of how academia actually works.

Perhaps if you actually went to college in the first place and tried to attain a masters of PhD in climate science or meteorology, you'd quickly see how little funding there is for anything really, much less for a subset of the field, it's a struggle every single semester to have funding in academia to be even modestly functional, I wish we had as much as you think we do. Ignorance like yours is bliss...

This above statement shows everyone that you really don't know what you're talking about here on this particular issue. The funding and potential capital from big oil on the other side from companies like Exxon-Mobil completely dwarfs academia even though you trying to make yourself believe both sides have relatively equivalent amounts of funding. Not to mention, the sources of funding from academia tend to be associated more with those that actually have a legitimate interest in the science of climate change (NSF, NASA, AMS, etc) rather than those in the denier/skeptical/"non-holocaust" camp which are almost exclusively from political entities or big corporations with a clear interest in fossil fuels or maintaining our current lifestyle at the expense of our children, grandchildren, etc.

Yes, I said completely reliant and 100% reliant which are the same thing in my mind. I am personally not aware of any hospitals in the US that are powered by green energy like wind or solar power. If you have a link discussing hospitals that have made the transition and what it entails I’d be glad to read up on it. As far as I’m concerned, unless these green hospitals are powered 100% by green energy (specifically wind or solar) they are completely reliant on fossil fuels even if some of the power is supplemented by solar/wind power.

Judith Curry is far higher up the ladder than you or I ever will be. She has posted on various issues with climate science and how academia is structured. Links below.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/amp/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/18/on-academic-bullying/amp/

And regarding funding, she lists some major concerns and examples in this article concerning federal funding. I’ll post excerpts later when I have the time.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

 

[Webberweather53]

Yes, I said completely reliant and 100% reliant which are the same thing in my mind. I am personally not aware of any hospitals in the US that are powered by green energy like wind or solar power. If you have a link discussing hospitals that have made the transition and what it entails I’d be glad to read up on it. As far as I’m concerned, unless these green hospitals are powered 100% by green energy (specifically wind or solar) they are completely reliant on fossil fuels even if some of the power is supplemented by solar/wind power.

Judith Curry is far higher up the ladder than you or I ever will be. She has posted on various issues with climate science and how academia is structured. Links below.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/amp/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/18/on-academic-bullying/amp/

And regarding funding, she lists some major concerns and examples in this article concerning federal funding. I’ll post excerpts later when I have the time.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

Judith Curry has been widely criticized for many of her statements and she's admitted (in 2007) to receiving funding from fossil fuel interests on AGW, but once again she's actually not an actively publishing scientist on climate or climate change like so many other prominent voices of the denier community (her last paper on anything even remotely close to the topic was in 2005). I wouldn't consider her above myself on the climate totem pole in terms of where she stands in academia, she's fallen completely off the wagon over the past decade or so and prefers to read denier garbage from WUWT rather than actual scientific journals (a paraphrased quote from her). Scientists in the denial camp are pretty hard to come by and Judith Curry has embraced this role with open arms. She wouldn't last very long or receive much, if any favorable fanfare on blogs like http://www.realclimate.org/ which are run by actual, actively publishing climate scientists instead of being funded by big oil, the koch brothers, & prominent figures in the republican party like the Heartland Institute, CATO, etc., etc. It should be very obvious which side is interested in actual science of AGW and who is in it for monetary or political gain.

 

[snowlover91]

Judith Curry has been widely criticized for many of her statements and she's admitted (in 2007) to receiving funding from fossil fuel interests on AGW, but once again she's actually not an actively publishing scientist on climate or climate change like so many other prominent voices of the denier community (her last paper on anything even remotely close to the topic was in 2005). I wouldn't consider her above myself on the climate totem pole in terms of where she stands in academia, she's fallen completely off the wagon over the past decade or so and prefers to read denier garbage from WUWT rather than actual scientific journals (a paraphrased quote from her). Scientists in the denial camp are pretty hard to come by and Judith Curry has embraced this role with open arms. She wouldn't last very long or receive much, if any favorable fanfare on blogs like http://www.realclimate.org/ which are run by actual, actively publishing climate scientists instead of being funded by big oil, the koch brothers, & prominent figures in the republican party like the Heartland Institute, CATO, etc., etc. It should be very obvious which side is interested in actual science of AGW and who is in it for monetary or political gain.

She has quite a list of accomplishments, whether you consider her as a credible source or not, she has been around the block quite awhile. Here is her bio from wikipedia:
"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1] As of 2017, she has retired from academia.[2][3]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992."


Now let's cut to the point and examine her statements regarding funding and academic bullying.

"First, the issue of expertise. How many people who call themselves ‘climate scientists’ but have no expertise in climate change detection/attribution call out academics that are skeptical of the consensus as ‘deniers’, ‘anti-science’, etc? Peter Gleick comes immediately to mind.

Second, the issue of less egregious bullying where people outside the predominant leftist consensus are considered beyond the pale. This one is rampant in climate science. The ostracism of non-consensus scientists (most recently Lennaert Bengtsson, see also the recent article on John Christy), both publicly and privately is bullying.

Third, the issue of (undefended) personal attacks by climate scientists against other scientists (personal case in point is described on thread (Micro) aggressions on social media, subsection Hockey Sticks and Stones). Twitter has the unfortunate effect of legitimizing the one-liner insults, see #deniers, #antiscience; Michael Mann is a master of this one. Bernstein says it’s not really clear why we should take the attacker’s word for it. In climate science, its easy: argument from consensus; anyone attacking/disagreeing with the consensus is fair game for attack, when the consensus supports political decision making.

Fourth, the comments clarify disagreement that is political/moral versus scholarly. This is the root of most of the bullying in climate science. Even speaking about uncertainty is interpreted as a political rather than a scientific statement by those trying to bully other academics to ‘conform’.

Michael Mann has an op-ed If you see something, say something. I would like to add the corollary: If you say something, defend it (and appealing to consensus does not constitute a defense.) Disagree with the argument, not the person. Attempting to make someone’s scholarly reputation suffer over political disagreements is the worst sort of academic bullying."

She did retire in 2017. Why? Here are a few excerpts why and some of what she noticed in academia towards skeptics.

"I’m ‘cashing out’ with 186 published journal articles and two books. The superficial reason is that I want to do other things, and no longer need my university salary. This opens up an opportunity for Georgia Tech to make a new hire (see advert).
The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."

How money motivates:

"Here is how $$ motivates what is going on. ‘Success’ to individual researchers, particularly at the large state universities, pretty much equates to research dollars – big lab spaces, high salaries, institutional prestige, and career advancement (note, this is not so true at the most prestigious universities, where peer recognition is the biggest deal). At the Program Manager level within a funding agency, ‘success’ is reflected in growing the size of your program (e.g. more $$) and having some high profile results (e.g. press releases). At the agency level, ‘success’ is reflected in growing, or at least preserving, your budget. Aligning yourself, your program, your agency with the political imperatives du jour is a key to ‘success’.

The EPA for example has a list of grants they offer to universities to fund various projects relating to climate change, look at the long list here of universities that have received grants/funding.

And just recently here is a PRIME example of fake research at a prominent university in order to get federal grant money. Were it not for this whistleblower who knows how much longer this would have gone on.
"Duke University will pay $112 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit after federal prosecutors said a research technician's fake data landed millions of dollars in federal grants, the school and the government said Monday.
The private university in Durham submitted claims for dozens of research grants that contained falsified or fabricated information that unjustly drained taxpayer money from the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, the U.S. Justice Department said. The school said it is repaying grant money and related penalties.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2015 by whistleblower and former Duke employee Joseph Thomas. The Justice Department took it over afterward. The suit claims the faked research was conducted by former research technician Erin Potts-Kant, who was supervised by pulmonary medicine researcher William Michael Foster. Foster's lab experimented with mice, seeking to determine the effects of inhaling diesel exhaust, among other tests. Several research papers by Foster's team were later retracted.
The government alleged that between 2006 and 2018 Duke knowingly submitted faked data to federal agencies in 30 grants. The university had warning signs that some of the research was fraudulent but didn't act until discovering in 2013 that Potts-Kant had siphoned off money for spending on clothes and other items, the lawsuit said."


CRU lists a few oil companies on their page as funders; Shell, Sultanate of Oman and British Petroleum to name a few.

Regarding the Sierra Club, "between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign."

Berkeley Earth has some interesting sponsors including the Charles Koch charitable foundation providing 150k.

UC Berkeley has an oil company they partnered with: "Global energy firm -- announced today (Thursday, Feb. 1) that it has selected the University of California, Berkeley, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to lead an unprecedented $500 million research effort to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment."

The Climate Institute has --, the Shell Foundation, and other fossil fuel related companies listed on their donor page.

The AGU fall meeting from 2013 lists ExxonMobil, Chevron & --.

Duke university received $1 million to research climate change from ConocoPhillips.

These are just a few examples, as I said the money is on both sides of the aisle. I'm going to leave things here, it's been an enjoyable discussion and debate but I have a lot going on this weekend and don't have any additional time to devote to this. Thanks for the engaging discussion!