Climate and Weather

espola said:
The "first 2" are James Inhofe and Marc Morano.

Some of the people on this list satisfy your request.

www.beforetheflood.com

Top 11 Climate Deniers: Key Players Revealed - Before The Flood

Unmask the top climate change deniers who are influencing public opinion and policy. This article sheds light on the individuals and organizations that have played significant roles in climate disinformation.
www.beforetheflood.com www.beforetheflood.com
Click to expand...

You really don't know when to quit, do you? Okay, I'll play along. Let's do this ONE last time. By the way, "the first 2" mention being republicans. Let's not pretend the agenda isn't real.

1. Senator James Inhofe - "... has expressed skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change." Sorry, there's a scientific consensus?
2. Marc Morano - Never mentions him denying climate change. The entire bio talks about how he engages in debate. Those scary republicans!
3. Chris Horner - References him being conservative. "... who has spent much of his career challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.
4. Myron Ebell - Immediately connects him to Trump. "... consistently challenged the scientific consensus on climate change." Arguing is bad now?
5. Steve Milloy - "... has spent much of his career challenging the scientific consensus." Hmm... I'm seeing a pattern here. Oh, no specifics, either.
6. Patrick Michaels - "... has written numerous articles and books challenging the scientific consensus on climate change. His credentials as a climatologist lend credibility to his arguments, making them particularly persuasive to some audiences." WHOA! He doesn't toe the libtard line!
7. Bjorn Lomborg - "While he accepts that climate change is real and caused by human activities..." Umm... You deny what you accept is real?
8. Matt Ridley - "While he acknowledges that climate change is happening and is partly caused by human activities...". DERRRRPPPP.
9. Christopher Monckton - "He has also argued that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians to gain power and control." Really? Based on? Oh, he challenged. "He has given many public talks challenging the scientific consensus on climate change."
10. Fred Singer - "has consistently challenged the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that it is based on flawed models and data."
11. Roy Spencer - "While Spencer’s views are outside the mainstream of climate science, his credentials as a climatologist lend credibility to his arguments." Oh, so even though he's credible, he's a threat because he challenges some components. Got it.

Okay? You got it now? You found a tree hugging, flannel wearing site of libtards that don't like differing thoughts or concepts. Time to move on.
 
Ellejustus said:
Dad's back and Husker Du is gone, let that sink in. Dad could just be a liberal "house account" where the Libs can login and post their opinion without anyone standing up to the post. They hide behind avatars. Or, Expola is playing all three like a puppet master does.

View attachment 18025
Click to expand...

Fudd = CisKer = Dad actually crossed my mind. I was hoping that's not the case because I had more hope for Dad.
 
Slobodan said:
You really don't know when to quit, do you? Okay, I'll play along. Let's do this ONE last time. By the way, "the first 2" mention being republicans. Let's not pretend the agenda isn't real.

1. Senator James Inhofe - "... has expressed skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change." Sorry, there's a scientific consensus?
2. Marc Morano - Never mentions him denying climate change. The entire bio talks about how he engages in debate. Those scary republicans!
3. Chris Horner - References him being conservative. "... who has spent much of his career challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.
4. Myron Ebell - Immediately connects him to Trump. "... consistently challenged the scientific consensus on climate change." Arguing is bad now?
5. Steve Milloy - "... has spent much of his career challenging the scientific consensus." Hmm... I'm seeing a pattern here. Oh, no specifics, either.
6. Patrick Michaels - "... has written numerous articles and books challenging the scientific consensus on climate change. His credentials as a climatologist lend credibility to his arguments, making them particularly persuasive to some audiences." WHOA! He doesn't toe the libtard line!
7. Bjorn Lomborg - "While he accepts that climate change is real and caused by human activities..." Umm... You deny what you accept is real?
8. Matt Ridley - "While he acknowledges that climate change is happening and is partly caused by human activities...". DERRRRPPPP.
9. Christopher Monckton - "He has also argued that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians to gain power and control." Really? Based on? Oh, he challenged. "He has given many public talks challenging the scientific consensus on climate change."
10. Fred Singer - "has consistently challenged the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that it is based on flawed models and data."
11. Roy Spencer - "While Spencer’s views are outside the mainstream of climate science, his credentials as a climatologist lend credibility to his arguments." Oh, so even though he's credible, he's a threat because he challenges some components. Got it.

Okay? You got it now? You found a tree hugging, flannel wearing site of libtards that don't like differing thoughts or concepts. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

Since we are going to pick out of context --

Inhofe -- "hoax"
Morano -- " questioning the reality and severity of climate change"
Horner -- " question the validity of climate science "

You asked for "some". That's enough.
 
Desert Hound said:
Really? No support?

We had ice ages. We had substantially warmer periods.

But now you are saying there is no support for the climate has always changed?

You love following the official line. Doing so again.

I like to used to say you were the guy saving his neighbors from covid one mask at a time.
Click to expand...
Nope. No support.

All of those changes were incredibly gradual. When the last ice age ended, the earth warmed by 4C. That change took about 10,000 years. Cooling into an ice age takes even longer.

When did we ever see the temperature change by one degree C in a century? It has never happened.

Your argument is this: "In the past, we have seen temperature change by one degree over 2500 years. Therefore it is normal to see temperature change by one degree per 100 years."

Say what? One of those changes is 25 times as fast as the other. They are not similar.

That's like saying I am as fast as a cheetah. I can walk 2-3 mph. A cheetah can run 50-75 mph. Therefore, by your logic, the cheetah and I are about the same.
 
espola said:
Since we are going to pick out of context --

Inhofe -- "hoax"
Morano -- " questioning the reality and severity of climate change"
Horner -- " question the validity of climate science "

You asked for "some". That's enough.
Click to expand...

Pick out of context? LMAO! Not ONCE did that article provide an example of anyone denying climate change. What the article says is that republicans are dangerous and so are experts that challenge any narrative we want to believe or push ourselves.

Questioning and denying something aren't the same thing, are they?
 
dad4 said:
Nope. No support.

All of those changes were incredibly gradual. When the last ice age ended, the earth warmed by 4C. That change took about 10,000 years. Cooling into an ice age takes even longer.

When did we ever see the temperature change by one degree C in a century? It has never happened.

Your argument is this: "In the past, we have seen temperature change by one degree over 2500 years. Therefore it is normal to see temperature change by one degree per 100 years."

Say what? One of those changes is 25 times as fast as the other. They are not similar.

That's like saying I am as fast as a cheetah. I can walk 2-3 mph. A cheetah can run 50-75 mph. Therefore, by your logic, the cheetah and I are about the same.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy that just chastised me for posting something "invalid" because we didn't have thermometers a thousand years ago?
 
dad4 said:
Depends on what you’re recording.

”on record” for CO2 goes back a millions of years. 2 million from ice cores. Ocean sediment data before that. None of it shows a 50% increase in CO2 over the span of 200 years. The last 200 years are the exception.

Temperature is harder. You have indirect data going way back, such as pollen in silt. And some correleated data, such as spring blossom dates from Japan. You also have a few hundred years of thermometer recordings. Same story. Historical temperature changes, but not by one degree C in 100 years.. The last 100 years are the exception.

Either way, there is no support for the “climate has always changed” argument. It’s kind of like saying arson doesn’t matter because houses change temperature all the time. Yes, things do change temperature, but there is a question of scale.
Click to expand...
How exactly are the ice core samples collected, dated and determined from millions of years ago? ie detetmined age and content.
 
dad4 said:
I already provided you with an example of someone who denies the link between human CO2 emissions and climate change. That is my definition of “climate change denier”.

I’m sure there are a few people who still try to claim “nothing has changed”. But no one listens to them any more. The “nothing has changed” crowd have a really hard time explaining the open water in the Arctic Ocean, or the melting permafrost in northern Canada.

You still see it in recycled arguments. People who find a ten year old college lecture and think they’re being clever.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the position of some climatologists that we are still exiting the previous ice age? It looks like you have backed yourself into a corner with blinders on and refuse to look anywhere except where you want to. That's not very scientific...
 
watfly said:
I think climate is changing, but I'm very skeptical that we can narrow it down to effectively a single variable of CO2. Our climate and environment is far more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
Who said it's only one variable?

They take different greenhouse gases, measure their IR reflectivity, monitor them in the atmosphere, and use that to get an estimate for how much we should care about methane, CO2, refrigerants, and so on.

We know there are several variables. CO2 is just the largest, because there is so much of it.

Natural variables also exist, but they are considerably smaller. (This is why natural climate changes have been 25 times slower than the current climate change. The natural factors are not strong enough to cause a rapid change.)
 
Slobodan said:
Pick out of context? LMAO! Not ONCE did that article provide an example of anyone denying climate change. What the article says is that republicans are dangerous and so are experts that challenge any narrative we want to believe or push ourselves.

Questioning and denying something aren't the same thing, are they?
Click to expand...
Not once?

"Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, is perhaps one of the most well-known climate deniers in the U.S. Congress. He famously brought a snowball to the Senate floor in 2015 to argue that global warming was a hoax because it was still cold outside. This simplistic understanding of climate change ignores the difference between weather and climate and the fact that global warming refers to long-term trends, not individual weather events."

There's once.
 
Multi Sport said:
Are you aware of the position of some climatologists that we are still exiting the previous ice age? It looks like you have backed yourself into a corner with blinders on and refuse to look anywhere except where you want to. That's not very scientific...
Click to expand...
Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:

1694110967374.png

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.
 
dad4 said:
Who said it's only one variable?

They take different greenhouse gases, measure their IR reflectivity, monitor them in the atmosphere, and use that to get an estimate for how much we should care about methane, CO2, refrigerants, and so on.

We know there are several variables. CO2 is just the largest, because there is so much of it.

Natural variables also exist, but they are considerably smaller. (This is why natural climate changes have been 25 times slower than the current climate change. The natural factors are not strong enough to cause a rapid change.)
Click to expand...
Fair points. But I don't know that just because there is a lot of something means its the cause. It takes a lot of sugar to change the flavor of a cake vs just a little vanilla.

No question that man has a significant impact on the environment. But if time is of the essence, what is the feasible solution (ie economically, socially etc) that will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in the short term? I still come back to nuclear energy, although that still would take a few decades and right now there is no appetite for it.
 
dad4 said:
Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:

View attachment 18029

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.
Click to expand...
Do you know what LGM is? I mean without having to Google it..
 
Desert Hound said:
So what have you read that is proven that convinces you a warmer plant is catastrophic?
Click to expand...
Look at a map of the world. Count all the cities which are on coastal floodplains.

That's a lot of infrastructure to lose to sea level rise.

You could try to protect it all like Venice and New Orleans. That's expensive, too.

The other thing to remember is that the current path eventually runs out. There is a global temperature at which we can't grow food. "Add 100 ppm every century" is not a viable option.

That means the question is not whether we switch energy sources, but when.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top