He has a lot of opinions that I am sure you like. But there are some obvious boners in there -- for example, he gets the methane argument backward. The intent of methane limitation regulations is not to eliminate the current methane content in the atmosphere (which he points out correctly would have only negligible effect), the intent is to keep methane concentration from rising rapidly similar to the way that the CO2 concentration is rising.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Desert Hound
DA
You know he was a big contributor to the 3rd IPCC report.
He is one of the leaders in the field
Clauser's Nobel Prize had nothing to do with climate or atmospheric physics. It was awarded for (quoting the Prize announcement) "experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".
Last edited:
Did you read the NY Times article? His "leadership" was tarnished near the end of his career by mistaken predictions that were quickly and easily debunked by many other climatologists.
In addition -- here is an American Institute of Physics oral history interview where he discusses his career, He doesn't mention climate, or carbon dioxide, or methane once.
I thought methane only lasts a little less than a decade in the atmosphere. Reacts with O2.
Not sure how you could have long term build up of from something which has a half life of 6-8 years.
That's true, but while it is in the atmosphere it has 30 to 80 times more greenhouse effect (sources differ) molecule for molecule.
BTW, "reacts with O2" is another way to say "burns".
Weido
Multi Sport
DA
So for the record and clarification. What is your date for "on record"?
You're joking, right? I know Fudd has dementia but I thought you were smarter... even for a libtard on the run from reality. Let's review:
"The climate has always changed." First sentence. How can you call someone typing that a climate change denier? Where did he mention CO2?
You're the idiot that posted a list of climate change deniers that, when diving directly into their bios, specifically said they aren't climate change deniers. You need to sit down and wait for your Jell-O to be delivered.
No need to puff your chest out because another little brain is willing to stand next to you.
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."
You asked for "some climate deniers". I provided a link to an existing list. There were 11 on that list. You found fault with 2 of them.
As I responded back then -- "Is it your position that there is no one on that list that fulfills your request?"
I stopped at 2. If you post a list of climate deniers, and the first 2 read say "these people don't actually deny climate change", there's really no need to go any further, is there? Just admit you screwed up and be done with it. At this point it's embarrassing watching you flail.
I've yet to see you, CisKer Du, your new bestie Dad or anyone else, find me a "climate change denier."
The "first 2" are James Inhofe and Marc Morano.
Some of the people on this list satisfy your request.
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
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.
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.
Desert Hound
DA
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.
Then you need to stop calling him/them/us (no, those aren't my pronouns) climate change deniers. You're stating it to support your demented, political agenda. We have been saying, all along, there aren't climate change deniers... only people questioning how much we're impacting it and what can be done right now. We all see the same Arctic videos you do. That's not the issue.
By the way, I specifically asked you to tell me what you'd do for solutions. Did you answer that?