You reply at last. Thank you. Why are you a science denier?
Science denier??? I have over 300 papers in the refereed literature and a Guggenheim Fellowship. I have been doing science since 1950.
Yep. You. You are a science denier. 75 years of doing science, undone. By you denying the science of global warming. Shame on you.
With a name like Potholer, I would expect him to come from Michigan.
I will say it again and again. The temperature has been warming since the mid 1650s. How did it warm from 1650 to 1850? The alarm community only show data since 1950 when CO2 was also rising. If they showed data back to 1650 then they would have to explain why the same mechanism that drove the temperature higher from 1650 to 1850 is NOT THE SAME mechanism that has driven the temperature higher since them. Name calling is the last resort of a scoundrel.
S h o w . m e .
I have to admit that on the subject of the quark model of the nucleon, I was ….at least…a skeptic. I still remember the stunning of the discovery of the fourth quark in 1974. My thoughts were “It looks like these guys are on to something!!!” And, it was easy to buy into the notion that there would be sic quarks. The fourth quark was a science turning point. Another BIG turning point was Supernova 1987a. There were a lot of “not so good” ideas floating around about the origin of heavy elements, including the work of Hoyle and Fowler and their fixation on Cf-254. 87a wiped out all of those notions. Nothing like a huge trove of excellent data to permit the separation of the grain and chaff.
Exactly. Junior high school physics and chemistry. Equilibration. CO2 can’t not be a driver of global warming or cooling, depending whether the concentration is going up or down, respectively. To deny that is anti-science. And cynically so.
Which works as with Covid and evolution. Also cynically so. The ruling class, i.e. the American oligarchs, need the whole anti-science culture to stay in stolen power, to be kept there by the masses they have robbed. The uncritical mass, deprived, especially of education.
2 Likes
Shame on you.
[And I’m troubled in saying that. Conflicted. Because you were a great scientist for 56 years.
But you have no shame in using pathetic fallacies, like your appeal to your irrelevant unquestionable authority in nuclear chemistry.
You have no shame in not being antithetical to the science, the fact, the truth, that is global warming. You just use comic book, anti-intellectual, social media dross.
So, yes, sorry, shame on you Professor.
You disrespect us and yourself.]
Looks like there might be some reseach on the question of human effects on climate before the Industrial Revolution. Of course, I’m no scientist. And high school chem and phys were a very, very long time ago.
Just doing a little putzing with Google. I don’t have access to the articles, unfortunately.
The same thieves, robber barons, who gave us the industrial revolution, because it was more profitable than slavery, gave us global warming.
1 Like
Are these yours?
Yes. It is a common mistake. Maybe understandable as we humans want simplified messages - they sell whereas complicated scientific explanations do not sell.
We are talking about complicated weather systems that are affected by many factors. The mechanisms of the climate change can be explained fairly accurately but in practice, the consequences of climate change is dealing with probabilities and trends.
It can be calculated that a category 5 hurricane is x times more probable because of the climate change but a single hurricane is not a proof of climate change. Yet, we can make a prediction that there will occur more comparable storms in the near future (next decades) and that such a series of category 4-5 hurricanes would be unlikely without the climate change.
1 Like
How many ‘local’ ocean and atmospheric regions are there? From pole to pole? Covering what proportion of the biosphere?
Remember ozone?
Throughout the history there has been attempts to explain why certain periods have been harder than others. During the ancient times, everything was understood as being dependent on gods and their actions, so it was natural to think that a long period of drought or devastating cold weather was caused by something that displeased the gods. People made sacrifices to gods and tried to get rid of anything (/anybody) that had caused the gods to become angry.
In the ancient Near East, that was the worldview of the people. The worldview did not disappear suddenly, it was replaced with other worldviews piece by piece. Before modern knowledge about the causes of weathers and climate, it was understandable, even rational, that the devastating periods were seen as consequences of what people had done.
What is different today is that we have scientific knowledge about the factors that affect climate and we have also long-term data. If there are disagreements about the climate, everybody is free to utilize the data and modelling to show that the prevailing view is wrong. That is also the general expectation: if you disagree, show where the error is and how to correct it (‘put up or shut up’ principle). We may disagree with the majority view but if we cannot show where the error is, very few will take our opinions seriously.
1 Like
You do not think far enough. For example, there are data on CO2 levels back to at least 60 million years and other indices of temperature also. This information has been used to predict what kind of climate and world we are going to have in the future if the rapid accumulation of GHG:s continues.
There has been long periods of warmer climate in the past - in fact, most of the last 500 million years. The globe will not melt if the average temperature jumps with 10 degrees C or more (a possible scenario based on the data from the last 500 million years).
What makes life vulnerable is that humans and a large part of the current ecosystems have adapted to the prevailing temperatures during the last 200’000 years (a relatively cold period).
The key problem in the current climate change is the speed of the change. Ecosystems may adapt to changing temperatures if they get sufficient time, tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They have very limited ability to adapt to changes that happen within decades or a century, especially when other human-caused processes are causing declines in both population numbers and ranges.
A rapid climate change is also bad for human societies, economy and food production. Cultivated plants tolerate a small increase in temperatures but a major temperature rise, together with the long droughts, flooding and slowly rising sea levels will start to cut global food production. With sufficient time, we probably can develop new food plants that can better tolerate the warm climate and changing conditions. It will take some time, so the speed of the climate change is a problem also within that area.
If we cannot stop the climate change now, at least we should buy more time to adapt, especially by reducing the outputs of GHG:s. It will have little effect immediately but a major impact to our future.
2 Likes
We have 800,000 - that’s eight hundred thousand - years of ‘local’ Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, separated by 10,000 - that’s ten thousand - miles, showing the exact correlation with CO2 as a driver of temperature.
Any science deniers not wanting to know why CO2 follows temperature rise, that it nonetheless drives, in the Vostok hockey stick ice?
Clue: It’s high school physics, like the water pressure equilibrium analogy.
Well stated. However, there are two “myths" in play. One that there is an unusually rapid rise in temperatures”, and two that CO2 is somehow responsible for THIS change. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville have spent their careers studying temperature and produce an enormous amount of data that do not show such a rapid rise. In the middle of the USA in Kansas where I come from, the hottest day on record in Topeka, the Capital, was July 24, 1936.
And the second is that whatever changes taking place now are associated with CO2.
What is emerging is that electricity is the backbone of a modern society focused on human wellbeing. Hence the question, how is that electricity to be obtained? Or should well-being be forgotten and we move back to caves in a warm climate near the Equator?
The first steps back to the caves are already being discussed in France where use of air conditioning is being discouraged.
OK, what drove the rise in temperature between 1650 and 1850 when CO2 concentrations were historically LOW? Even by the standards of 800,000 years of data.
Welcome to the modern world of AI.