Climate myths

[C.J]

The logic has just one flaw, you mention a time scale, which I agree with most cycles naturally take 10s of 1000s of years, so when you can measure changes happening in just decades, does that fit your natural cycles?

How does changes happening in centuries fit patterns/cycles happing over 10s of 1000 of years?

If you can get back to with that info, it would be great.

The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation has a period of 60-80 years

I'm sure you've heard of the "dustbowl" of North America . The temperature records set then still haven't been beaten.

And the cooling of the 70's and 80's when glaciers were growing , and climate scientists warned of the approaching Ice Age.

 

[Dave645]

The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation has a period of 60-80 years

View attachment 1150649


I'm sure you've heard of the "dustbowl" of North America . The temperature records set then still haven't been beaten.

And the cooling of the 70's and 80's when glaciers were growing , and climate scientists warned of the approaching Ice Age.

It looks interesting, have you read the Wikipedia page on them?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/science/global-temperature-records
Do you think they explain the temperature increases we have seen. This image is from the link.

When you put them side by side its not clear to me that this trend your naming is driving climate change, and if the wiki page is correct its more a weather thing?
Sure I think they are part of our climate and our weather but driving it, that’s not clear at all.
Average global temps have responded to them but if they were driving them then the planet would have cooled to 1920 levels in the 1980’s as basically the data was the same and any increases would be at the same rate not showing a big jump from 1980-2015 that we have seen.
so I would put this down to a weather driven isolation, not the cause of climate change.

do you have any more data?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Sad thing in all of this is how the word uncertainties crops up in every scientific report right across the piece. This thread’s too surreal for me.

Couple of things, the 97% thing is a reference to greenhouse effect gases, not CO2eq emissions, with the biggest of all being water vapour. Too many scientists think water vapour is too difficult a subject (rightly and wrongly in a way) to try to work out. People like Walter Jehne take a different view. We’re ignoring it and coming up with counter-productive "solutions" as a result, like demonising ruminants.

Deep sea fishing can disturb the sea bed and the settled carbonates etc so does have an effect way beyond simple removal of fish. Once you go down that rabbit hole it leads you to all sorts of things like enhanced weathering and return of CO2 to the oceans. Which also leads on to oceans emitting and absorbing CO2 at the same time. As oceans warm they emit more CO2, chicken or egg. But then you’re into deep sea and shallow sea effects and global currents affecting the temp directly above the water. Yada yada. As I said, uncertanties is the crucial word here. Back to the Ancel Keys moment. We know far less than we think we do.

 

[Dave645]

There's nothing shocking so far, it has all happened in that past during glaciations like the one we're currently in, and to great extremes and much more rapidly too.

Averages have dropped in recent years, so it may be happening, there are 80 thousand more years left in our current cycle, so far there's nothing out of the ordinary.

Dropping CO2 would be more of a concern to me due to the threar to plant life, we're only a few hundred years since CO2 was within 30ppm from the death of plants, by happy coincidence man accidentally helped that through emissions.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...climate/2022/2023-global-temperature-forecast

in my last post I shared a graph that showed until 2015 and the data range was shown in grey so when they say average of 6 data sets, you can look at that other graph to see the range of data results
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years

I am glad you are so sure and you have supplied so much evidence to support your claims.
But as you actually didn't, I looked myself, it’s not sounding like your correct.

 

[Dave645]

Sad thing in all of this is how the word uncertainties crops up in every scientific report right across the piece. This thread’s too surreal for me.

Couple of things, the 97% thing is a reference to greenhouse effect gases, not CO2eq emissions, with the biggest of all being water vapour. Too many scientists think water vapour is too difficult a subject (rightly and wrongly in a way) to try to work out. People like Walter Jehne take a different view. We’re ignoring it and coming up with counter-productive "solutions" as a result, like demonising ruminants.

Deep sea fishing can disturb the sea bed and the settled carbonates etc so does have an effect way beyond simple removal of fish. Once you go down that rabbit hole it leads you to all sorts of things like enhanced weathering and return of CO2 to the oceans. Which also leads on to oceans emitting and absorbing CO2 at the same time. As oceans warm they emit more CO2, chicken or egg. But then you’re into deep sea and shallow sea effects and global currents affecting the temp directly above the water. Yada yada. As I said, uncertanties is the crucial word here. Back to the Ancel Keys moment. We know far less than we think we do.

I think the word uncertainties is used as a comfort blanket for the weak minded, it makes things sound like trends are not clear and maybe it’s not happening etc etc, but it is clear and has been happening, the fact we release from deep underground over 35 billion tonnes of co2 last year means those uncertainties are too small to effect our co2 emissions and the ever increasing co2 levels in our air paint the picture that is clear. As is temp data.
As for temps and ocean release of co2
The only uncertainty left is how high temps will go.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/
They remove 30% but return them with up to a 200 year lag, so if they are contributing it’s only releasing what we put there in the first place, they have reduced the amount of co2 year on year. Yet we still see rises year on year in the air.

we also see falls in oxygen that take into account all we use to burn all that fossil fuels, not anything to worry about climbing up a 100m hill has a greater effect than what’s happed in the last 100 years or more. But we have effects on our planet. They are real and they affect.
And if you want a comfort blanket and think uncertainties will protect you, good luck with that, ostrich, sand comes to mind.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years

 

[Magnus Oyke]

It's frosty this morning, is that climate change or global warming? I forget how it works now

 

[yoki]

Those "confidence limits" wouldn't inspire much, err................................confidence!

 

[Dave645]

It's frosty this morning, is that climate change or global warming? I forget how it works now

lol, the first placed stupid question of the week nomination right there, you made my day.
It’s good to make people laugh, so thanks.

 

[yoki]

It's frosty this morning, is that climate change or global warming? I forget how it works now

They're two completely different things you idiot!

Sorry, I was just taking on the BBC/Guardian reader mantle there momentarily.

 

[Magnus Oyke]

lol, the first placed stupid question of the week nomination right there, you made my day.
It’s good to make people laugh, so thanks.

Get a couple of warm days in the summer (imagine that, a warm day in July...) and the media go into man made global warming frenzy. But it's frosty today, you know, like it very often is in the winter, so what's causing it? It must be man made and there must be something that can be thrust upon the public that involves paying more tax and having freedoms removed.

 

[Dave645]

Get a couple of warm days in the summer (imagine that, a warm day in July...) and the media go into man made global warming frenzy. But it's frosty today, you know, like it very often is in the winter, so what's causing it? It must be man made and there must be something that can be thrust upon the public that involves paying more tax and having freedoms removed.

Talking about the weather has been a past time for as long as we could talk I am sure, and the media often say hottest day on record etc, but shift to the average global temp, when they shift from weather to climate, it’s subtle I know, but watch out for it.
And if you’re wrong and science is right?
And we know the problem is on a cost multiplier curve so as time goes on the speed we need to affect a change increases so the cost increase but not double the speed may double, but the costs because you have to go to co2 removal, costs quadruple.

so I am trying to save you money and pain, if you think the costs are bad now, your in for a shock, if we don’t pull our fingers out soon.
The entire worlds GDP is where the cost goes if we miss targets, and we are set to miss targets, so we are in for a rough time.
A time that makes what you’re complaining about sound like a rounding error.
do some research it’s all there to read a pound spent now will save 4 pound or more later.

 

[jendan]

Talking about the weather has been a past time for as long as we could talk I am sure, and the media often say hottest day on record etc, but shift to the average global temp, when they shift from weather to climate, it’s subtle I know, but watch out for it.
And if you’re wrong and science is right?
And we know the problem is on a cost multiplier curve so as time goes on the speed we need to affect a change increases so the cost increase but not double the speed may double, but the costs because you have to go to co2 removal, costs quadruple.

so I am trying to save you money and pain, if you think the costs are bad now, your in for a shock, if we don’t pull our fingers out soon.
The entire worlds GDP is where the cost goes if we miss targets, and we are set to miss targets, so we are in for a rough time.
A time that makes what you’re complaining about sound like a rounding error.
do some research it’s all there to read a pound spent now will save 4 pound or more later.

Whats your view on Judith Curry ?

 

[M-J-G]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...climate/2022/2023-global-temperature-forecast

View attachment 1150663

in my last post I shared a graph that showed until 2015 and the data range was shown in grey so when they say average of 6 data sets, you can look at that other graph to see the range of data results
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years

I am glad you are so sure and you have supplied so much evidence to support your claims.
But as you actually didn't, I looked myself, it’s not sounding like your correct.

You cannot look at a 20 year period and say it's an example of something as high as climate, even a thousand years isn’t a long enough period to look at.
the temperature has been warming since long before man made emissions.

 

[Magnus Oyke]

Talking about the weather has been a past time for as long as we could talk I am sure, and the media often say hottest day on record etc, but shift to the average global temp, when they shift from weather to climate, it’s subtle I know, but watch out for it.
And if you’re wrong and science is right?
And we know the problem is on a cost multiplier curve so as time goes on the speed we need to affect a change increases so the cost increase but not double the speed may double, but the costs because you have to go to co2 removal, costs quadruple.

so I am trying to save you money and pain, if you think the costs are bad now, your in for a shock, if we don’t pull our fingers out soon.
The entire worlds GDP is where the cost goes if we miss targets, and we are set to miss targets, so we are in for a rough time.
A time that makes what you’re complaining about sound like a rounding error.
do some research it’s all there to read a pound spent now will save 4 pound or more later.

How many people died in 2022 globally due to serious weather events, and how many people have been dying annually due to serious weather events in the past? You can adjust for population sixe if you like.

How many people die of cold every year compared to heat?

If the weather is getting warmer, that means I spend less on heating. Happy days

If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants will grow more, and as they like sunsheeine, they'll like the sunnier days too. Win win.

Pretty certain where I'm sat now used to be on the edge of a glaicer, but there were very few coal fired powerstations when it started to retreat.

I don't think looking carefully about how we interact with the environment is going to be a bad thing, but have you noticed that the people telling peasents like me to change my behaviour don't change there? When I see the people at COP 28 and the WEF going all hair shirt on my ass, then I'll start thinking about not driving my small, getting old car quite as much, but as they keep doing all the things they tell me not to, they can go forth and multiply.

As we have observed since March 2020, there is science and The Science. Science ebbs and flows with knowledge, The Science is driven by money, power and idiology. You'll not that also science is debated, The Science is settled and all discenting voices silenced. Did you see much debate about covid? Do you see any debate at all about MMGW?

 

[M-J-G]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...climate/2022/2023-global-temperature-forecast

View attachment 1150663

in my last post I shared a graph that showed until 2015 and the data range was shown in grey so when they say average of 6 data sets, you can look at that other graph to see the range of data results
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years

I am glad you are so sure and you have supplied so much evidence to support your claims.
But as you actually didn't, I looked myself, it’s not sounding like your correct.

Let's just say that your 20 year graph is an example of our changing climate (which would be highly ignorant) it is showing a peak in 2015/16, if that were the case it would be indicating that we have has 7 or 8 years of cooling, problem solved even though CO2 levels are still rising.

Pardon the crude scribbles

 

[ollie989898]

I know of two fairly solid factoids.

1. This climate change thing is more complex than most people realise and even top scientists can't agree on how it all works entirely.

2. There is presently no alternative solution that exists to fossil fuel technologies as it stands today. Neither in practical, technical nor economic terms. Fossil fuels are dirt cheap, low(ish) technology and our entire civilisation is built upon using carbon as our slave. No present alternative technology has been proposed or deemed acceptable and the other alternative is a radical shift in how mankind lives and works to the point that people exist on a thin gruel of energy consumption and we are back to basically and scraping an existence, because that is the level of existence we would be talking about if the civilisation was powered by wind or solar power as it stands.


You can bump gums either way, up or down, green or not green but these two factors remain constant.

 

[DaveGrohl]

I think the word uncertainties is used as a comfort blanket for the weak minded, it makes things sound like trends are not clear and maybe it’s not happening etc etc, but it is clear and has been happening, the fact we release from deep underground over 35 billion tonnes of co2 last year means those uncertainties are too small to effect our co2 emissions and the ever increasing co2 levels in our air paint the picture that is clear. As is temp data.
As for temps and ocean release of co2
The only uncertainty left is how high temps will go.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/
They remove 30% but return them with up to a 200 year lag, so if they are contributing it’s only releasing what we put there in the first place, they have reduced the amount of co2 year on year. Yet we still see rises year on year in the air.

we also see falls in oxygen that take into account all we use to burn all that fossil fuels, not anything to worry about climbing up a 100m hill has a greater effect than what’s happed in the last 100 years or more. But we have effects on our planet. They are real and they affect.
And if you want a comfort blanket and think uncertainties will protect you, good luck with that, ostrich, sand comes to mind.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...s-set-to-reach-new-records-in-next-five-years

Wow. Did you actually read that article from 2011 that you posted? Apart from it being incredibly simplistic. you seem to be confusing cause and effect. It’s only releasing what we put there. Wow. Mind, given your comment about uncertainties you obv think the IPCC are weak minded. As I said, this thread’s too surreal for me.

 

[FarmerMan8]

For 600 million years ? More the fool you

I've not seen you post any graph

I don't expect the 600 million year graph to be 100% correct but that is not the point. The point is you cannot refute the fact CO2 & Temperature do not correlate directly as is stated by Climate Alarmists. CO2 is not the major factor in temperature & never has been.

The main difference is the graphs I post don't have a £3 Trillion Price Tag + Massive Taxation + Lower Quality of Life

Sorry to keep you waiting. I had posted an earlier reply with a graph attached but it seems it's waiting moderator approval. Hopefully you'll be able to see it soon

 

[Magnus Oyke]

I know of two fairly solid factoids.

1. This climate change thing is more complex than most people realise and even top scientists can't agree on how it all works entirely.

2. There is presently no alternative solution that exists to fossil fuel technologies as it stands today. Neither in practical, technical or economic terms. Fossil fuels are dirt cheap, low(ish) technology and our entire civilisation is built upon using carbon as our slave. No present alternative technology has been proposed or deemed acceptable and the other alternative is a radical shift in how mankind lives and works to the point that people exist on a thin cruel of energy consumption and we are back to basically and scraping an existence, because that is the level of existence we would be talking about if the civilisation was powered by wind or solar power as it stands.


You can bump gums either way, up or down, green or not green but these two factors remain constant.

You and I will be back to scraping an existance, the people telling us to make these sacrifices won't

 

[wanton dwarf]

From what data did you work out that nugget?
Just 3% I would love to see the source of that data, please share it.

As nature, absorbs co2, plants etc. it’s hard to see nature as the culprit.
Is the sea emitting co2 or taking it in? What is emitting it?
did you mean the planet ie volcanoes, permafrost etc ?

For the 5+ Billion years of Earths history 100% of CO2 was not "Man Made"

With CO2 mostly between 1000 to 2000 ppm for the past 400+ million years of life

Inconveniant Facts for the Climate Alarmists