Re: Banter Thread 8.0

[Irish]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/

Climate change is surely happening and it just cannot be ignored that we humans are the greatest cause of the damage being done and because of the selfish decisions we have and continue to make for our own needs. There is no other time in history that we can look back on and compare to in terms of the activities that we have engage in over the last 200 years... none. This is a first time and the results are just starting to be felt and the full effects will not be seen until we are long gone.

[phil155]

I guess if there is agreement on man made climate change the real question is what do we as a society do about it and what is the cost and would we really get the biggest polluters to go along with it. My honest opinion is that the biggest polluters are not going to stop. Does anyone really believe they are going to stop polluting at the levels they are? I think they will increase if it makes economic sense for them

[Irish]

I guess if there is agreement on man made climate change the real question is what do we as a society do about it and what is the cost and would we really get the biggest polluters to go along with it. My honest opinion is that the biggest polluters are not going to stop. Does anyone really believe they are going to stop polluting at the levels they are? I think they will increase if it makes economic sense for them

I agree.  We are on a crash course which I don't believe can be avoided.  Humans are destroying Earth, every sphere, and that will not stop. The changes in weather are just one sign of the drastic changes that have happened and will continue to.

[rb924119]

I’m going to respond to this more later on, maybe even in the morning, but I just gotta say something in light of something that happened to me today. It probably belongs in banter, so feel free to move it, but I think it’s highly relevant to our ongoing debate lol

Today I had a coworker who I’m fairly friendly with, though would still consider him an acquaintance, post on Facebook about how this December has gone weather wise, and how it’s undeniable proof of climate change. If you don’t acknowledge that, then you’re ignorant, and unintelligent. This post doesn’t touch on the topic specifically, and I think most of you know which side of that discussion I fall on, but that is not the point here. After some ponderance, I decided to respond with countering information that I intended to further support later, since I had to go to work. This person also went to school for meteorology, so I was actually looking forward to a legitimate debate in a public forum……

He responded shortly after, and to open his response, he immediately stated that he thinks that my opinion of the topic was severely biased by my political leanings, and went on to discuss a few very broad-brushed points about the topic. When I told him that my politics had absolutely nothing to do with it, and again that I would be responding with further material, he deleted the post entirely shortly thereafter. I’m still dumbfounded by this, and the level of immaturity demonstrated, but I’m posting because of a broader point that I’d like to make to you, Scott, but also to all readers of the forum:

We are clearly in disagreement with our current discussion, and sure, maybe the tone could be (mis)interpreted as a bit heated, but I couldn’t be more thankful to be having this debate, ANY debate, in such a civilized manner. We may end up agreeing to disagree in the end, but the fact that we can do that and carry on to the next topic without any sense of malice or anger is just fantastic. It only makes us better by having to dig in and really get our hands dirty with the science and data, and if one (or both) of us turn out to be wrong, then it’s just another learning opportunity. It’s so great to be able to have a knock down, drag out debate and then still part ways as friends, and I just wanted to highlight how appreciative I am of that. I feel like it’s a quickly dying opportunity no matter where we look anymore, and this seems to be the only place of solace that I have left. So, before going any further, a sincere thank you Scott, and every other member of this forum for supporting and maintaining the environment we have, and the culture of open debate and free thinking, because it’s an increasingly rare find.

Anyway, I wanted to say that and get it off my chest because I felt that it’s fitting to the current situation haha no need to hijack the thread any further, so I’ll revert later with my follow-up and actual response haha

Ray.  First off when I began reading I wasnt quite sure where this was going.  lol.  That said I officially nominate this post for post of the year.  I used to be on many of the other weather forums out there.  And many of them are awesome in their own right.  But I got tired of the nonsense.  And so fortunately for me, Frank gave me an opportunity to join him here many moons ago, and put me in a position where I could help make sure that if you had a point of view regarding the weather, as well as other topics along the way, you were at least able to be heard respectfully.  Now by no means am I perfect, and of course get thins wrong, have my biases, as we all do, surrounding all aspects of life, but to the best of my abilities have tried let anyone's voice be heard so long as it is done in respect of all others, AND so long as its not done just to stir the pot.  You have an opinion on something?  Go ahead and state it.  You may get called out on how you arrived on that opinion and someone may come back at you with their own opinion that differs from yours, but as long as you present your augment based on the information for which led you to believe what you believe and you respect others presentinga counter argument, you will be heard here.  

THIS is why freedom of speech is so important.   To borrow another quote from you ray from your response to TomsRiver: Develop an idea, test that idea, and try to figure out any flaws or issues. If it stands up to the scrutiny, then it continues as theory or if proven fundamentally, law. If not, scratch it, rework it, and start the process of over. But in so many instances, we can’t even get to the testing phase because it gets essentially shut down.

If you cant challenge an idea, or challenge the consensus, then you NEVER get any further.  Quick story.  Many moons ago back in vet school I had a professor, Dr B who was a surgeon.  Huge intimidating man.  6' 4' ish, 300lbs, hands the size of catchers mitts; yet had the finest touch when he was in the OR.  I was on my surgery block.  I dont remember the details that were in question, but during a lecture he discussed a topic that when I went back to study, there was an aspect of it that didn't make sense to me.   I didn't agree with what he was saying was the truth based on everything I knew at the time, which was of course was limited.  So at our next wet lab which was more one on one, when Dr B came over to me and my two lab partners I challenged him about the prev lecture.  I said Dr B in lecture you said this and this and I have to say I dont necessarily agree with you.  We went back and forth a bit and I did my best to convey to him why I thought this certain aspect of what he had taught us may not be correct.  He very respectfully said at the end that for now we will have to just disagree, but when it comes to the mid terms if you want full marks you better know it the way I taught you.  We laughed and carried on.  My one lab partner was ddiscusted by the exchange.  She couldnt believe that a student would even dare challenge a profferssor like that.  She turned to me and literally said "You are so arrogant".  I believe the next lecture we had Dr B opened with..The other day one of you challenged an idea that I had prev presented.  I immediately was like oh shit what's about to happen?  But he went on to say something along the lines of "No matter what I or any of your other professors tell you, and no matter what you read or learn from specialists like me throughout your career, NEVER EVER take it as gospel.  I am only presenting to you what we think we know based on the best information we have right now.  But inevitably it will be someone who comes along with an idea that challenges the norm or the accepted that we will be able to advance our understanding further.  Right or wrong in his ideas, kudos for that student for challenging me". 

While the exact speech he gave in the lecture was paraphrased, Ill never forget that last line.  I've tried my best throughout my career to cont to do that very thing.  I study what is said to be the truth.  I also look for information that contradicts that truth and see if the contradiction makes sense to me.  If it does Ill explore further.  I do the same thing in here with analysis of the weather.  I am no meteorologist.  I am no climate scientists by any means.  Who the hell am I to challenge what someone like Ray says who does have the degree?  Well even though I dont have that degree Ive been studying this stuff as objectively, and subjectively as I can for well over 2 decades, and I dont care who you are or what your title.  If something does not make sense to me I am going to challenge it, right or wrong on my part, but I will do so with the supporting data as I understand it.  This is likely perceived by some as arrogant.  So be it.  Those who know me know I am as humble as it comes.  Ill concede that at times my stubbornness can supersede my humbleness and I end up dying on an idea, ie: it will snow before the end of the year.  lol  But Like Ray says when I get challenged it forces me to dig in and explore what I think I know and hold it up against the challenging idea and the data that supports it.  I am more than willing to allow my understanding of something to evolve because I am willing to at least listen to the counter argument.  This individual on facebook who simply deleted the entire discussion from Ray is a microcosm of the problem of the world we live in.  This guy was so triggered by an opposing opinion that he deleted it.  Only way to describe that is "pathetic".  To even allow a hint of an opposing view into the mind of some of these man kind is 100% the cause of global warming, is so triggering, so upending to their entire world, that they'd rather delete it and put their head in the sand, then to allow the opposing view to be heard, scrutinized, and incorporated into the big picture.  A child putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la la" so they dont have to hear their parent call them out on something is what comes to mind when hearing that story.  

Regarding climate change do not close your mind off to the idea that man made is the only explanation.  "Climate change" has been and conts to occur for billions of years.  Man plays a role in todays climate, but the understanding of how things like the sun, and underwater volcanic activity is only now coming to light to name a few.  Again there is data to support the claim that there is more than just man made CO2 as the cause.  The full extent of which is what's debatable.  There are powerful people and entities in this world who stand to lose both massive amts of wealth and power if an opposing view to the 100% man made global warming narrative is allowed to get challenged.  That is fact.  

On occasion some of these contradicting ideas will get discussed in here.  If or when they do I and the other mods will make sure that they remain respectful and in the appropriate threads as to not take away from our weather discussion, but if this triggers you then go somewhere else.  If you cant even listen to a discussion about this topic without being triggered or feel uncomfortable, then don't read it.  Its time we allow ourselves to objectively listen to counter arguments to current beliefs, and let the best ideas win instead of running away from them and residing in our echo chambers where progress remains stagnant.  

On that note....

Yeah, it was kind an "out of nowhere" post, but with the passionate debate that we've been having in the other thread, I felt it was poignant. Because I'm sure there were some who were getting the sense that you and I were getting at each other rather than simply passionately debating (if that makes sense?). And when that happened to me yesterday, I was honestly so disappointed. Meanwhile, you and I have been going back and forth for a few days posting passionately on nothing more than the actual topic at hand, and I just wanted to show my appreciation for that opportunity.

I love your personal story as well, because it does present a valuable lesson. I have one like that too where I challenged my fifth grade teacher to a spell check of a word, and the bet was critical - if I won, the class got to play kickball on Friday (this teacher was awesome lol), if he won, we didn't. My classmates thought I was crazy, he allowed us to debate whether I should formally accept the challenge, and then when I was allowed to accept by my classmates, we carried on. I proved to be correct, but that's besides the point - it's an example of being able to challenge the authority and investigate. Let the results speak for themselves. And I'm sure that we all have stories like this, but I think that intellectual curiosity gets lost by many, including my colleague.

I couldn't agree more with this:

Regarding climate change do not close your mind off to the idea that man made is the only explanation.  "Climate change" has been and conts to occur for billions of years.  Man plays a role in todays climate, but the understanding of how things like the sun, and underwater volcanic activity is only now coming to light to name a few.  Again there is data to support the claim that there is more than just man made CO2 as the cause.  The full extent of which is what's debatable.  There are powerful people and entities in this world who stand to lose both massive amts of wealth and power if an opposing view to the 100% man made global warming narrative is allowed to get challenged.  That is fact.

Much like you, my incredulity doesn't arise from the concept of the climate changing, but the cause(s) of it.

To your final point, I think Frank, yourself, and all of the other moderators and posters have done a fantastic job at allowing debates to occur unimpeded. And for the vast majority of the time, it's been rare that I've ever seen any of you even have to interject at all, other than to say that something is in the wrong thread. And I think that's also a testament to the audience that has been attending this forum. Again, after what happened to me yesterday (and it's not the first time), I just wanted to acknowledge this forum and the people involved with it for actually upholding the values of a true scientifically-based community by allowing open discussion of pretty much anything

[rb924119]

I really don’t get it. 1st off the one person is just using stats from Central Park. Many of us on the board don’t live at or near Central Park. So to use that as the measuring stick is silly. Second usually February tends to be our snowiest month. 3rd this is a strong El Niño. Most of. This years are back loaded winters.

quote="nutleyblizzard"]All this negative talk is starting to get ridiculous. We’re 6 days into winter for Christ’s sake. You would think it’s never going to snow again. Trust me it will . I’ve lived through the 1980’s.

Honestly, I think you can only work with what you've been given. In the past couple years just don't  add up to good winters. Comments like this are common every year. Only 6 days in, its only January, February we'll get the pattern change, March can still produce, etc, etc, next thing you know the season is over.


And outside of snow, much of the conversation hasn't only been about snow accumulation over the years, but it's actually been about the inability to sustain even cold temperatures during winter. We get a cold day, and by cold I mean average temperature, and then the next 4 days or 5 days are in the 50s.

Sure, a white Christmas is rare for many people, but a cold Christmas would even be nice at this point.

Your point is not lost on having to "punt" patterns and such, but I'd like to challenge last two points:

nd outside of snow, much of the conversation hasn't only been about snow accumulation over the years, but it's actually been about the inability to sustain even cold temperatures during winter. We get a cold day, and by cold I mean average temperature, and then the next 4 days or 5 days are in the 50s.

I went into this completely blind, so these results are right off the rip, but here are all the "cold" Decembers since 2000:



Out of 23 years, more than 50% of our Decembers (12) have averaged below-average. It's not exactly easy to achieve ANY form of significant anomaly, whether it's temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, etc. on a monthly time scale, let alone when it supposedly goes against "the normal of an unstoppably warming world". In addition to that, here are below-average winters:



As you can see, we have had six below-average winters since 2000, which is roughly 30% of our winter seasons. Mathematically, that stands up with what you'd commonly expect along a statistical bell curve, where you have a third of your sample below whatever the "average" or baseline is, a third within the natural margins, and a third above whatever the "average" or baseline is. Now, for intellectual honesty, going through these 23 seasons manually, there are more than the statistical normal of warm season, something like 13 of them during the D-J-F period. HOWEVER, in several cases, these periods are skewed by a month or two, when the cold was centered in J-F-M or F-M-A. So, while our construct of "winter" during D-J-F may be seeing an unequal distribution of cold versus warm seasons on the average, if you shift to look J-F-M, which are still cold/winter months, the balance is nearly restored to what you'd expect. And this is indicative of the nature of the system, and the inherent changes within its construction. Feedbacks are in play. I can delve deeper into this later to demonstrate my point, but I have to sign into work haha

Quickly, your last point:

Sure, a white Christmas is rare for many people, but a cold Christmas would even be nice at this point.

Here are the periods leading up to our last few Christmases:





Each one was average or below.....

Again, we can continue later if you want, but I'm late for work lol

[Irish]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15. That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene. That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

[phil155]

I guess if there is agreement on man made climate change the real question is what do we as a society do about it and what is the cost and would we really get the biggest polluters to go along with it. My honest opinion is that the biggest polluters are not going to stop. Does anyone really believe they are going to stop polluting at the levels they are? I think they will increase if it makes economic sense for them

I agree.  We are on a crash course which I don't believe can be avoided.  Humans are destroying Earth, every sphere, and that will not stop. The changes in weather are just one sign of the drastic changes that have happened and will continue to.

I guess what I would like to know is if you believe there is anything that can be done if this is fully human caused. My point about the biggest polluters not willing to change is due to economics. I will add to that much of what has been proposed by our leaders is really nothing more than a money and power grab and inthink we will see much more of it as most of out leaders are corrupt to the core.

That said I do think we need to pursue more green energy but in reality that is a long time away, we can not just stop using oil and gas and if we do the impact would be devastating and millions would die pretty quickly. We are not in a position to spend the trillions of dollars necessary to switch over to a majority green energy supply as we are broke. All that said I just want to know what can realistically be done to fix things because without a realistic solution proposal people are just complaining. What are the people here who talk about man made global warning / climate change doing personally to do their part. How many have gone vegan? Bought a very expensive electric car? Lowered their thermostat the winter and raise it in the summer. I have done all but the expensive car(not in the budget) but I use my bike to get around when practical, so while I don't preach about climate change or anything like that and I am not fully sold on the idea of this being fully man made I do feel I need to take care of the environment the best I can.

[docstox12]

I guess if there is agreement on man made climate change the real question is what do we as a society do about it and what is the cost and would we really get the biggest polluters to go along with it. My honest opinion is that the biggest polluters are not going to stop. Does anyone really believe they are going to stop polluting at the levels they are? I think they will increase if it makes economic sense for them

I agree.  We are on a crash course which I don't believe can be avoided.  Humans are destroying Earth, every sphere, and that will not stop. The changes in weather are just one sign of the drastic changes that have happened and will continue to.

I guess what I would like to know is if you believe there is anything that can be done if this is fully human caused. My point about the biggest polluters not willing to change is due to economics. I will add to that much of what has been proposed by our leaders is really nothing more than a money and power grab and inthink we will see much more of it as most of out leaders are corrupt to the core.

That said I do think we need to pursue more green energy but in reality that is a long time away, we can not just stop using oil and gas and if we do the impact would be devastating and millions would die pretty quickly. We are not in a position to spend the trillions of dollars necessary to switch over to a majority green energy supply as we are broke. All that said I just want to know what can realistically be done to fix things because without a realistic solution proposal people are just complaining. What are the people here who talk about man made global warning / climate change doing personally to do their part. How many have gone vegan? Bought a very expensive electric car? Lowered their thermostat the winter and raise it in the summer. I have done all but the expensive car(not in the budget) but I use my bike to get around when practical, so while I don't preach about climate change or anything like that and I am not fully sold on the idea of this being fully man made I do feel I need to take care of the environment the best I can.

Phil, here is one methodology that would help reduce CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/carbon-capture

I bet other new technologies to reduce CO2 will be developed as the market for them will be excellent.

[rb924119]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15.  That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene.  That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

This is not entirely correct. If you consider D-J-F, then fine. But, what happens if you account for the warmth in December, and shift the “winter” one month later? January and February are obviously winter months, March is arguably a winter month for at least half of this forum, and even April produces snow, just like November. As I said earlier, this shift is part of the feedback processes inherent to the climatological system, but if you get a stretch like this again this year (which I think we are going to), are you really going to say that the winter wasn’t cold as a whole because of the month of December?



Notice, by the way, these are three of the last five winter seasons, which already drops the previous count of 13 “above average” winters down to ten, and there were several others between 2000-2014), so again, you’re not statistically changing the absolute distribution of above versus below average, simply sliding the scale temporally.

[sroc4]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/

Climate change is surely happening and it just cannot be ignored that we humans are the greatest cause of the damage being done and because of the selfish decisions we have and continue to make for our own needs. There is no other time in history that we can look back on and compare to in terms of the activities that we have engage in over the last 200 years... none.   This is a first time and the results are just starting to be felt and the full effects will not be seen until we are long gone.

But within that same argument cant you agree that because we haven't been around that long as a species, let alone one that can document these changes in detail, that there is room for interpretation of data?  I mean the real jump in temps and CO2 havent really occurred until after the satellite era began in the 50's, which also happenes to coincide with the industrial revolution.  In addition if you look at the suns data there has been a multidecadal long increase to the sun sunspots; therefore, increased CME and solar flares, that eject highly charged energized particles at earth also coinciding with the industrial revolution, and sat era and Co2 rise.





Irish The bolded statement you made above:  How do you know?  I ask that seriously.  You posted a link from NatGeo that said so.  But how do they know.  I mean when I read things like:

Fertilizer factories, for example, now fix more nitrogen from the air, converting it to a biologically usable form, than all the plants and microbes on land;


Instead of taking their word for it I ask myself as I read:  How do they know that?  What data are they using to support that claim.  Is there any counter data to that claim?  This is a reasonable question for me or you to ask.  It may be true, but am I going to just take their word on it?  I guess you could. But thats not critical thinking.  Asking the question is critical thinking.  Then maybe do a search about this topic to see what I find.

What about this claim:    Some plants and animals are already shifting their ranges toward the Poles, and those shifts will leave traces in the fossil record. Some species will not survive the warming at all. Meanwhile rising temperatures could eventually raise sea levels six meters (20 feet) or more.  

Yeah so?  The fossil record has all sorts of data finding tropical fauna and Flora much farther north than what they could have existed in todays warm climate.  

Now again going back to something I said in a prev post.  Here is a graph created from ice core data showing the current temps vs Co2 data over the past 800K yrs.  


Notice that the peak of the blue lines indicating global temps has been higher than they are now 4 times in the past 400 k yrs.  Also notice that with each peak and valley there has been a consistent coloration with the rise and fall of Co2(red lines), so has the rise and fall of temps(blue line.  However for some reason in modern day society the Co2 levels are off the charts; yet the temps although at a peak, and maybe still increasing have not gone up linearly.  Before this most recent spike if you looked at this graph it might easy to state that its clear as Co2 rises so does temps, so its the co2 cause the rising temps; however, at the bare bones minimum it has to cause one to pause for at least a moment and ask the question:

If Co2 goes up and it causes the warming(regardless of what or who causes it to go iup), then why isnt the temp rising the same way in the past?  

This is not an unreasonable question to ask one's self.  The ears at least have to go up.  Now I am not asking you Irish or anyone here to change your mind about anything.  I merely ask you to ask yourself the question could the following explanation at least be plausible?  Not because NatGeo or any other source told you so.  Not because a trusted source in your mind says this is true or that is true without showing the data and willing to discuss the flaws in the data, because every data set has a flaw.  

I offer this as my hypothesis of Co2s role in our climate.  Lets begin with an analogy.  Think about boiling water.  The boiling point of fresh water is 212*f.  I think this is a pretty well know established fact.  so what happens.  There is heat source that increases the water temperature.  Lets call that the flame on the stove top.  So depending on how high or low your flame is will determine how fast or slow the water temp rises.  Lets say we have the flame on low.  Obv the temp will slowly rise.  But happens when the temp of the water reaches 212*f?  At this point we now change the physical state of the water from a liquid to a gas.  Once the water temp reaches 212* what happens to the water temp if we increase the flame from low to high?  Nothing.  The water temp remains at 212*.  No matter how high the heat source, the boiling point of water is fixed and cannot go above this because when it does its converted to a gas.  These are know facts. No controversy yet right?  

Ok now lets say we decide to add salt to the water and start the experiment over.  Now what happens?   When you add salt to water you raise the boiling point.  Here is a graph to illustrate this:  Mind you its in degrees Celsius not farenheight.  212*f = 100*c



So what am I getting at?  Well I and many others suggest that Co2 acts on the atmosphere similarly to salts raising of the boiling point.  Going back to the first graph above looking at each peak and valley, IMHO its plausible to think that as Co2 rises in the atmosphere so too does the ability for the temperature.  As Co2 drops off so does the temperature.  But like the salt example as you raise the Co2 levels in the atmosphere above a certain point, the max ability of the temps to rise levels off.  Its not linear anymore like it is with the increasing of the boiling point to water by adding salt to it.  To me this tells me that rather than the Co2 being the flame directly heating the the water, its the salt in the soln increasing how how high the temp can rise.  

Now I hope I have at least stirred up a little bit of curiosity as even with this small amount of data I think I have at least created a plausible argument, right or wrong in my ideas. Why cant we cont to look at new data and information and evolve our understanding of an idea as it becomes available?   Why do we need to censor ideas and data that might contradict the current narrative when alternative explanations are at least plausible.  Lets test these theories and let the best data win.  No one is denying climate change.  Well a few might, but the problem is people like me get lumped into "climate change denier" camps simply by asking questions as to what is really the flame, and what is the salt?

Now we can 100% cont to debate Co2s contribution, and at the same time 100% agree with one another that humans def pollute the earth and we can and should do better.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15.  That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene.  That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

This is not entirely correct. If you consider D-J-F, then fine. But, what happens if you account for the warmth in December, and shift the “winter” one month later? January and February are obviously winter months, March is arguably a winter month for at least half of this forum, and even April produces snow, just like November. As I said earlier, this shift is part of the feedback processes inherent to the climatological system, but if you get a stretch like this again this year (which I think we are going to), are you really going to say that the winter wasn’t cold as a whole because of the month of December?



Notice, by the way, these are three of the last five winter seasons, which already drops the previous count of 13 “above average” winters down to ten, and there were several others between 2000-2014), so again, you’re not statistically changing the absolute distribution of above versus below average, simply sliding the scale temporally.

Continually taking the average temperatures from 1991-2020 which are the highest of the 30 year averages we have recorded and saying we're not statistically that far above normal but a just lying with statistics and it happens all the time in every profession on Earth.

Compare the recent 30 year averages and compare them to the 30 year averages from 1871-1900 or 1901-1930 or 1931-1960 or even 1961-1990 and you will be hard pressed to find more than 3-4 winters, if even that many, during 1991-2020 that is below those averages.

If people keep comparing to a time period that has already increased by 1, 2, or 3 degrees the comparison will always seem less extreme than the actual change is.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15.  That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene.  That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

This is not entirely correct. If you consider D-J-F, then fine. But, what happens if you account for the warmth in December, and shift the “winter” one month later? January and February are obviously winter months, March is arguably a winter month for at least half of this forum, and even April produces snow, just like November. As I said earlier, this shift is part of the feedback processes inherent to the climatological system, but if you get a stretch like this again this year (which I think we are going to), are you really going to say that the winter wasn’t cold as a whole because of the month of December?



Notice, by the way, these are three of the last five winter seasons, which already drops the previous count of 13 “above average” winters down to ten, and there were several others between 2000-2014), so again, you’re not statistically changing the absolute distribution of above versus below average, simply sliding the scale temporally.

Continually taking the average temperatures from 1991-2020 which are the highest of the 30 year averages we have recorded and saying we're not statistically that far above normal is lying with statistics, I'm not saying your intentionally lying just that people can make numbers do what they want at times to support their argument, and it happens all the time in every profession on Earth.

Compare the recent 30 year averages and compare them to the 30 year averages from 1871-1900 or 1901-1930 or 1931-1960 or even 1961-1990 and you will be hard pressed to find more than 3-4 winters, if even that many, during 1991-2020 that is below those averages.

If people keep comparing to a time period that has already increased by 1, 2, or 3 degrees the comparison will always seem less extreme than the actual change is.

Until people can grasp that simple concept this argument is pointless. I've studied and seen the change myself in my 60+ years here on earth most of you under the age of 40 are just reporting on the only climate, you know, which is a milder one.

[sroc4]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15.  That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene.  That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

This is not entirely correct. If you consider D-J-F, then fine. But, what happens if you account for the warmth in December, and shift the “winter” one month later? January and February are obviously winter months, March is arguably a winter month for at least half of this forum, and even April produces snow, just like November. As I said earlier, this shift is part of the feedback processes inherent to the climatological system, but if you get a stretch like this again this year (which I think we are going to), are you really going to say that the winter wasn’t cold as a whole because of the month of December?



Notice, by the way, these are three of the last five winter seasons, which already drops the previous count of 13 “above average” winters down to ten, and there were several others between 2000-2014), so again, you’re not statistically changing the absolute distribution of above versus below average, simply sliding the scale temporally.

Continually taking the average temperatures from 1991-2020 which are the highest of the 30 year averages we have recorded and saying we're not statistically that far above normal but a just lying with statistics and it happens all the time in every profession on Earth.

Compare the recent 30 year averages and compare them to the 30 year averages from 1871-1900 or 1901-1930 or 1931-1960 or even 1961-1990 and you will be hard pressed to find more than 3-4 winters, if even that many, during 1991-2020 that is below those averages.

If people keep comparing to a time period that has already increased by 1, 2, or 3 degrees the comparison will always seem less extreme than the actual change is.

And continually referencing changes to the climate over time frames of decades or even centuries with respect to the climate is also just as equally sill, and not representative of anything.  Just what you've experienced.  Its easy to call something extreme when you see these changes over many decades, but we arent old enough as a species to see the pendulum swing back and forth.    If you want to fully understand something as complex as the earths climate you need to zoom way further out than a humans lifetime or two. Using any 30 year block to use as a reference to "avg" is a waste of time when looking at what avg really means on the time scale of the climate.  Just look into Milankovitch Cycles are all about and then look at the image I posted above where earths temps and Co2 correlate with each other.  Just another dot that connects.

[rb924119]

So basically rb, we haven't had a below average winter since 14-15.  That's not good at all and just backs up the point that we are in a new era, heading in the wrong direction. An era I might add that has been mostly caused my human activity, that has equated to geological activity. If we don't exist we do not enter into this Anthropocene.  That's huge, that humans have been the major contributor to a geologic era beginning, like an asteroid hitting Earth.

This is not entirely correct. If you consider D-J-F, then fine. But, what happens if you account for the warmth in December, and shift the “winter” one month later? January and February are obviously winter months, March is arguably a winter month for at least half of this forum, and even April produces snow, just like November. As I said earlier, this shift is part of the feedback processes inherent to the climatological system, but if you get a stretch like this again this year (which I think we are going to), are you really going to say that the winter wasn’t cold as a whole because of the month of December?



Notice, by the way, these are three of the last five winter seasons, which already drops the previous count of 13 “above average” winters down to ten, and there were several others between 2000-2014), so again, you’re not statistically changing the absolute distribution of above versus below average, simply sliding the scale temporally.

Continually taking the average temperatures from 1991-2020 which are the highest of the 30 year averages we have recorded and saying we're not statistically that far above normal but a just lying with statistics and it happens all the time in every profession on Earth.

Compare the recent 30 year averages and compare them to the 30 year averages from 1871-1900 or 1901-1930 or 1931-1960 or even 1961-1990 and you will be hard pressed to find more than 3-4 winters, if even that many, during 1991-2020 that is below those averages.

If people keep comparing to a time period that has already increased by 1, 2, or 3 degrees the comparison will always seem less extreme than the actual change is.

Cp, let me ask you this, then - what would you classify as the climatological average when we only have four 30-year periods to use? Each one is going to be different (and in our case, each will be warmer than the last), and this is exactly why the NWS breaks climatology into 30-year periods - to try to walk the line between establishing a fair baseline while also not washing out the constant changes that occur on various timescales. You are applying your subjective definition of what “average” is because it’s what you grew up with and saying it isn’t fair for me to use mine, which is based on the same climatological period as the seasons relevant to this discussion. Would it be fair for me to use the historical climatologies from 1871-1900 on our current 30-year period? What makes that the standard? We already know that the Earth’s temperature has been fluctuating for billions of years, and through most of it, those fluctuations have been many times larger than what we have seen over the last century. So what makes your climatology any more or less relevant than the current, especially when talking about the same 30-year period? This is akin to trying to equate society of the 1700s with today’s standards - it’s not logical.

[Irish]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/

Climate change is surely happening and it just cannot be ignored that we humans are the greatest cause of the damage being done and because of the selfish decisions we have and continue to make for our own needs. There is no other time in history that we can look back on and compare to in terms of the activities that we have engage in over the last 200 years... none.   This is a first time and the results are just starting to be felt and the full effects will not be seen until we are long gone.

But within that same argument cant you agree that because we haven't been around that long as a species, let alone one that can document these changes in detail, that there is room for interpretation of data?  I mean the real jump in temps and CO2 havent really occurred until after the satellite era began in the 50's, which also happenes to coincide with the industrial revolution.  In addition if you look at the suns data there has been a multidecadal long increase to the sun sunspots; therefore, increased CME and solar flares, that eject highly charged energized particles at earth also coinciding with the industrial revolution, and sat era and Co2 rise.





Irish The bolded statement you made above:  How do you know?  I ask that seriously.  You posted a link from NatGeo that said so.  But how do they know.  I mean when I read things like:

Fertilizer factories, for example, now fix more nitrogen from the air, converting it to a biologically usable form, than all the plants and microbes on land;


Instead of taking their word for it I ask myself as I read:  How do they know that?  What data are they using to support that claim.  Is there any counter data to that claim?  This is a reasonable question for me or you to ask.  It may be true, but am I going to just take their word on it?  I guess you could. But thats not critical thinking.  Asking the question is critical thinking.  Then maybe do a search about this topic to see what I find.

What about this claim:    Some plants and animals are already shifting their ranges toward the Poles, and those shifts will leave traces in the fossil record. Some species will not survive the warming at all. Meanwhile rising temperatures could eventually raise sea levels six meters (20 feet) or more.  

Yeah so?  The fossil record has all sorts of data finding tropical fauna and Flora much farther north than what they could have existed in todays warm climate.  

Now again going back to something I said in a prev post.  Here is a graph created from ice core data showing the current temps vs Co2 data over the past 800K yrs.  


Notice that the peak of the blue lines indicating global temps has been higher than they are now 4 times in the past 400 k yrs.  Also notice that with each peak and valley there has been a consistent coloration with the rise and fall of Co2(red lines), so has the rise and fall of temps(blue line.  However for some reason in modern day society the Co2 levels are off the charts; yet the temps although at a peak, and maybe still increasing have not gone up linearly.  Before this most recent spike if you looked at this graph it might easy to state that its clear as Co2 rises so does temps, so its the co2 cause the rising temps; however, at the bare bones minimum it has to cause one to pause for at least a moment and ask the question:

If Co2 goes up and it causes the warming(regardless of what or who causes it to go iup), then why isnt the temp rising the same way in the past?  

This is not an unreasonable question to ask one's self.  The ears at least have to go up.  Now I am not asking you Irish or anyone here to change your mind about anything.  I merely ask you to ask yourself the question could the following explanation at least be plausible?  Not because NatGeo or any other source told you so.  Not because a trusted source in your mind says this is true or that is true without showing the data and willing to discuss the flaws in the data, because every data set has a flaw.  

I offer this as my hypothesis of Co2s role in our climate.  Lets begin with an analogy.  Think about boiling water.  The boiling point of fresh water is 212*f.  I think this is a pretty well know established fact.  so what happens.  There is heat source that increases the water temperature.  Lets call that the flame on the stove top.  So depending on how high or low your flame is will determine how fast or slow the water temp rises.  Lets say we have the flame on low.  Obv the temp will slowly rise.  But happens when the temp of the water reaches 212*f?  At this point we now change the physical state of the water from a liquid to a gas.  Once the water temp reaches 212* what happens to the water temp if we increase the flame from low to high?  Nothing.  The water temp remains at 212*.  No matter how high the heat source, the boiling point of water is fixed and cannot go above this because when it does its converted to a gas.  These are know facts. No controversy yet right?  

Ok now lets say we decide to add salt to the water and start the experiment over.  Now what happens?   When you add salt to water you raise the boiling point.  Here is a graph to illustrate this:  Mind you its in degrees Celsius not farenheight.  212*f = 100*c



So what am I getting at?  Well I and many others suggest that Co2 acts on the atmosphere similarly to salts raising of the boiling point.  Going back to the first graph above looking at each peak and valley, IMHO its plausible to think that as Co2 rises in the atmosphere so too does the ability for the temperature.  As Co2 drops off so does the temperature.  But like the salt example as you raise the Co2 levels in the atmosphere above a certain point, the max ability of the temps to rise levels off.  Its not linear anymore like it is with the increasing of the boiling point to water by adding salt to it.  To me this tells me that rather than the Co2 being the flame directly heating the the water, its the salt in the soln increasing how how high the temp can rise.  

Now I hope I have at least stirred up a little bit of curiosity as even with this small amount of data I think I have at least created a plausible argument, right or wrong in my ideas. Why cant we cont to look at new data and information and evolve our understanding of an idea as it becomes available?   Why do we need to censor ideas and data that might contradict the current narrative when alternative explanations are at least plausible.  Lets test these theories and let the best data win.  No one is denying climate change.  Well a few might, but the problem is people like me get lumped into "climate change denier" camps simply by asking questions as to what is really the flame, and what is the salt?

Now we can 100% cont to debate Co2s contribution, and at the same time 100% agree with one another that humans def pollute the earth and we can and should do better.    

So, I know you're a smart guy and are wanting critical thinking here. At the same time, when presented with data, we can't just simply ignore it because it doesn't fit our agenda, either politically or personally and say couldn't the data be skewed or can't we just blame something else, or we haven't been around long enough to really know. That all just seems like a cop out or turning a blind eye to the real issues, no?  

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

https://interestingengineering.com/lists/11-ways-humans-impact-the-environment

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

It's widely publicized and all around us.  We are literally going through a mass extinction (the 6th that we know of and the first that is not caused by natural phenomena and instead by human activity).  Can we really just ignore the facts?  I understand respectfully questioning them, but we can't just avoid them because they don't jive with what we were raised to believe or want to believe. 

To answer, I believe Phil's question above, we can't just say that we have to rely on fossil fuels and not depend on greener energy because it's too expensive. Most scientists believe that by 2060 fossil fuels will basically be depleted.  We have to find and rely on other solutions, even if at first it's more expensive, like solar was at one point.   Personally, I run my entire house on solar power, my wife and I commute in the same car to work everyday to avoid using more fuel. We keep the temp in our house controlled during all seasons.  When we need to buy another car, it will be electric. We recycle everything we can.  However, I don't believe that humans will be able to do enough to reverse the damage already caused and many scientist have already stated as much. But we have to make efforts to do a much as we can for future generations.  We only have 1 Earth.

[sroc4]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/

Climate change is surely happening and it just cannot be ignored that we humans are the greatest cause of the damage being done and because of the selfish decisions we have and continue to make for our own needs. There is no other time in history that we can look back on and compare to in terms of the activities that we have engage in over the last 200 years... none.   This is a first time and the results are just starting to be felt and the full effects will not be seen until we are long gone.

But within that same argument cant you agree that because we haven't been around that long as a species, let alone one that can document these changes in detail, that there is room for interpretation of data?  I mean the real jump in temps and CO2 havent really occurred until after the satellite era began in the 50's, which also happenes to coincide with the industrial revolution.  In addition if you look at the suns data there has been a multidecadal long increase to the sun sunspots; therefore, increased CME and solar flares, that eject highly charged energized particles at earth also coinciding with the industrial revolution, and sat era and Co2 rise.





Irish The bolded statement you made above:  How do you know?  I ask that seriously.  You posted a link from NatGeo that said so.  But how do they know.  I mean when I read things like:

Fertilizer factories, for example, now fix more nitrogen from the air, converting it to a biologically usable form, than all the plants and microbes on land;


Instead of taking their word for it I ask myself as I read:  How do they know that?  What data are they using to support that claim.  Is there any counter data to that claim?  This is a reasonable question for me or you to ask.  It may be true, but am I going to just take their word on it?  I guess you could. But thats not critical thinking.  Asking the question is critical thinking.  Then maybe do a search about this topic to see what I find.

What about this claim:    Some plants and animals are already shifting their ranges toward the Poles, and those shifts will leave traces in the fossil record. Some species will not survive the warming at all. Meanwhile rising temperatures could eventually raise sea levels six meters (20 feet) or more.  

Yeah so?  The fossil record has all sorts of data finding tropical fauna and Flora much farther north than what they could have existed in todays warm climate.  

Now again going back to something I said in a prev post.  Here is a graph created from ice core data showing the current temps vs Co2 data over the past 800K yrs.  


Notice that the peak of the blue lines indicating global temps has been higher than they are now 4 times in the past 400 k yrs.  Also notice that with each peak and valley there has been a consistent coloration with the rise and fall of Co2(red lines), so has the rise and fall of temps(blue line.  However for some reason in modern day society the Co2 levels are off the charts; yet the temps although at a peak, and maybe still increasing have not gone up linearly.  Before this most recent spike if you looked at this graph it might easy to state that its clear as Co2 rises so does temps, so its the co2 cause the rising temps; however, at the bare bones minimum it has to cause one to pause for at least a moment and ask the question:

If Co2 goes up and it causes the warming(regardless of what or who causes it to go iup), then why isnt the temp rising the same way in the past?  

This is not an unreasonable question to ask one's self.  The ears at least have to go up.  Now I am not asking you Irish or anyone here to change your mind about anything.  I merely ask you to ask yourself the question could the following explanation at least be plausible?  Not because NatGeo or any other source told you so.  Not because a trusted source in your mind says this is true or that is true without showing the data and willing to discuss the flaws in the data, because every data set has a flaw.  

I offer this as my hypothesis of Co2s role in our climate.  Lets begin with an analogy.  Think about boiling water.  The boiling point of fresh water is 212*f.  I think this is a pretty well know established fact.  so what happens.  There is heat source that increases the water temperature.  Lets call that the flame on the stove top.  So depending on how high or low your flame is will determine how fast or slow the water temp rises.  Lets say we have the flame on low.  Obv the temp will slowly rise.  But happens when the temp of the water reaches 212*f?  At this point we now change the physical state of the water from a liquid to a gas.  Once the water temp reaches 212* what happens to the water temp if we increase the flame from low to high?  Nothing.  The water temp remains at 212*.  No matter how high the heat source, the boiling point of water is fixed and cannot go above this because when it does its converted to a gas.  These are know facts. No controversy yet right?  

Ok now lets say we decide to add salt to the water and start the experiment over.  Now what happens?   When you add salt to water you raise the boiling point.  Here is a graph to illustrate this:  Mind you its in degrees Celsius not farenheight.  212*f = 100*c



So what am I getting at?  Well I and many others suggest that Co2 acts on the atmosphere similarly to salts raising of the boiling point.  Going back to the first graph above looking at each peak and valley, IMHO its plausible to think that as Co2 rises in the atmosphere so too does the ability for the temperature.  As Co2 drops off so does the temperature.  But like the salt example as you raise the Co2 levels in the atmosphere above a certain point, the max ability of the temps to rise levels off.  Its not linear anymore like it is with the increasing of the boiling point to water by adding salt to it.  To me this tells me that rather than the Co2 being the flame directly heating the the water, its the salt in the soln increasing how how high the temp can rise.  

Now I hope I have at least stirred up a little bit of curiosity as even with this small amount of data I think I have at least created a plausible argument, right or wrong in my ideas. Why cant we cont to look at new data and information and evolve our understanding of an idea as it becomes available?   Why do we need to censor ideas and data that might contradict the current narrative when alternative explanations are at least plausible.  Lets test these theories and let the best data win.  No one is denying climate change.  Well a few might, but the problem is people like me get lumped into "climate change denier" camps simply by asking questions as to what is really the flame, and what is the salt?

Now we can 100% cont to debate Co2s contribution, and at the same time 100% agree with one another that humans def pollute the earth and we can and should do better.    

So, I know you're a smart guy and are wanting critical thinking here. At the same time, when presented with data, we can't just simply ignore it because it doesn't fit our agenda, either politically or personally and say couldn't the data be skewed or can't we just blame something else, or we haven't been around long enough to really know. That all just seems like a cop out or turning a blind eye to the real issues, no?  

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

https://interestingengineering.com/lists/11-ways-humans-impact-the-environment

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

It's widely publicized and all around us.  We are literally going through a mass extinction (the 6th that we know of and the first that is not caused by natural phenomena and instead by human activity).  Can we really just ignore the facts?  I understand respectfully questioning them, but we can't just avoid them because they don't jive with what we were raised to believe or want to believe. 

To answer, I believe Phil's question above, we can't just say that we have to rely on fossil fuels and not depend on greener energy because it's too expensive. Most scientists believe that by 2060 fossil fuels will basically be depleted.  We have to find and rely on other solutions, even if at first it's more expensive, like solar was at one point.   Personally, I run my entire house on solar power, my wife and I commute in the same car to work everyday to avoid using more fuel. We keep the temp in our house controlled during all seasons.  When we need to buy another car, it will be electric. We recycle everything we can.  However, I don't believe that humans will be able to do enough to reverse the damage already caused and many scientist have already stated as much. But we have to make efforts to do a much as we can for future generations.  We only have 1 Earth.

Irish.  The real cop out is to ignore all of these other things.  Critical thinking is of the utmost importance here.  Taking just the first link you posted:  These are the 9 ways the author of this article says proves humans cause global warming:



1Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).

2Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).

3Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).

4Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).

5Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).

6Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).

7Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).

8Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).

9Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).


Basically 1-5 is exactly what I stated above.  Im not debating any of that.  

Point 6.  If temps are rising then capt obv would say then ice melts and sea levels rise.  Non of this proves that humans are the cause.  All it says is that we are producing lots of co2 and the climate is warming.  

Point 7:  Simpy stating ruling out natural factors that can influence climate such as sun and ocean cycles does not prove a damn thing.  What research?  Because again as stated above there is alot of data that makes an argument that the input of these factors are more of a contribution than other's.  

point 8:  Computer models to predict accurately the next 7-10 days in the north east are nonsense, let alone ones that try to simulate and predict our climate. So how is this proving human co2 causes global warming?  

And point 9: Consensus among scientists...which ones?  What about the ones that dont consent.  What do they say?  What is their argument?  Are you dismissing their argument?  Why are you dismissing it?  The consensus used to be that the Sun was the center of the universe until a dissenting idea challenged the consensus and proved that idea wrong.  There are countless scientific consensus that were eventually proven completely wrong.  Point is these articles are all skwed towards the same narrative.  If you want to sway me post me an article that goes against the narrative and show me why its wrong; not show me an article that tells you what you already believe.

[Irish]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/

Climate change is surely happening and it just cannot be ignored that we humans are the greatest cause of the damage being done and because of the selfish decisions we have and continue to make for our own needs. There is no other time in history that we can look back on and compare to in terms of the activities that we have engage in over the last 200 years... none.   This is a first time and the results are just starting to be felt and the full effects will not be seen until we are long gone.

But within that same argument cant you agree that because we haven't been around that long as a species, let alone one that can document these changes in detail, that there is room for interpretation of data?  I mean the real jump in temps and CO2 havent really occurred until after the satellite era began in the 50's, which also happenes to coincide with the industrial revolution.  In addition if you look at the suns data there has been a multidecadal long increase to the sun sunspots; therefore, increased CME and solar flares, that eject highly charged energized particles at earth also coinciding with the industrial revolution, and sat era and Co2 rise.





Irish The bolded statement you made above:  How do you know?  I ask that seriously.  You posted a link from NatGeo that said so.  But how do they know.  I mean when I read things like:

Fertilizer factories, for example, now fix more nitrogen from the air, converting it to a biologically usable form, than all the plants and microbes on land;


Instead of taking their word for it I ask myself as I read:  How do they know that?  What data are they using to support that claim.  Is there any counter data to that claim?  This is a reasonable question for me or you to ask.  It may be true, but am I going to just take their word on it?  I guess you could. But thats not critical thinking.  Asking the question is critical thinking.  Then maybe do a search about this topic to see what I find.

What about this claim:    Some plants and animals are already shifting their ranges toward the Poles, and those shifts will leave traces in the fossil record. Some species will not survive the warming at all. Meanwhile rising temperatures could eventually raise sea levels six meters (20 feet) or more.  

Yeah so?  The fossil record has all sorts of data finding tropical fauna and Flora much farther north than what they could have existed in todays warm climate.  

Now again going back to something I said in a prev post.  Here is a graph created from ice core data showing the current temps vs Co2 data over the past 800K yrs.  


Notice that the peak of the blue lines indicating global temps has been higher than they are now 4 times in the past 400 k yrs.  Also notice that with each peak and valley there has been a consistent coloration with the rise and fall of Co2(red lines), so has the rise and fall of temps(blue line.  However for some reason in modern day society the Co2 levels are off the charts; yet the temps although at a peak, and maybe still increasing have not gone up linearly.  Before this most recent spike if you looked at this graph it might easy to state that its clear as Co2 rises so does temps, so its the co2 cause the rising temps; however, at the bare bones minimum it has to cause one to pause for at least a moment and ask the question:

If Co2 goes up and it causes the warming(regardless of what or who causes it to go iup), then why isnt the temp rising the same way in the past?  

This is not an unreasonable question to ask one's self.  The ears at least have to go up.  Now I am not asking you Irish or anyone here to change your mind about anything.  I merely ask you to ask yourself the question could the following explanation at least be plausible?  Not because NatGeo or any other source told you so.  Not because a trusted source in your mind says this is true or that is true without showing the data and willing to discuss the flaws in the data, because every data set has a flaw.  

I offer this as my hypothesis of Co2s role in our climate.  Lets begin with an analogy.  Think about boiling water.  The boiling point of fresh water is 212*f.  I think this is a pretty well know established fact.  so what happens.  There is heat source that increases the water temperature.  Lets call that the flame on the stove top.  So depending on how high or low your flame is will determine how fast or slow the water temp rises.  Lets say we have the flame on low.  Obv the temp will slowly rise.  But happens when the temp of the water reaches 212*f?  At this point we now change the physical state of the water from a liquid to a gas.  Once the water temp reaches 212* what happens to the water temp if we increase the flame from low to high?  Nothing.  The water temp remains at 212*.  No matter how high the heat source, the boiling point of water is fixed and cannot go above this because when it does its converted to a gas.  These are know facts. No controversy yet right?  

Ok now lets say we decide to add salt to the water and start the experiment over.  Now what happens?   When you add salt to water you raise the boiling point.  Here is a graph to illustrate this:  Mind you its in degrees Celsius not farenheight.  212*f = 100*c



So what am I getting at?  Well I and many others suggest that Co2 acts on the atmosphere similarly to salts raising of the boiling point.  Going back to the first graph above looking at each peak and valley, IMHO its plausible to think that as Co2 rises in the atmosphere so too does the ability for the temperature.  As Co2 drops off so does the temperature.  But like the salt example as you raise the Co2 levels in the atmosphere above a certain point, the max ability of the temps to rise levels off.  Its not linear anymore like it is with the increasing of the boiling point to water by adding salt to it.  To me this tells me that rather than the Co2 being the flame directly heating the the water, its the salt in the soln increasing how how high the temp can rise.  

Now I hope I have at least stirred up a little bit of curiosity as even with this small amount of data I think I have at least created a plausible argument, right or wrong in my ideas. Why cant we cont to look at new data and information and evolve our understanding of an idea as it becomes available?   Why do we need to censor ideas and data that might contradict the current narrative when alternative explanations are at least plausible.  Lets test these theories and let the best data win.  No one is denying climate change.  Well a few might, but the problem is people like me get lumped into "climate change denier" camps simply by asking questions as to what is really the flame, and what is the salt?

Now we can 100% cont to debate Co2s contribution, and at the same time 100% agree with one another that humans def pollute the earth and we can and should do better.    

So, I know you're a smart guy and are wanting critical thinking here. At the same time, when presented with data, we can't just simply ignore it because it doesn't fit our agenda, either politically or personally and say couldn't the data be skewed or can't we just blame something else, or we haven't been around long enough to really know. That all just seems like a cop out or turning a blind eye to the real issues, no?  

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

https://interestingengineering.com/lists/11-ways-humans-impact-the-environment

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

It's widely publicized and all around us.  We are literally going through a mass extinction (the 6th that we know of and the first that is not caused by natural phenomena and instead by human activity).  Can we really just ignore the facts?  I understand respectfully questioning them, but we can't just avoid them because they don't jive with what we were raised to believe or want to believe. 

To answer, I believe Phil's question above, we can't just say that we have to rely on fossil fuels and not depend on greener energy because it's too expensive. Most scientists believe that by 2060 fossil fuels will basically be depleted.  We have to find and rely on other solutions, even if at first it's more expensive, like solar was at one point.   Personally, I run my entire house on solar power, my wife and I commute in the same car to work everyday to avoid using more fuel. We keep the temp in our house controlled during all seasons.  When we need to buy another car, it will be electric. We recycle everything we can.  However, I don't believe that humans will be able to do enough to reverse the damage already caused and many scientist have already stated as much. But we have to make efforts to do a much as we can for future generations.  We only have 1 Earth.

Irish.  The real cop out is to ignore all of these other things.  Critical thinking is of the utmost importance here.  Taking just the first link you posted:  These are the 9 ways the author of this article says proves humans cause global warming:



1Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).

2Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).

3Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).

4Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).

5Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).

6Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).

7Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).

8Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).

9Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).


Basically 1-5 is exactly what I stated above.  Im not debating any of that.  

Point 6.  If temps are rising then capt obv would say then ice melts and sea levels rise.  Non of this proves that humans are the cause.  All it says is that we are producing lots of co2 and the climate is warming.  

Point 7:  Simpy stating ruling out natural factors that can influence climate such as sun and ocean cycles does not prove a damn thing.  What research?  Because again as stated above there is alot of data that makes an argument that the input of these factors are more of a contribution than other's.  

point 8:  Computer models to predict accurately the next 7-10 days in the north east are nonsense, let alone ones that try to simulate and predict our climate. So how is this proving human co2 causes global warming?  

And point 9: Consensus among scientists...which ones?  What about the ones that dont consent.  What do they say?  What is their argument?  Are you dismissing their argument?  Why are you dismissing it?  The consensus used to be that the Sun was the center of the universe until a dissenting idea challenged the consensus and proved that idea wrong.  There are countless scientific consensus that were eventually proven completely wrong.  Point is these articles are all skwed towards the same narrative.  If you want to sway me post me an article that goes against the narrative and show me why its wrong; not show me an article that tells you what you already believe.

Easy, that article doesn't exist because humans and their activities are the major contributor to global warming, the destruction of all spheres on Earth and the genesis of the 6th mass extinction in history. 

That is all I have to say on this topic because respectfully speaking, this is akin to a political debate and can go nowhere.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water...

Ending on a positive, and not trying to sound heartless, we will all be here for a very short time and in reality, the damage is done and when you can't get everyone on the same page, rowing in a common direction towards positive solutions, you just go in circles. I love carousels, so at least there's that.  Let's live life in the happiest way we can!

[docstox12]

Irish, the US has reduced its CO2 output 15% since 2005.Be positive my friend, technology like CO2 capture and whatever else will help.I stopped being negative years ago when amazingly I did not get vaporized in a Russian nuclear attack everybody was so sure was coming in 1962.I was 12 then and now I am 73,LOL.Glass half full ALWAYS and with that type of thinking talented people will figure out a way out of the problem you mention.You are a youngster with many many more years ahead of you so don't let this get you down.
Happy New Year to you and yours.LOL, I am amazed I am still here.

[sroc4]

Brick killed a guy with a trident.

All kidding aside, I appreciate the discussion. I think we all made our points.

[jmanley32]

Brick killed a guy with a trident.  

All kidding aside, I appreciate the discussion.  I think we all made our points.  

Certainly did, type4d up a response but decided not to because I honestly don't like to get involved in these things unless I have to and also I need to be sure I know what I am talking about (critical thinking and research).

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

Brick killed a guy with a trident.  

All kidding aside, I appreciate the discussion.  I think we all made our points.  

Same here, even though you and RB are totally wrong LOL.

Happy New Year everyone. Taking a break until winter returns for an actual month or more, not a week or two, that's not Winter. I calculate the return to be November 2097 when I will be long gone off this Earth. I'm hoping the Almightys idea of heaven is at least 4 months of solid snow cover.

[dkodgis]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[amugs]

As SROC, Rb have stated and open dialog contesting this "new idea" of - Athrohgenpanic Global Warming, changed to Global Warming, now its called Climate Change. 
Let's look at what was stated in the late 60's through mid 1970's.....an ICE AGE is underway and we had brutal cold n snowy winters.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscureMedia/comments/2a463y/the_coming_ice_age_1978_global_cooling/?onetap_auto=true&one_tap=true
Then we had a monster El Nino in 82-83 winter and it was termed tye pineapple express due the to jet stream streaking from Hawaii into the CONUS.
In 1988 a scientist from NASA, the space agency, went before Congress and said the earth is Warming. Well yes it did and no.
It did from te monster El Nino we just had and he used those temps in comparison to the "ice aged" 70's through 1981 as his basis. That was like comparing apples to mangoes. 
Al Gore and other politicians jumped on board bigly during and after the 2nd monster El Nino of 97-98. Their predictions were dire. Literally dire. Have ANY of them come true? No. Not one.
The islands of Manhattan have not be inundated with seas water(yes during Sandy but that is a blip in the continuum of time during the timeframe of 10-15 years in 2006 outlined?, the Maldives are thriving and not washes over, as are hundreds to thousands of islands and watershed regions they said would. The ice caps have not melted away in either pole. Does it fluctuate.....absolutely and this is the ebb n flow of our Climate cycle. 
Now does man do really stupid things like build on sand bars, on waters edges,  on mountain sides,  cut down wooded areas to "expand" for population growth, yes. Does he cause micro climates in cities called UHI, urban heat islands, absolutely.
All of this has been studied and peer reviewed.

Oh that note, my so just had a publication peer reviews and one out of dozens in the neuroscience field objected to his publication on grounds of DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion of the participants and results.  But with this it was pointed out that they, he and the lead author he is a coauthor, could circumvent this process by a new sidebar. This in lies the absolutely validity of any and all peer reviewed work today and the last number of years. In the past the rebuttals would be made by both parties and then those would be reviewed and set forth. Today those rebuttals can be expunged aka dismissed if you go against and prove they are wrong it doesn't matter in many instances. So what happened? They pulled their publication. Lead author said, "It's not worth my time nor reputation to move forward". Science is NOT what it was.
Okay so how does this interface with the studies and articles proposed? They are mostly false and have been skewed to recieve grant $$$. Follow the $$$. 
My son explained how this works with givt, corporation, and educational foundations and institutions. It is a conglomerate of measures. If one cog pulls out, the rest usually follow suite, a domino effect.
My personal belief is we have a slight effect on the overall climate in very small scale versions to the macro. The sun, magnetic Pol shift, volcanic activity above and below the the oceans surface and earth's natural cycles as well as sun, planetary cycles as well are the main drivers. 
Climates have changes and will continue to change. 
The elites have hijacked the narrative and guess what? Big $$ is to be had and made.
WEF= Wo4ld Elitist Forun I call it  said in 2020 by 2030....you will own nothing.....and you will like it!!! Th3y will use Climate Change as a platform.

Interesting charts
Sea Ice that was to be gone is the same as 45 years ago....hmmmmm. 





What happened to the Ozone Hole and layer that would grown and wane us into skin cancer hell???
It closed up.

Peace

[weatherwatchermom]

BACK TO THE GREY WEATHER I was not so unhappy yesterday that it was warm because we actually had a day of sunshine!

I have a question does anyone know whatever happened to Isotherm? Even though needed a dictionary along side reading the post..his posts were very interesting.

[rb924119]

Brick killed a guy with a trident.  

All kidding aside, I appreciate the discussion.  I think we all made our points.  

Same here, even though you and RB are totally wrong LOL.

Happy New Year everyone. Taking a break until winter returns for an actual month or more, not a week or two, that's not Winter. I calculate the return to be November 2097 when I will be long gone off this Earth. I'm hoping the Almightys idea of heaven is at least 4 months of solid snow cover.

You shouldn't sleep on this pattern CP, there's a whole lot to like about it. At the very least, it's gonna be a predominately below-average regime going forward.

[rb924119]

BACK TO THE GREY WEATHER  I was not so unhappy yesterday that it was warm because we actually had a day of sunshine!

I have a question does anyone know whatever happened to Isotherm? Even though needed a dictionary along side reading the post..his posts were very interesting.

I don't know, mom. I tried reaching out to him a few times over the last couple/few years and got nothing back. I hope he's ok, though. That man is/was talented and knowledgeable beyond measure; certainly more than anybody I've ever met, and it's not even close (professors included). I really hope he's ok.

[docstox12]

Brick killed a guy with a trident.  

All kidding aside, I appreciate the discussion.  I think we all made our points.  

Same here, even though you and RB are totally wrong LOL.

Happy New Year everyone. Taking a break until winter returns for an actual month or more, not a week or two, that's not Winter. I calculate the return to be November 2097 when I will be long gone off this Earth. I'm hoping the Almightys idea of heaven is at least 4 months of solid snow cover.

Happy New Years one and all!

[Sponsored content]