Global Climate Changes

[Kingseve1]

I’m obviously a staunch believer in CC. And I have only voted for republicans in my lifetime. It’s not political for me. Politicians are mostly clowns.

100 percent of All scientists agree that humans are emitting non-radioactive carbon by burning fossil fuels. Carbon released into the atmosphere traps heat, which raises global temps.

 

[DreadLox]

This is a variation of your go-to bs strawman. The foundational strawman is "so you don't want to save the planet?"

Everyone agrees we should do the best we possibly can. The fact your group can't discuss the issues without strawman or other fallacies

So what is the best we possibly can?

 

[Gassy_Knowls]

I am trying to increase my carbon usage as much as I can.

 

[WayneDougan]

Is the Superconductor from Korea real or not? That will make a big difference.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

“Alarmist” is a real term. Alarmists demand extreme responses and claim incredible harms. Alarmists don’t consider the positives of warming, the dire consequences of many of the political “solutions,” or solutions that are not extreme. Claiming it’s just a pejorative to stop discussion or do nothing is aiding and abetting the alarmists.

 

[PhDcat2018]

Never really understood the anger and frustration this topic occasionally brings out in people. There are alarmists who'll say one thing and then it doesn't happen. And yet, there are folks who decided to take a stance decades ago and nothing will change their view now. Stubbornness, we all have it. I tend to believe the Earth is warming but that we're not all going to burn up within a hundred years. I'm unsure if we play a big part in this progression or if it's just Earth doing it's own thing, and in 500 years there could be a slight cooling period. It's a topic where everyone circles the wagons though, since each side gets to provide graphs to support their claims.

The alarmists do hurt the discussion but so do the folks who decided long ago that this is another conspiracy, another con that hurts them. Once you accept that as your view, then nothing is changing your mind, I don't care if we have the hottest summer on record for the next twenty years. Both sides have dug in now.

One side is on the right side of history. There's no proof we have done anything overtly wrong to the climate. The alarmists have made predictions for decades, and none of them are even close. They also aren't very good salesmen either. If you believe the seas will rise within the next decade or 2, you don't build mansions on the coast. I'm for using multiple resources to make energy efficient and cheap to as many as possible. Whatever it may be, use it to produce juice for the world.

 

[warrior-cat]

One side is on the right side of history. There's no proof we have done anything overtly wrong to the climate. The alarmists have made predictions for decades, and none of them are even close. They also aren't very good salesmen either. If you believe the seas will rise within the next decade or 2, you don't build mansions on the coast. I'm for using multiple resources to make energy efficient and cheap to as many as possible. Whatever it may be, use it to produce juice for the world.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and other methods of energy that can go along with fossil fuels. Emissions from fossil fuels have gotten a lot cleaner in recent years and can even get better. With all mentioned above you will have adverse conditions affecting the environment and should be addressed to better help clean up the planet. Going all in on one or two areas will cripple economies and put hardships on many more people than they will benefit. Problem is, special interest groups with the intent to get rich or shift power are in charge of how we go forward and uneducated or duped people either believe their lies or just don't care how it affects others.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and other methods of energy that can go along with fossil fuels. Emissions from fossil fuels have gotten a lot cleaner in recent years and can even get better. With all mentioned above you will have adverse conditions affecting the environment and should be addressed to better help clean up the planet. Going all in on one or two areas will cripple economies and put hardships on many more people than they will benefit. Problem is, special interest groups with the intent to get rich or shift power are in charge of how we go forward and uneducated or duped people either believe their lies or just don't care how it affects others.

Don't we have enough natural to last like 300 years?

 

[warrior-cat]

Don't we have enough natural to last like 300 years?

More like 500 years oil and natural gas. 600 years in coal I believe. Still should use them too. We have been getting better at controlling emissions and will get better still.

 

[8titles]

You appear to believe that trace gases have negligible effect. The background amount of CO2 in the atmosphere -- pre-industrial levels -- was around 280 ppm. It's around 420 ppm today. If we had one year of 420 ppm we wouldn't notice it. But we have the miracle of compound interest. Due to the heat carrying capacity of the oceans, that little unnoticeable increase in temps sticks around. A little more each year. That warmer water expands. It congregates at the poles and melts ice. It works its way between rock and ice in Antarctica and melts a continent from underneath. It reduces the difference in temps in the North Atlantic so that the natural tendency of water to overturn into the deep (AMOC) slows down. That overturning helps spread heat to northern latitudes. That circulation brings nutrients north for North Atlantic fisheries. The warmer water produces unexpected massive rainfalls and exacerbates droughts. But it does that largely because of the sizeable difference between Arctic water and equatorial water. When that gap narrows, the overturning slows down.

That tiny little 140 ppm of CO2. You can't feel it immediately, but you can measure it. And overtime that has meant 1.4C-1.5C global increase in average temps. Science has lots of facets, but one important one is to check your work. There was a scientist who shared your view that temps hadn't increased as other scientists claimed -- Richard Muller -- so he set about to make his own dataset. After years of work, the results were in: Muller's record tracked the other data sets so closely that today they're virtually identical.

Oh, and by the way. During COVID lockdowns the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t decrease. Even with very limited travel, very few planes in the air, manufacturing shut down, etc. the amount of CO2 didn’t move. Ice caps aren’t melting (per NASA), Water levels aren’t rising. None of it is accurate. There are incredible amounts of misinformation about it. And by the way, “trace gases“ like CO2 are not lethal in any respect until you have massive amounts so thats not a threat. We are only in control of 3.2% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere yet you really think this is a short term risk? Hell, I would argue that it isn’t a long term risk given we have very, very little control of it. Our waterways are more of a concern for me than global warming. Should we be the best stewards of our planet as we can be? Heck yes, I am all for taking steps to make earth last longer and become more sustainable but this frenzy of fear about it is absolutely ridiculous.


10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness
15,000 ppm (1.5%).
30,000 ppm (3.0%). Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, ACGIH TLV-Short Term.
40,000 ppm (4.0%). Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH)
50,000 ppm (5.0%). Strong respiratory stimulation, dizziness, confusion, headache, shortness of breath
80,000 ppm (8.0%). Dimmed sight, sweating, tremor, unconsciousness, and possible death

 

[bigblueinsanity]

So what is the best we possibly can?

Nuclear if possible. Then the development of dependable renewable energy resources preferably ones that don't trade one problem for another like the insane minimum for lithium.

Don't abandon non renewable until we are able to phase off. The extra load on power grids, that are not ready and still need powered somehow, just trades one problem for another yet again.

Start telling people the truth instead of trying to terrify people for nothing more than power/money. Of course that would undo much of this, so it will never happen.

Ice caps aren’t melting (per NASA

Maybe the most hilarious story in years was when the scientists went to document the disappeared ice cap just to be stuck in way more ice than they anticipated.

Now.....let's say they didn't get trapped. Wonder what their report would've been? Would it have been an honest report? I'm sure their funding source didn't want to hear about all the new ice

 

[DreadLox]

Oh, and by the way. During COVID lockdowns the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t decrease.

Right. There are parts of the world that have taken up and absorbed atmospheric CO2. They're called "sinks". A lot of them have become saturated with CO2 and can't take up more. Worse, some sinks have switched roles as they warm. They have become new sources of CO2. Like the oceans. So, during COVID lockdown those new sources of CO2 were able to replace the decline in CO2 from human activity. I remember reading that when warming reaches 2C above pre-industrial levels the amount of CO2 from these terrestrial sources will equal our output of CO2 from human activity. (Don't quote me on that. That could be wrong.) Regardless, as global temperatures rise terrestrial sources will put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

This new role of the oceans as sources of CO2 didn't begin with the COVID lockdown. It has been happening for a good while now.

While we're pondering "by the ways." this year's record global temps has come as an El Nino has begun. The full increase from El Nino typically shows up during the first full year. 2024 could be grotesque.

 

[DreadLox]

Nuclear if possible. Then the development of dependable renewable energy resources preferably ones that don't trade one problem for another like the insane minimum for lithium.

Don't abandon non renewable until we are able to phase off. The extra load on power grids, that are not ready and still need powered somehow, just trades one problem for another yet again.

Start telling people the truth instead of trying to terrify people for nothing more than power/money. Of course that would undo much of this, so it will never happen.



Maybe the most hilarious story in years was when the scientists went to document the disappeared ice cap just to be stuck in way more ice than they anticipated.

Now.....let's say they didn't get trapped. Wonder what their report would've been? Would it have been an honest report? I'm sure their funding source didn't want to hear about all the new ice

I'd like to read that story. Ice extent isn't usually measured by people on site.

Arctic Sea Ice Graph 1979 to Present

We're currently on course to have a 2023 sea ice extent more than 2 million square miles below the mean. That's a square of more than 1,400 miles on a side less than the mean. The ice that remains will be thinner that normal as well. So, as the song goes, it'll do until the real thing comes along.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I'd like to read that story. Ice extent isn't usually measured by people on site.

Interesting you aren't aware of either the story I mentioned nor the one where their emails were hacked and leaked showing them lying.

Those emails should be required reading for anyone debating the issue.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Can we agree to reject the term “renewable energy” until a renewable energy is discovered?

 

[DreadLox]

Interesting you aren't aware of either the story I mentioned nor the one where their emails were hacked and leaked showing them lying.

Those emails should be required reading for anyone debating the issue.

I remember the UAL pseudo-scandal. Fact checkers examined the emails and showed that the screamers were taking things out of context.

Let us stroll down memory lane and see what the kerfuffle was all about. In one of the emails a scientist claimed that they couldn't account for the lack of warming. That referred to the temperature record after the 98 El Nino that smashed the records. The complaint wasn't that there was no warming [as in the entire phenomenon] but as in why had the warming stalled. Scientists didn't have the understanding of what had happened. Hence the complaint that they couldn't explain it./ But, of course, now almost 20 years later temps have risen far beyond the 98 smashing of the record and the statistical re-analysis of a broad enough span of years showed that warming hadn't paused at all. The lesson: make sure you have enough samples to do accurate statistics.

There was also the howls over the term "trick". Which got interpreted as meaning "deception". Actually it was used to mean a specialist's technique. Those were the days when Michael Mann used ingenious statistical methods to produce the famous "hockey stick". His technique was so novel that some statisticians claimed they were invalid and that the "hockey stick" was a contrivance of fraudulent science. Then, study after study, using standard techniques, recreated the famous "hockey stick" and the issue quietly died. Until [points up there]. Mann's reputation among actual scientists survived and thrived.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I remember the UAL pseudo-scandal. Fact checkers examined the emails and showed that the screamers were taking things out of context.

Let us stroll down memory lane and see what the kerfuffle was all about. In one of the emails a scientist claimed that they couldn't account for the lack of warming. That referred to the temperature record after the 98 El Nino that smashed the records. The complaint wasn't that there was no warming [as in the entire phenomenon] but as in why had the warming stalled. Scientists didn't have the understanding of what had happened. Hence the complaint that they couldn't explain it./ But, of course, now almost 20 years later temps have risen far beyond the 98 smashing of the record and the statistical re-analysis of a broad enough span of years showed that warming hadn't paused at all. The lesson: make sure you have enough samples to do accurate statistics.

There was also the howls over the term "trick". Which got interpreted as meaning "deception". Actually it was used to mean a specialist's technique. Those were the days when Michael Mann used ingenious statistical methods to produce the famous "hockey stick". His technique was so novel that some statisticians claimed they were invalid and that the "hockey stick" was a contrivance of fraudulent science. Then, study after study, using standard techniques, recreated the famous "hockey stick" and the issue quietly died. Until [points up there]. Mann's reputation among actual scientists survived and thrived.

For someone who knew nothing about it, you became an expert rather quickly. I'm sure you deeply studied the texts of those emails and definitely did not read a vox piece on "what you should know" about the emails.

 

[DreadLox]

For someone who knew nothing about it, you became an expert rather quickly. I'm sure you deeply studied the texts of those emails and definitely did not read a vox piece on "what you should know" about the emails.

You made a general complaint. I was supposed to read your mind?

 

[LineSkiCat14]

My scheduled "let's say the alarmists are right, until we hold other countries accountable, then none of this matters" post.

I don't know what info is false or true. What I do know is that I don't want to see the US hamstring it's economy on this quest to end "climate change", while other countries laugh at our attempts and profit off this advantage.

If it's important for the U.S. then it's important for China. And if it's important for our national government, than it's important for your own household. Too many people want to finger wag about climate change who can't even be bothered to recycle.

 

[sluggercatfan]

More like 500 years oil and natural gas. 600 years in coal I believe. Still should use them too. We have been getting better at controlling emissions and will get better still.

Logical an sensible so never be given its due.

 

[DreadLox]

My scheduled "let's say the alarmists are right, until we hold other countries accountable, then none of this matters" post.

I don't know what info is false or true. What I do know is that I don't want to see the US hamstring it's economy on this quest to end "climate change", while other countries laugh at our attempts and profit off this advantage.

I suspect all advanced civilizations across the Cosmos end in a moment like this. Self-interest.

 

[roguemocha]

I suspect all advanced civilizations across the Cosmos end in a moment like this. Self-interest.

Rather die in this world than live a life chipped and monitored 24/7 with no cash and AI involved with everything personally. I’m sure we’ll all acclimate begrudgingly or not…

 

[DreadLox]

Rather die in this world than live a life chipped and monitored 24/7 with no cash and AI involved with everything personally. I’m sure we’ll all acclimate begrudgingly or not…

At this point in the soundtrack, the discordant chords jab away ...

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

When the liberal elite...most of whom are at the forefront of the "climate change" agenda push...stop buying massive estates on the beach or, stop flitting about the globe in their private jets, I'll take notice. Till then, I'm going to keep on laughing at the "world is boiling" crowd.

 

[warrior-cat]

When the liberal elite...most of whom are at the forefront of the "climate change" agenda push...stop buying massive estates on the beach or, stop flitting about the globe in their private jets, I'll take notice. Till then, I'm going to keep on laughing at the "world is boiling" crowd.

The liberal elite want to rule exclusively with no opposition from "We The People".

 

[8titles]

Right. There are parts of the world that have taken up and absorbed atmospheric CO2. They're called "sinks". A lot of them have become saturated with CO2 and can't take up more. Worse, some sinks have switched roles as they warm. They have become new sources of CO2. Like the oceans. So, during COVID lockdown those new sources of CO2 were able to replace the decline in CO2 from human activity. I remember reading that when warming reaches 2C above pre-industrial levels the amount of CO2 from these terrestrial sources will equal our output of CO2 from human activity. (Don't quote me on that. That could be wrong.) Regardless, as global temperatures rise terrestrial sources will put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

This new role of the oceans as sources of CO2 didn't begin with the COVID lockdown. It has been happening for a good while now.

While we're pondering "by the ways." this year's record global temps has come as an El Nino has begun. The full increase from El Nino typically shows up during the first full year. 2024 could be grotesque.

Sinks are ways for the atmosphere to absorb the CO2 and turn it into oxygen. There is no such thing as a negative sink, it's just a repository and a natural part of the cycle of the earth. They keep throwing terms around to change the perception but ultimately the earth has been, and will always dictate what it has in store for us.

 

[8titles]

The liberal elite want to rule exclusively with no opposition from "We The People".

It will be come We the WHO or We the WEF

 

[DreadLox]

Sinks are ways for the atmosphere to absorb the CO2 and turn it into oxygen. There is no such thing as a negative sink, it's just a repository and a natural part of the cycle of the earth. They keep throwing terms around to change the perception but ultimately the earth has been, and will always dictate what it has in store for us.

The ocean carbon cycle is extremely complex. Ordinarily CO2 gets absorbed in the ocean and broken down into carbonic acid, and various sea creatures take it up for their exoskeletons. When the critter dies its calcium carbonate shell sinks to the bottom. But too much carbonic acid is inhospitable to animals and so the warming sea increases the amount of CO2 that it puts back into the atmosphere.

The Earth didn't suddenly decide to increase atmospheric CO2. We aren't simply passive observers to the cycle.

 

[warrior-cat]

The ocean carbon cycle is extremely complex. Ordinarily CO2 gets absorbed in the ocean and broken down into carbonic acid, and various sea creatures take it up for their exoskeletons. When the critter dies its calcium carbonate shell sinks to the bottom. But too much carbonic acid is inhospitable to animals and so the warming sea increases the amount of CO2 that it puts back into the atmosphere.

The Earth didn't suddenly decide to increase atmospheric CO2. We aren't simply passive observers to the cycle.

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

 

[Kingseve1]

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

Who told you this? Scientists?

 

[cole854]

The Earth didn't suddenly decide to increase atmospheric CO2.

How do you know?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

You made a general complaint. I was supposed to read your mind?

I asked you specifically about them and you denied knowledge. No one that actually knew about them would respond as you did. You looked into, found a site with preferred talking points and responded with those.

It's ok because people like you aren't objective so the goal isn't to change your opinion. That will never happen. The goal is to point out to anyone actually objective the items they should look at before forming their opinion.

Item number 1 should always be the trove of emails where the "experts" were racking their brain trying to figure out how they were going to paint a warming picture when that wasn't the data. So they decided to just omit data until they got what they wanted.

Funny thing even that didn't last. That's why the lemming phrase keeps evolving: global warming - climate change - climate disruption - climate emergency.

 

[8titles]

The ocean carbon cycle is extremely complex. Ordinarily CO2 gets absorbed in the ocean and broken down into carbonic acid, and various sea creatures take it up for their exoskeletons. When the critter dies its calcium carbonate shell sinks to the bottom. But too much carbonic acid is inhospitable to animals and so the warming sea increases the amount of CO2 that it puts back into the atmosphere.

The Earth didn't suddenly decide to increase atmospheric CO2. We aren't simply passive observers to the cycle.

At the most we contribute 3.2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and you think we are in control of it? OK then. So you and the others that continually reply are so sold on it that you won't argue the numbers which are 100% proven, yet you continue to act like we have some magical way to control what the earth is doing one way or another. We haven't ever controlled it, even during the COVID experiment the CO2 levels stayed level if not went up slightly, but someone you think that is because we are so saturated by it? Such a far stretch from any reality but whatever, not work the argument.

 

[Kingseve1]

How do you know?

During all of the cycles between ice ages and warm periods over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide never climbed higher than 300 parts per million. At the end of the last ice age around 20,000 years ago, it was 280 ppm. Today it is close to 410. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster. Only fossil fuels—which are the remains of millions of years of carbon uptake by plants—contain enough carbon to produce such a massive change in such a short time.

In addition, only fossil fuels are consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon in today’s atmosphere. Different kinds of carbon-containing material have different relative amounts of “light” carbon-12, “heavy” carbon-13, and radioactive carbon-14. Plant matter is enriched in carbon-12, because its lighter weight is more readily used by plants during photosynthesis. Volcanic emissions are enriched in carbon-13. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and the ocean are roughly the same. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it decays predictably over time. Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all.

As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen over the past century or more, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen, which means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12. Meanwhile, the relative amount of carbon-14—radioactive carbon—has declined. The record of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is complicated by nuclear bomb testing after 1950, which doubled the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. After the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963, the excess atmospheric carbon-14 began to decline as it dispersed into the oceans and the land biosphere.

In the last four decades, however, the decline of carbon-14 has been noticeably faster than can be explained by continuing dispersal of the bomb-related carbon-14. This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio of 14-carbon dioxide (i.e., carbon dioxide containing a carbon-14 atom) to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Taken together, then, we are looking for a source of carbon dioxide that comes from terrestrial plants (because they are depleted in "heavy" carbon-13), is so old that any carbon-14 it once contained has decayed to non-detectable levels, and is capable of creating a pulse of carbon dioxide that is larger and faster than anything that’s occurred in at least the past million years. Only fossil fuels meet all those criteria.

 

[WayneDougan]

During all of the cycles between ice ages and warm periods over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide never climbed higher than 300 parts per million. At the end of the last ice age around 20,000 years ago, it was 280 ppm. Today it is close to 410. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster. Only fossil fuels—which are the remains of millions of years of carbon uptake by plants—contain enough carbon to produce such a massive change in such a short time.

In addition, only fossil fuels are consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon in today’s atmosphere. Different kinds of carbon-containing material have different relative amounts of “light” carbon-12, “heavy” carbon-13, and radioactive carbon-14. Plant matter is enriched in carbon-12, because its lighter weight is more readily used by plants during photosynthesis. Volcanic emissions are enriched in carbon-13. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and the ocean are roughly the same. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it decays predictably over time. Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all.

As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen over the past century or more, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen, which means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12. Meanwhile, the relative amount of carbon-14—radioactive carbon—has declined. The record of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is complicated by nuclear bomb testing after 1950, which doubled the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. After the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963, the excess atmospheric carbon-14 began to decline as it dispersed into the oceans and the land biosphere.

In the last four decades, however, the decline of carbon-14 has been noticeably faster than can be explained by continuing dispersal of the bomb-related carbon-14. This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio of 14-carbon dioxide (i.e., carbon dioxide containing a carbon-14 atom) to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Taken together, then, we are looking for a source of carbon dioxide that comes from terrestrial plants (because they are depleted in "heavy" carbon-13), is so old that any carbon-14 it once contained has decayed to non-detectable levels, and is capable of creating a pulse of carbon dioxide that is larger and faster than anything that’s occurred in at least the past million years. Only fossil fuels meet all those criteria.

When are you going to get to the point?

 

[DreadLox]

How do you know?

Subtract what we produce from the total.

 

[cole854]

Subtract what we produce from the total.

So you don't know, nor do you have any clue how these "numbers" are calculated, outside of all the global Fauci's saying so.

 

[Kingseve1]

When are you going to get to the point?

For decades, scientists, have been able to measure the amount of carbon in the air and whether it is radioactive carbon, which is alive, and prehistoric dead carbon, which is non-radioactive carbon.

 

[DreadLox]

At the most we contribute 3.2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and you think we are in control of it? OK then. So you and the others that continually reply are so sold on it that you won't argue the numbers which are 100% proven, yet you continue to act like we have some magical way to control what the earth is doing one way or another. We haven't ever controlled it, even during the COVID experiment the CO2 levels stayed level if not went up slightly, but someone you think that is because we are so saturated by it? Such a far stretch from any reality but whatever, not work the argument.

I don't know where you got that number.

Pre-Industrial levels: 280 ppm
Current levels: 405 ppm

125 ppm is considerably more than 3.2%

The non-human large sources of CO2 and CH4 -- thawing tundra, forest fires -- can be traced to changes in human activity.

You seem to imagine that scientists believe that we have "magic"? The amount of carbon produced by fuel, fertilizer, agriculture, construction, etc can be calculated. The amount of energy involved can be derived from the same science that produced the computer, cell phones, the atomic bomb, etc.

I understand. Who wants to change a relatively lovely way of life? Life sometimes/usually involves choices between the intolerable and the unbearable. Them's the breaks.

 

[DreadLox]

I asked you specifically about them and you denied knowledge. No one that actually knew about them would respond as you did. You looked into, found a site with preferred talking points and responded with those.

It's ok because people like you aren't objective so the goal isn't to change your opinion. That will never happen. The goal is to point out to anyone actually objective the items they should look at before forming their opinion.

Item number 1 should always be the trove of emails where the "experts" were racking their brain trying to figure out how they were going to paint a warming picture when that wasn't the data. So they decided to just omit data until they got what they wanted.

Funny thing even that didn't last. That's why the lemming phrase keeps evolving: global warming - climate change - climate disruption - climate emergency.

This is what you mean by "specific"

Maybe the most hilarious story in years was when the scientists went to document the disappeared ice cap just to be stuck in way more ice than they anticipated.

I had no idea what story you were talking about. I still don't know the getting stuck in the ice story you were talking about. Had you mentioned the email hacking, that would have been different. The web site Real Climate had begun around that time, and they went into the issue in great detail. But in general, if you imagine that I'm constantly lying, I can't possibly be worth talking to. Life's too short.