blizzard1024

Read this too.... https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/10/10/the-west-intends-energy-suicide-will-it-succeed/#5044408c490e This gives you another side to your "rosy" green energy fantasies. I have told you this like 12 times now...and you don't listen. /sarc

https://sciencing.com/effects-solar-power-farms-environment-13547.html

Who defines what quality research is? Its similar to history, the winner of a war writes the history....

Assuming that fossil fuels leads to dangerous global warming which is a circular argument. You can't make this assumption. Humans have made tremendous advances in quality of life to a level not ever seem by Homo Sapiens. This is because of cheap energy. Go ahead, go to renewables before the technology is ready and you will see global economic collapse. And poor people already struggling would suffer the most. The agenda of the radical climate activists would be exceptional cruel to a lot of poorer people. It is an anti-human campaign. So do you folks still drive gas power cars? Use heat from fossil fuels? Use products that were derived from fossil fuels?

Because the "gate-keepers" of the peer review process are climate alarmists and won't entertain anything else.

who do you think YOU are? Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago. have a nice day.

You are assuming scientists understand the climate system enough to predict all the non-linear effects. You don't understand how modeling works. GCMs are full of assumptions, parameterizations and can't even handle convection or clouds explicitly. These are major factors in the Earth's climate. So many of us with experience in atmospheric science who understand this can't believe the hubris presented by climate scientists who think they have it all figured out. The debate is over they say. That is anti-science itself. I have seen the corruption in climate science firsthand too.

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted. Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts. Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions? Why is it different now? It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world. It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful.

yeah that's because in the third world they are wrecking the environment. deforestation mainly. nothing to do with CO2.

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too??? Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them? It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous. There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms? That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature.

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, people resort to burning wood because they can't afford to heat their homes. Deforestation goes up. We have been seeing this in Europe. It's a huge problem in the 3rd world when they don't have access to cheap fossil fuels. So they raze their environment causing massive deforestation and mass extinctions. So yeah the green new deal or anything similar before the technology and cost supports it is the biggest threat to our environment in so many ways. If you are an environmentalist like me don't let the name fool you. It is a disaster for our wildlife and natural habitats.

Carbon pollution? CO2 is not pollution. If it is, then we should stop breathing. I noticed everyone is ducking the potential environmental degradation from wind and solar. A disaster.

This is a HUGE threat to our environment, way more than a small rise in global temperature. I fear a landscape riddled with solar and wind farms decimating natural habitats. What a disaster this is going to be! And because a minor GHG CO2 will cause a small rise in global temperature. This actually benefits mankind. This renewable energy push is too early and will cost us dearly. Energy rates will soar and the environment will suffer. It's not green, its anti-human and anti environment. Save the Planet? what a joke.

I always have disagreed with subsidies for any energy industry and I would agree with your assessment that fossil fuel companies shouldn't be getting subsidies. They make billions and billions in profits....

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal. Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't.

For hundreds of years parts of the Earth stay warmer and are compensated by colder parts of the Earth for a very balanced climate state. That is not how the atmospheric works. Ocean currents transport warm and cold across the hemispheres over times scales of decades. The Earth stuck in different "modes" for centuries it just off. It doesn't jive with fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, convection, cloud cover or even radiative transfer. Somehow today everything is different now because of a minor GHG CO2 which needs amplifying effects of H20 to really impact the climate. This is just not logical. So by this logic, insolation increases a little bit, cloud cover decreases a little bit by natural causes which warms the Earth a little, then more evaporation takes places and enhances this warming. The enhanced warming, then leads to more evaporation and more H20 which further warms the planet and so on. What is the breaking mechanism? There has to be something or the Earth's climate goes off the rails. Anyway, a minor GHG with a small absorption band, CO2 does not drive the climate. Total solar output, convection, cloud cover, water vapor and ocean currents do. CO2 is a small component. Without climate models, you can't prove that it does. The paleo studies assume a larger role of CO2 which is unproven. The tiring fact that CO2 did not drive the climate back then based on ice core data should have put this all to rest more than a decade ago. But the climate change gravy train had too much momentum and money to stop so it continues today. The insanity grows more and more so that all weather, and anomalies are basically now affected by this minor trace gas through a feedback mechanism. But this narrative is working...the politicians are listening and this could fundamentally change the western world into a socialist hell. Cheap energy is good for the environment. Again, look at Haiti where there is barely a tree standing because they use charcoal and wood for cooking and heat. Life expectancies are very low. Poverty means destruction of the environment. In Venezuela, they are poached wild animals, birds and even eating their own pets to survive. Again, extreme poverty because of socialism is decimating their environment. People live shorter brutal lives. We don't want that in America. Going to renewables by 2035 would destroy our economy. And if you like the fact that countries like Haiti have minimal carbon emission why don't you move there? In fact, why do you folks even drive cars? You shouldn't use electricity either, or heat your home. I bet you can find a cave to live in and go back to the stone age. That would help and make you guys FEEL better.

Yep. That is what climate scientists typically do, they shut down or ignore "the other side" when they are confronted with inconvenient facts. Even though at times one or two posters have been rude, the majority of them have not and it has been interesting and informative.

It is logarithmic. This is from the climate activist blog realclimate RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig). In math "ln" means natural logarithm in case you didn't know this. So indeed lower amounts of CO2 have more of an influence so the statement that CO2 was too low so other effects dominated the climate system and now it is dominating the system is false mathematically.

This drives my crazy. How can this be? This is NOT how the atmosphere works! You don't have centuries of persistent intense anomalies in one part of the world that don't eventually change due to basic fluid dynamics. It is a cop out for the climate alarmists. So basically Greenland was warmer and habitable for centuries as well as Europe and North America and these same areas got much colder during the LIA. The rest of the planet got colder during the MWP to balance the warmth out and then got warmer in the LIA to balance the cold out? I know a geologist who specializes in tree rings proxies in Alaska and he clearly can see both MWP and LIA in his data. Here are some examples... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/095968399672825976 clearly warm periods and cold periods coincident with MWP and LIA. Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251 Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania. Environmental Reviews, online Just-IN, doi: 10.1139/er-2019-0012 Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. P. Bamonte, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. Quaternary International, 508: 70-87. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.041. Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2017): Warming and cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia. Paleoceanography 32 (11): 1219-1235, doi: 10.1002/2017PA003237. On 29 June 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica appeared in the trade journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Here is the abstract: So here is peer reviewed papers on the MWP and LIA in other parts of the world that are probably ignored because it is very inconvenient to mainstream climate folks. How do we not know that we are just rebounding from the LIA with some added CO2 forcing and of course UHI effects which are often ignored too.

Proxy data that ignores known roman, medieval warm periods and the dark age and little ice age cold periods and then stitched higher resolution observations at the end. The Hockey Stick. There is no way the Earth's climate has been this steady for almost 2000 years. CO2 never lead temperatures in the past, why now? explain. You need a strong water vapor feedback too. There is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.

Sea levels have been rising well before mass burning of fossil fuels. What caused this? The climate supposedly was in a perfect stasis before man made fossil fuel burning began en-masse mid 20th century. Plus according to many of you the Little Ice Age was just a regional phenomenon? So I have never heard a good explanation for why sea levels and presumable OHC has risen since the mid 1800s.

Its UHI... see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271620302082#!

How can we be certain this is related to CO2 levels and not natural variability? What about the warmth of the 1930s? Did we really know what the ocean heat content was back then? Plus this site in Hawaii that is on this guys twitter only has data back to 1954. This is not long enough to make such sweeping conclusions that manmade greenhouse gases are causing this. A recent paper actually is showing continued declines the upper tropospheric absolute humidity even the ERA5 data at 200 mb... see https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/TPW-and-GHE.pdf This suggests that CO2 is not the driver of the current warming trend. So to blame all this on CO2 levels is a stretch.

Hurricanes have been ravaging the Gulf Coast for eons. How do we know that all of the sudden now they are getting stronger before landfall? How did we measure that 100 years ago? It's not just ocean heat content that drives Hurricanes. Interaction with the westerlies, wind shear and frictional effects all are important before landfall. You can't say that global warming causes this. The warmer ocean waters can't even be proven to be related to global warming from CO2. This is all hype right before a presidential election. They want voters to believe the weather is getting more severe because of CO2 levels. This is insanity. CO2 levels have little to do with storm severity. Climate scientists want there to be a link so all this research is coming out trying to tie severe weather events to global warming. And Michael Mann is not even an atmospheric scientist. He basically is a climate activist and that is what passes for academia now in atmospheric science departments at major universities. sad.