BillT

39 degrees and moderate rain here in far eastern walker county bama.....winds at about 2mph right now from the SSE but has been from the N or NW for the last few hours...   .22 of an inch rain in the last hour

26 minutes ago, eastkywx said:

Checking in from Prestonsburg, KY. Still a cold, blustery rain. Seeing a changeover roughly 20 miles away, so looking towards the west and waiting. 

i grew up in pikeville, radar looks like both those towns will change to heavy snow soon

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Those are over millions of years not hundreds of years.

agreed that is a millions of years graph but the swings then and now have very similar slopes......and the point remains intact there has always been wild swings in the climate even before humans were here, i submit those forces that caused those wild swings still exist today and humans do NOT have the power to overpower such forces.

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes, but that’s well before the Holocene. Nevertheless, what one is witnessing today is highly unusual.

 

not unusual when looking at the graph you supplied, wild swings up and down are the USUAL according to that graph what is NOT on the graph is any extended period of stability........i must mention at least you have been civil and that is appreciated.

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The rate of warming has been unprecedented for the Holocene. For a graph that goes well beyond the Holocene for even greater perspective:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

the graph shows far more dramatic warming and cooling in the past....much larger swings and almost straight up and down compared to the last 70 years, being born in 1951 i have been alive for most all of this time period and have not seen any dramatic warming at all, the largest single snowfall i have seen was in 1993 in pelham alabama.....biggest hurricane i experienced was Camille in 1969, biggest tornado outbreak i saw was in the early 70's that reached from bama way up into ohio

1 minute ago, psv88 said:

Don has laid out a coherent argument supported by data and facts. You choose to ignore it. There is no reasoning with people like yourself. Wasted time and air. I could present a solid case and you will still argue that man made climate change is fake. Time for the millennials to take the helm.

you are dismissed for lying about me as a person and refusing to take part in the discussion of science.

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Scientific understanding advances through research. That research is published in peer-reviewed journals. The topic at hand concerns anthropogenic climate change. No other alternative explanation can explain the recent dramatic warming that has occurred since 1950. Mann’s research has contributed to a solid scientific understanding. 

If anthropogenic climate change is “fraud,” one should have credible scientific research to expose it. Such credible research does not exist, because the scientific basis is sound. 

Earlier, I provided a link to subsequent research that validated Mann’s paper. No one has provided a link to any paper that overturns it. That’s where things stand.

Finally, the reference to policy was an illustration to show that the world is moving to applying the scientific understanding. The scientific question, with the exception of some nuances, residual uncertainties, and details about feedbacks is largely settled on the cause of the ongoing observed warming.

there has been no dramatic warming since 1950........you want dramatic warming look back and explain how humans caused warming enough to melt the ice covering most of the planet for a very long time?  you want ocean rising how about when the land bridges between russia and alaska are now under water?.....i need nothing to prove dramatic changes have happened with nothing to do with humans, YOU need to show how humans have overpowered all of those natural forces and now are in control by releasing co2!

7 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Sure it does. You have limited time left on earth so care less than the younger generations who are the future stewards of our planet.

enough with your LYING about me as a person, i have grandchildren and great grandchildren, i care more about their future than my own....please discuss the science and make no more personal comments.

1 minute ago, psv88 said:

How old are you BillT?

68 and my age has zero to do with any discussion of the science of our climate.......your comments so far have been personal in nature and had nothing to do with the discussion of science.

25 minutes ago, psv88 said:

There should be a specific thread for climate change deniers to bounce ideas off of eachother. 

Being a red tagger or having a degree has no bearing on the accuracy of your position. There were many doctors working for the cigarette companies in the 1960s who claimed that the medical evidence showed that smoking did not cause cancer...they had an MD and abused it

nobody here is denying climate change......

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Hopefully, others who read these pages will realize that, notwithstanding erroneous Social Media claims, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” has been validated by subsequent research. The good news is that the world has largely moved on from the past debate over whether climate change is occurring (it is) and whether it is principally driven by anthropogenic activities (it is). Those who reject the now near unequivocal consensus among climate scientists have had decades to provide a plausible and empirically robust alternative to AGW. They have not.

Among the Millennials and Generation Z, the fundamental basis of climate change is widely understood. The urgency of addressing that great global challenge is also well understood. It’s those generations that will, as their political influence and participation grows, put an end to efforts to thwart the policy making necessary to address climate change. 

another strawman, ty, i have in no way denied climate change in fact i have noted the climate always changes because any set of stats derived from constantly changing numbers will also constantly change...no reasonable person looking at the science can deny the climate changes and strawman further is claiming those disagreeing that humans are the cause of climate change are denying climate change itself....you are correct the younger folks having been taught this fraud indeed accept it..........i have not made any political comment in this entire discussion only dealing in the real science....while your post in the last portion shows it IS politics to you trying to make political change for something unproven.....the younger folks will now "vote" on the science while i KNOW science is NEVER done by voting or consensus.

i have made no comment about his "paper" or its conclusions i have only commented on the fraud of a hockey stick that ignores warming and cooling over the last time covered showing the warm period and the little ice age as a flat line then suddenly coming out of the little ice age a blade for the hockey stick almost going straight up for lesser warming that showed as a flat line on the same chart.....

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

Mann created his landmark temperature chart from multiple lines of proxy data and the instrument record.

nice strawman, ignoring my post......he set up the program to produce a hockey stick regardless to which set of numbers was used.....my comment was about the program itself, NOT the numbers used......

models assign a weight or power to different factors, that is how mann created the hockey stick assigning far more weight to the recent stats making them make moves the previous factors didnt and i agree the models are not reliable at all they dont really account for the most powerful ghg water vapor and when they do they call it a warming factor when it is clear rain cools the areas where it falls.

8 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I don't personally know him. I know he built an empire on the CAGW theory so if he was wrong his life's work is wrong. That would sting anyone's ego. But I don't think scientists try to use bad data or methodology on purpose. Maybe he just didn't know? 

 

i saw a poker show a couple of nights ago in a very expensive area where multi million dollar yachts are docked...at one home they were showing along that water that said that is michael mann's house,IF it is the same person he sure is very wealthy for a college professor.,,,a quick check indicates there is more than one M mann and at least one of them is wealthy

6 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What is the something else?  How can CO2 remain constant or keep rising slowly when temperatures fall in ice core records? So at first something begins the process of cooling CO2 doesn't do anything and then after 1000 years or so it becomes dominant?  That doesn't doesn't make any sense at all. Its a thorn in the sides of alarmists. CO2 has stayed steady or even risen and temperatures plunge during glacial inception. Makes no sense. If CO2 was such a powerful control knob on climate that wouldn't happen. Plus the whole positive CO2-H20 feedback makes no sense either. So there is a little warming from ANY forcing, this warming leads to more water vapor which then leads to more CO2 from the oceans outgassing. Then the CO2-H20 feedback kicks in and you have an unstable climate system.  It doesn't happen. CO2 does not drive the climate system. It never did in the past and it won't in the future. We may see some minor warming 1.5C (or less)...but that is all. If there is a positive feedback it would be unstable and go out of control. What is the breaking mechanism? No one can answer that. Not even PHD climate "scientists". 

that is my simple terms concept, IF co2 was causing the earth to lose less heat to space that would be obvious and the earth would be a cinder in short order......OR as you posted it would be unstable and go out of control.

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

I don't think he did this on purpose or was fraudulent with his research. I do not agree with his methodology and yes his statistics are flawed. But he believes in his work. That's all. 

it is hard for me to accept that any "scientist"would use flawed data and bad methodology as part of their pursuit of the truth.

On 9/1/2020 at 11:19 AM, skierinvermont said:

Even if the blanket were not touching me the air gets warmer inside the blanket because the heat loss is slowed. CO2 is very similar to a blanket being thrown over the earth. Do you deny that the air inside the blanket gets warmer even though the molecules of the blanket scatter heat in random directions? This random scattering of heat can all be simulated by computer and it shows warming in the lower layers.

the room doesn’t get warmer because the room is outer space and the stratosphere in this example. They actually cool as does the room temporarily because less heat is escaping until the earth or air inside the blanket get so hot they start emitting enough heat that the energy flows balance again

would that warming be by radiation or direct contact with your warm body in the air that is almost trapped?

mann created the hockey stick something no scientist would ever do, but something a con artist indeed would do......his creation gave a hockey stick no matter what data was input, by design it gave the result he wanted.

ty for the response somewhere around here i posted in laymans terms what you wrote, that an IR wave leaves the earth and a small portion of it excites a co2 molecule which in turn releases a new IR wave with no directional push......the "heat" is what happens when the energy of the IR and other lengths of waves interact with molecules.

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

How so?  I have been studying this topic for 30 years and have an MS in atmospheric science. I have conversed with top minds in radiative transfer and the whole CO2 leading to catastrophic dangerous warming is just not accurate. It doesn't fit with the paleo records. It does fit with the radiative transfer. it doesn't make sense with the feedbacks...I can go on.... What is your scientific opinion? 

i admire your efforts here and you are correct, earlier you noted the 1930s warmth which clearly was erased by the creator of the charts that started this thread........in that way of thinking indeed this whole story is man made, man manipulating the statistics to create a false image........simple common sense is IF co2 was indeed trapping heat and blocking a portion of the IR waves taking heat from the earth to space, each and every day the total heat here would increase and the earth would have been a cinder long ago

this thread is about a michael mann idea and many in error call him a scientist, when reality is he is a con artist.

many here have an agenda and write long posts that appear to be impressive but in reality are NOT science on any level.......their claim that human released co2 has overpowered all the natural forces and now is the driver is a stupid claim no matter how many ways they try to back it....i attempt using simple terms like no insulator ADDS heat to any system which is simple science fact, and they counter with long posts explaining how their chosen insulator co2 indeed DOES ADD heat to the earth system.

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.......there is NO proof on any level that 100% of that increase was done by human release........it is a FACT that co2 has been much higher in the past and humans certainly did NOT cause that, so to claim we are 100% to blame now is NOT science on any level.you are claiming ALL other sources have been 100% unchanged and that makes no sense on any level.

4 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

My blanket takes issue with your blanket statement that no insulator ever traps heat. The air inside my blanket is toasty.

so you are claiming your blanket stays warm even after you get up it doesnt return to room temperature soon after you get out of bed??????