Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[Cobalt]

On 10/14/2025 at 7:55 AM, ChescoWx said:

LOL! wonder why he chose to include only March to August??

Still wondering about this. Why did you criticize the national temperature map for "only including March to August" when you previously posted/backed a map which only included January 1st-February 21st?

On 2/22/2025 at 10:43 AM, ChescoWx said:

Almost coast to coast cold so far this year. The entire country except spots in Maine, Florida and The Southwest running with below normal temperatures since January 1st. Is this the start of our next cyclical climate change cycle of a turn to colder?

 

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, Cobalt said:

Still wondering about this. Why did you criticize the national temperature map for "only including March to August" when you previously posted/backed a map which only included January 1st-February 21st?

 

No need to still be pondering this....just looking for the complete facts!

[Cobalt]

28 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

No need to still be pondering this....just looking for the complete facts!

You expected to find the complete facts from a timespan that runs exclusively from January 1st to February 21st?

[Typhoon Tip]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DQdQAs-DuNd/?igsh=MXRuYWplNHZ6b3VnMg==

[Typhoon Tip]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DQYXFlND2I6/?igsh=MXdqbzlodzQyaWNpeQ==

[ChescoWx]

On 10/31/2025 at 9:29 AM, Cobalt said:

You expected to find the complete facts from a timespan that runs exclusively from January 1st to February 21st?

Of course the complete facts include January 1st to February 21st....correct? 

[ChescoWx]

13 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DQYXFlND2I6/?igsh=MXdqbzlodzQyaWNpeQ==

Frightening!

[Typhoon Tip]

In one school of philosophy ... this is actually a good thing -

"Climate change inaction costs millions of lives each year, report warns"

( https://phys.org/news/2025-11-climate-inaction-millions-year.html )

It's always been about population.  Too many human beings.   It's callous perhaps to put it in such terms, but reality and math and logic ...?  they are dispassionately true like that.  When there are 8 and some odd billion in population pumping out Industrial volatile chemistry as exhaust... it overwhelms the Earth's physical processes.  If our species is going to survive by producing all that exhaust, there needs to be far fewer of us.  It's interesting that  we are being forced to make a choice between inaction and death, vs action when part of that action requiring less births/controlling population.  Either way, less people

The population correction is already begun, folks - it's just not striking everyone's streets at the same time. 

Some of which is happening unwittingly, by the way.  It is now either too socially disadvantageous for younger child rearing, or there's gamete potency problems manifesting in general male population - the latter is cited/scienced.  Birthing rates are empirically dropping at an alarming rate around the world.  Whether it is socioeconomic, environmental, or some aspect of both ( probably both..) it seems the ultimatum cannot be escaped.  And while that spectrum of causes isn't related to climate change, exactly, again ... too much population.

 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

In one school of philosophy ... this is actually a good thing -

"Climate change inaction costs millions of lives each year, report warns"

( https://phys.org/news/2025-11-climate-inaction-millions-year.html )

It's always been about population.  Too many human beings.   It's callous perhaps to put it in such terms, but reality and math and logic ...?  they are dispassionately true like that.  When there are 8 and some odd billion in population pumping out Industrial volatile chemistry as exhaust... it overwhelms the Earth's physical processes.  If our species is going to survive by producing all that exhaust, there needs to be far fewer of us.  It's interesting that  we are being forced to make a choice between inaction and death, vs action when part of that action requiring less births/controlling population.  Either way, less people

The population correction is already begun, folks - it's just not striking everyone's streets at the same time. 

Some of which is happening unwittingly, by the way.  It is now either too socially disadvantageous for younger child rearing, or there's gamete potency problems manifesting in general male population - the latter is cited/scienced.  Birthing rates are empirically dropping at an alarming rate around the world.  Whether it is socioeconomic, environmental, or some aspect of both ( probably both..) it seems the ultimatum cannot be escaped.  And while that spectrum of causes isn't related to climate change, exactly, again ... too much population.

 

 

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/

Something doesn't jive.   Methinks it's the information in these "reports".

(So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/

Something doesn't jive.   Methinks it's the information in these "reports".

(So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

Heh,  life expectancy can have multiple definitions - depending on context..etc.  

First of all, it's not just about CC killing people.   That's childish really.  I just hear this doubter's tactic all the time, too. Not sure if it is because they can't see the bigger picture, or they have some other aspect about their minds that limits their perceptions into very narrow inclusions.  I'm not saying it's you, but too often retorts are myopically linear like that. Reductive, when not conflating.  Reductive really is the best word for it, where they either do not understanding or are predisposed to ignore the fuller extent of nuanced complexity that really constructs the topic at hand.  Or, are just being immorally devices in only giving data that supports their side. 

Why not give it a try?   The upshot is that it's trying to save lives.  I mean like what's the doubter point- there is none.  Don't do anything because one thinks their is no risk, is a Darwinian Award looking for a ceremonial.  

The total assessment of life expectancy comes from any array of additions and subtractions of factors, both of which are also changing in time.

Ex, a human at birth in 2025 has a much longer life expectancy than 1725 because of improv(e)(ing) medical standards relative to era.  Other discoveries since and including the advantages of, the Industrial Revolution, is why the population of the world soared billions since 1750.  This is all vastly more pervasively effecting the extension of life than millions dying from CC.  

(CC killing millions + population either opting out, or losing birth capacity)  / 2 = some hindrance to life expectancy that has, so far, much less weight than the advantages of the last 200 years - the trailing generations of which are yet also advantaged ever more.  But this is all a situation that is changing. 

The bottom line is... people will doubt whatever it is they don't want/can't or agenda to admit, until it causes them pain.  There is no such thing in their mind as a CC. There is no such thing as a polluted penis problem.   They’ll defiantly remain hard headed until they suffer, then?  they are usually evangelical going the other way. I don’t usually engage in this level of the discussion because I find this limitation blocking sight of subject at hand to be all but an impossible barrier. so … just have to wait it out. Eventually denial will be replaced by shame 

[Toro99]

 

[Toro99]

Fascinating listen, not sure what to believe anymore. 

[FPizz]

21 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/

Something doesn't jive.   Methinks it's the information in these "reports".

(So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

The charts that show life expectancy and the warming temp charts you can nearly lay on top of one another and you wouldn't know the difference.  

[GaWx]

On 11/3/2025 at 11:31 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

In one school of philosophy ... this is actually a good thing -

"Climate change inaction costs millions of lives each year, report warns"

( https://phys.org/news/2025-11-climate-inaction-millions-year.html )

It's always been about population.  Too many human beings.   It's callous perhaps to put it in such terms, but reality and math and logic ...?  they are dispassionately true like that.  When there are 8 and some odd billion in population pumping out Industrial volatile chemistry as exhaust... it overwhelms the Earth's physical processes.  If our species is going to survive by producing all that exhaust, there needs to be far fewer of us.  It's interesting that  we are being forced to make a choice between inaction and death, vs action when part of that action requiring less births/controlling population.  Either way, less people

The population correction is already begun, folks - it's just not striking everyone's streets at the same time. 

Some of which is happening unwittingly, by the way.  It is now either too socially disadvantageous for younger child rearing, or there's gamete potency problems manifesting in general male population - the latter is cited/scienced.  Birthing rates are empirically dropping at an alarming rate around the world.  Whether it is socioeconomic, environmental, or some aspect of both ( probably both..) it seems the ultimatum cannot be escaped.  And while that spectrum of causes isn't related to climate change, exactly, again ... too much population.

 

 The jury is out on whether or not CC is bringing down/will bring down average lifespans. Why?

-If we assume CC significantly increases food supply via larger crops, that (would) markedly reduces deaths related to malnutrition. That is (would be) huge!

-Cold has historically been a bigger killer than heat although that eventually might even out way down the road and then perhaps later even reverse.

-Sea level rises are gradual. Thus a lot of the death potential from it can easily be mitigated by moving to higher ground.

-When considering all of the above, CC may actually (continue to) result in increased average life spans with increased deaths from heat/flooding/more intense hurricanes notwithstanding.

[bdgwx]

On 11/4/2025 at 9:49 AM, Toro99 said:

Fascinating listen, not sure what to believe anymore. 

You should align your position with the consilience of evidence. The consilience of evidence is contrary to what Lindzen and Happer say.

For example...

Lindzen says that the Earth has an adaptive iris effect that causes more light to reflect back to space as the planet warms and that will result in little to no warming of the planet overall. And yet here we are with a warming planet and a declining albedo. That's a double whammy for Lindzen's model. Other models like those proposed by [Manabe & Wetherald 1967] long before the psuedoskeptics made their appearance say that the planet will warm and will do so with an amplifying effect as a result of a lowering of albedo. Lindzen talks a big game with an academic style delivery that seems to command authority, but no one uses his models because they don't work in the real world. Mainstream models built upon the consilience of evidence may not be perfect, but at least they actually work.

Happer says that the CO2 effect is saturated. But every radiative transfer model in use today says the opposite. The RRTM is one such model that is widely used in global circulation models forecasting high impact weather events in which people's lives are literally at stake. The RRTM is a core module among the physics modules that run within GCMs like the GFS and ECMWF which would be nearly useless without it. The RRTM is also used to design and build space based radiometers for observational meteorology like the ABI onboard the GOES-R satellites. The RRTM says that the effective radiative force of CO2 at 800 ppm is roughly +4 W.m-2 as compared to if CO2 is at 400 ppm. Happer talks a big game with an academic style delivery that seems to command authority, but no one uses his models because they don't work in the real world. Mainstream models built upon the consilience of evidence may not be perfect, but at least they actually work.

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/climate/amazon-lakes-heatwave-hot-tub-dolphin-death

[Silver Meteor]

On 11/4/2025 at 10:47 AM, Toro99 said:

 

Brilliant! Unfortunately the people who most need to hear this are the ones least likely to do so. 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 11/6/2025 at 2:21 PM, bdgwx said:

You should align your position with the consilience of evidence. The consilience of evidence is contrary to what Lindzen and Happer say.

For example...

Lindzen says that the Earth has an adaptive iris effect that causes more light to reflect back to space as the planet warms and that will result in little to no warming of the planet overall. And yet here we are with a warming planet and a declining albedo. That's a double whammy for Lindzen's model. Other models like those proposed by [Manabe & Wetherald 1967] long before the psuedoskeptics made their appearance say that the planet will warm and will do so with an amplifying effect as a result of a lowering of albedo. Lindzen talks a big game with an academic style delivery that seems to command authority, but no one uses his models because they don't work in the real world. Mainstream models built upon the consilience of evidence may not be perfect, but at least they actually work.

Happer says that the CO2 effect is saturated. But every radiative transfer model in use today says the opposite. The RRTM is one such model that is widely used in global circulation models forecasting high impact weather events in which people's lives are literally at stake. The RRTM is a core module among the physics modules that run within GCMs like the GFS and ECMWF which would be nearly useless without it. The RRTM is also used to design and build space based radiometers for observational meteorology like the ABI onboard the GOES-R satellites. The RRTM says that the effective radiative force of CO2 at 800 ppm is roughly +4 W.m-2 as compared to if CO2 is at 400 ppm. Happer talks a big game with an academic style delivery that seems to command authority, but no one uses his models because they don't work in the real world. Mainstream models built upon the consilience of evidence may not be perfect, but at least they actually work.

 

 

It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt.  Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable.   

This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach.  He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years.  So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect.   It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them?  No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that.  It's obvious these guys are specious.  Or stupid.  ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'

 

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt.  Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable.   

This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach.  He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years.  So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect.   It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them?  No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that.  It's obvious these guys are specious.  Or stupid.  ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'

 

 

This board has taught me never to underestimate the power of confirmation bias. 

[bdgwx]

15 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt.  Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable.   

This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach.  He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years.  So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect.   It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them?  No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that.  It's obvious these guys are specious.  Or stupid.  ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'

 

Both Lindzen and Happer have been paid by players in the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on climate science.

I'll also remind readers here that Lindzen was paid by the tobacco industry to cast doubt there as well. 

Anyway, consensus in science is an inevitable result when the majority of scientists form their positions around the consilience of evidence. A consensus position is not always correct like was the case with the luminiferous ether, phlogiston, dismissal of continental drift, etc. but it is a position that represents the best understanding of reality given the evidence available. Being suspicious of consensus isn't a necessarily bad thing especially if it does not cross the threshold into psedudoskepticsism. The real problem with Lindzen's statement is the implication that consensus is always wrong and contrarianism is always right. I think he forgets Sagan's even more powerful principal that extraordinary claims (think contrarian claims here) require extraordinary evidence.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

Both Lindzen and Happer have been paid by players in the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on climate science.

I'll also remind readers here that Lindzen was paid by the tobacco industry to cast doubt there as well. 

Anyway, consensus in science is an inevitable result when the majority of scientists form their positions around the consilience of evidence. A consensus position is not always correct like was the case with the luminiferous ether, phlogiston, dismissal of continental drift, etc. but it is a position that represents the best understanding of reality given the evidence available. Being suspicious of consensus isn't a necessarily bad thing especially if it does not cross the threshold into psedudoskepticsism. The real problem with Lindzen's statement is the implication that consensus is always wrong and contrarianism is always right. I think he forgets Sagan's even more powerful principal that extraordinary claims (think contrarian claims here) require extraordinary evidence.

`Well there you go... if what you are saying is true ( bold ^ ...I'll leave that up to you) than it shows - this just a little logic application and critical analysis, they are dubious (and immoral by the way) without even knowing their history.