I am panicking about Global Warming

So just to make it simple. It appears the Great Warming event can be broken into three phases.

1 A phase from 1900 to 1940….the fastest period of permanent rise, dominated by natural causes.

2 A flat phase from 1940 to 1980 when aerosols overwhelmed large made CO2 increases and natural cause probably waned.

3 A period of rapid increases from 1980 to 2020, which simply normalized the slow period from 1940 to 1980. Natural warming resumed and the decline of aerosol temperature depression gives the appearance of rapid rises, which won’t be sustained.

….And the net of all this is the man made component of the 1.2 degree rise is probably around a half or 0.6 degrees.

So firstly, obviously when I say greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher I’m referring to the rate of production. That’s the chart I produced and have been referencing throughout.

Well we don't want people to get the wrong impression now do we.

I’m not factoring natural causes in lowering the temp increases at the end of the measurement period. Funny from a fellow who supports the view that natural causes can’t be producing any significant temperature change

Correction I said natural causes are not driving the current warming. I never said it can't produce significant temperature change. Again we wouldn't want to people to get the wrong impression.

I’m excluding natural causes in the first half of the century rise? Nope it’s all natural causes man made CO2 was too low to have a meaningful effect. That’s the whole point…half of the 1.2 degrees probably  came from natural causes.

Wrong, around half the the temperature rise in the early 20th century was due to CO2. Of the 1.2° degree temperature rise since IR only a quarter of it is from natural causes.

And you are missing the point…if you can’t measure 50 through 80 because of aerosol build up, you can’t measure 90 through 20 because of aerosol decline. You have to measure the whole period, which grew at a slower rate than 1900 to 1940.

More of the please twist the data until we got the conclusion we want branch of the Moz science department.

And nice try on the extending the curve. But as I literally said in my post above ….measuring the two surges, trough to peak. The first surge started shortly after 1900. I didn’t think I would need to be totally literal. But I see I do…start at whatever point represents a local minimum around 1900.

And back t o cherry picking.

I’m glad you think aerosols are evidence, because that supports the idea of temporary greater than expected temp increases as they were eliminated. If aerosols explain the temperature hiatus, the reversal has to represent an influence in the opposite direction.

That's like saying I can walk into a walk in freezer room and switch it off and then expect the room to heat up quicker than if I was just a normal room.

I bet you never thought of that, just as you never knew anything about early 20th century surges, until I schooled you. Game, set and match.

LOL as I said, full of himself. The Dunning-Kruger affect at its finest.

‘Wrong around half of the temperature rise in the early 20th century was due to CO2’. Neat, so 1000 million metric tons per year, not increasing much and arriving in a world at much lower CO2 levels with more of the carbon sinks with capacity….had an effect similar to 6000 million metric tons rising significantly to 10000 million metric tons per year. Yes that’s logical ….hahaha.

And  if as you say half of the temp increase in the first half of the 20th century was from natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. And if as you say a quarter of the 1.2 degrees since the IR is due to natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. Which means natural causes  played no role at all in global warming in the 19th century or since 1940. One wonders how we recovered from the Little Ice Age

About the warming effects of aerosols being  removed  you call it ‘The moz science department’….nope there is considerable concern that eliminating aerosols could have warming consequences:

‘ New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius.’

And here’s the classic:

‘ That's like saying I can walk into a freezer room and switch it off and then expect the room to heat up quicker than if I was just a normal room’.

How long have you self identified as just a normal room? I have heard of kids thinking they were cats, but a grown man thinking he is a room is quite odd, as is the subsequent bit.

So you really believe that if you walked into  a frozen room and switched off the cooling system it wouldn’t  heat up faster than a room you walked into that wasn’t frozen. Waaaaaaahahahaha.

As I said game, set and match. Consult with Peeper and Comrade September on how to use the deep dive when you have just had your head handed to you! Hahahaha, now that was hilarious.

Hang on, what do Randy Mann and Cliff Harris say? Let's do our homework first .

LMAO!

So now we have Stav, SB and Rooinek on the warpath.    I am delighted by the level they have gone to - SB I appreciate it that you want me dead and so does Rooinek.   

I must agree with Mozart when it came to most stories the three of you have been posting - showing  complete control of their thinking ability by the media.   It was the case during the Russian Hoaxes spread by the media for many years and the three fell for the lies log, stock and barrel.   The 3 have not learnt  to check out what really the case was when the media comes up with stories.

Then they are also quite stupid when it comes to US election and media stories.   I do not support Tr ump as future candidate, but l love to poke holes in their arguments - easy to do - because I have learnt to identify what is BS propaganda news and what is really the case judicially.   Must be a terrible thorn in their side when their BS is criticized.

Just for the record I support DeSantis as candidate for the next election so start finding what the media is accusing him of.  Their latest story that he is not a good party-goer is BS - I hope for the sake of the three the media can find something else to use against him.   

.                  

It was I who called for the death of DumbMike. I have since reported this to the SBCA , and they are due to pick him up next week. 

The Weathermen, shocked by the clear skies of Covid admitting they don’t have a clue about aerosols:

‘ Our global ERF estimates for the anthropogenic aerosols fall within the plausible range of the present-day aerosol ERF (Bellouin et al., 2020) underlining the still large uncertainty in our understanding of aerosol effects compared to our ability to estimate a change in ERF from different emission pathways from a complex model. We expect that models participating in CovidMIP will show diversity in their aerosol ERF owing to model-internal variability and model biases, even when they use the same emissions or MACv2-SP data (e.g., Fiedler et al., 2019a, Smith et al., 2020). For instance’

So what do I really think as I sit in my Tesla Plaid surveying the scene. Well one is suffused by a sense of well being, knowing you are one of the ‘good guys’, there are parking spots allotted to you the dirty gas burning bastards can’t access. And you know as that Lamborghini pulls up next to you, and there are quite a few in Sarasota, that you could easily burn him…..even if you had a car full of people and luggage.

But mostly you are serene in the knowledge that you simply put the electrical receptor in your car every second night and you never need touch a dirty gas pump again. And you don’t need to service the damn thing for the next three years.

Granted you don’t get the enveloped, in a Gucci purse feeling,  of a Porsche. But they are sooooo slow. And amazingly the Tesla is tighter which I put down to eliminating all those moving parts. And with massive batteries low down in the car the center of gravity is low making the typical cornering tilt much less evident.

Of course the use of a brake is a rare event. Mostly you can just modulate braking and acceleration on one peddle, smug in the knowledge that every time you brake by releasing the accelerator you are charging your battery. It’s fun actually.

But of course the most striking thing is the power. Sure the damn thing will drive you home….but why not drive yourself with that huge hand of god power propelling you effortlessly and without any sign or sound of strain. It’s pretty cool.

My only concern is I’m creating no aerosols to protect the planet. And I’m sure I’d have to use it for 10 years before I pay back the carbon debt created by building these massive batteries.

"My only concern is I’m creating no aerosols to protect the planet. And I’m sure I’d have to use it for 10 years before I pay back the carbon debt created by building these massive batteries."

The Road Incidents Management System has still no proper way of dealing with incidents related to electric vehicles. The batteries are extremely hazardous when damaged and then there is the explosion hazard. Most First responders aren't yet equipped to deal with it, never mind even recognizing an EV as such when arriving at an incident....and I got my info from a New York State RIMS lecture...still a few things to iron out...

And  if as you say half of the temp increase in the first half of the 20th century was from natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. And if as you say a quarter of the 1.2 degrees since the IR is due to natural causes, that’s 0.3 degrees. Which means natural causes  played no role at all in global warming in the 19th century or since 1940. One wonders how we recovered from the Little Ice Age

One wonders what the Little Ice Age has got to do current warming.

About the warming effects of aerosols being  removed  you call it ‘The moz science department’….nope there is considerable concern that eliminating aerosols could have warming consequences:

New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius.

Classic Moz cherry picking.Tthis time from an article from Scientific American a science magazine that wholly supports man made climate change, as does the full article he pulled the quote from.

How long have you self identified as just a normal room? I have heard of kids thinking they were cats, but a grown man thinking he is a room is quite odd, as is the subsequent bit.

Ding ding, Denny we didn't have to wait long for that spell check. Its yet another classic we get from him in every thread about climate change.

Lets see there is a few to choose from.

1. Indignant scoff rebuttal.

2. Derisive laugh rebuttal.

3. Grammar check rebuttal.

3. We have the pretend his arguments haven't been debunked several times already and repeat them ad nauseam.

4. Cherry pick data.

5. Follow his instructions to make the data fit his conclusions (i.e. here is the data now do do this, now do that, now do the hokey pokey and eh presto climate change is all a scam)

6. Rebut data that does not support his viewpoint by either ignoring it or dismissing without evidence on the grounds that the source of the data was incompetent or the source is in on a conspiracy.

7. Appeal to his own glorious authority.

Has this thread done them all already? Getting pretty close.

So you really believe that if you walked into  a frozen room and switched off the cooling system it wouldn’t  heat up faster than a room you walked into that wasn’t frozen. Waaaaaaahahahaha.

Well there's number 2. Okay I'll dumb it down further for you. You have your foot on a car accelerator and your other foot on the break, the car isn't moving. You release the break and the car accelerates away. The break prevented the car from moving, but removing the break does not cause the car to accelerate, its the fact you have the foot on the accelerator.  You stop the car, and then without ever touching the break you press the accelerator as hard as you did when you released the break in the first instance. The rate of acceleration is the same. You stop the car again, you don't touch the break or the accelerator, and what do you know you don't accelerate I.E no CO2 (the accelerator) no rise in temperature. You want me to draw pictures?

As I said game, set and match. Consult with Peeper and Comrade September on how to use the deep dive when you have just had your head handed to you! Hahahaha, now that was hilarious.

Poor Moz, he's out on the tennis court holding a cricket bat, with his pants down around his ankles, his shoe laces tied together and a bird has pooed on his head. He thinks people are laughing with him but they are just laughing at him. Its quite the pathetic sight.

Stav, have you noticed how important it is to this sad and pathetic little man that he is seen as "winning" every argument? That's why you always get the crowing "game, set and match" or the gloating "case closed" or the alleged handing of our heads back to us from this weak loser with the emotional IQ of a 6 year old.

More childish, actually embarrassing insults Anger. But as somebody who pompously quotes ‘the science’ all the time, you’ll be chagrined to hear the problem you are clumsily trying to solve with braking cars, was actually solved by Newton more than 300 years ago:

Newton’s Law of Cooling/Heating

The temperature of an object changes at a rate proportional to the difference between the temperature of the object itself and the temperature of its surroundings (the ambient temperature).

…

So no, the frozen room doesn’t heat up at the same rate as the warmer room when exposed to the same higher temperature. It heats up much faster because the differential is greater.

I’d blame it on the Irish priests who failed so miserably in your education. But I am trying my best to improve the situation.

You're wasting your time...both sides' minds's already made up...

I see that nuclear fusion was in the news again recently.

Let’s hope that it can draw a line under all of this.

Does look promising, hopefully it can make a difference.

Perhaps they could fuse the aerosol particles and save the planet, hold on aerosols  lower the temperature…..hahahaha!

Plum if we had been developing nuclear as avidly as we have all these other fantastical power sources, fusion would be far further along. The Luddites have done humanity a great disservice, they should be put back in their box, just as they were in the 1800s.

Speaking of Luddites.

https://news.sky.com/story/exxon-predicted-global-warming-in-1970s-despite-publicly-dismissing-climate-change-research-finds-12785585

So we are going to change the infinitely old rhythms of the the planet and the universe by decommissioning...

That's not what people who want to prevent climate change are trying to do...but I suspect you know that already.

Stav, just a question - why is rh rhythms referred to by Pakie ignored totally by the supporters of climate change?      

Stav, just a question - why is rh rhythms referred to by Pakie ignored totally by the supporters of climate change?  

By rhythm I assume you mean the natural cycles of cooling and warming the planet has gone through throughout its history going back billions of years.

It has absolutely not been ignored, its been looked at . But natural processes can't account for the current rate of warming which some research indicates is now occurring at rate 170 times greater than one would expect from natural causes.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120951-simple-equation-shows-how-human-activity-is-trashing-the-planet/

So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940 and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years. What utter balls. . I suppose that’s possible in a non Newtonian world wher warm rooms increase in temps as fast as cold rooms. But  not in the real world, where temps have hardly budged in 2 centuries.

So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940

Wrong. The temperature rise between 1900-1940 was caused by a roughly equal combination of both natural forcings and CO2 emissions.

and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years.

Wrong. If you care to have read the article they where referring to the difference between the base line temperature change for the last 7,000 years which was a decrease of 0.01° up to near the recent and the current warming which is 1.7°. Rather hilariously for someone who loves flaunting his mathematics skills you also made a rather basic mistake in your calculation above. The rate of warming is 170 time the rate of natural warming per century, and just in case you're not aware 40 years is not a century. Waaaaaaahahahaha.

What utter balls.

Exactly. It is utter balls becaus e its a straw-man argument. You used the wrong figure for the baseline rate of temperature change and then multiplied it by the rate of temperature rise for a 100 year period instead of the 40 years that you referred too. 

I suppose that’s possible in a non Newtonian world wher warm rooms increase in temps as fast as cold rooms. But  not in the real world, where temps have hardly budged in 2 centuries.

Does that real world have 100 years in a century? Asking for a friend.

Stav, if they manage to lower the costs and overcome the last hurdles, which i understand aren’t insignificant, then it won’t just “contribute”.

It’ll pretty much take over.

But ignition was the major issue, and now that it’s over-unit, it’ll be a process of refining the technology.

Well that would be fantastic if they can overcome the issues and be able to make use of it in time to make a difference with regards climate change.

Absolutely they should continue research and development into this as quickly as possible but until we know that it can definitively solve the issue than other solutions must be developed and deployed in conjunction to it.

Collecting wind and solar energy is boring and not really much of a step up from fossil fuels. Would be great if we could skip it altogether.

Rather irrelevant if wind and solar is boring, as long as it works and is a viable part of the solution.

Stav, there's only one conclusion to be drawn here . . . Moffie is not intelligent enough to understand that he's been schooled on this and every other climate change thread.

Best he sticks to doing his homework on biblical prophecies.

Obviously…geez, sense of humour much.

Well obviously not, I didn't know you where joking. No need to get defensive.

No sense of humour here Plum, we are dealing with dour woke people….who have no mathematical skills and no honesty. Anger picks a point where the base line temperature change is approaching zero over 7000 years. Then he picks a short term interval where he claims the warming rate is 1.7 degrees, over what period is less clear. Then effectively dividing that 1.7 degrees by a number close to zero he has the sheer dishonesty to claim temperatures are going up at 1700 times the historical rate.

I’m sure with a bit of effort he could have found a period with no temperature change and he  could then claim temps were going up infinitely faster than in the past. Except I’m sure he doesn’t know when you divide by zero you get infinity.  One would think it was a joke, except these chaps can’t laugh about this stuff….it’s a religion.

Meanwhile Anger who I just schooled on basic Newton,  blunders on and Peeper who is too quantitatively  challenged to actually debate anything has gratefully accepted the role of a lackey.

Truly pathetic.

No sense of humour here Plum, we are dealing with dour woke people

LOL you know you've hit a nerve when people start calling you woke. Ah woke that wonderful term that can mean just about anything.

who have no mathematical skills and no honesty

Says the man who just made a rather basic mathematical mistake. As for having no honesty, that's rich coming from the Cherry Picker in Chief. I also noticed you don't acknowledge the link I posted to about Exxon who's own private research predicated global warming despite publicly dismisses. For some who so loves to sprout unfounded talk about scientific organizations who support the theory of climate change serving an agenda you turn a blind eye when actual evidence is presented that shows your side doing exactly that.

LOL and now he tries to accuse me of cherry picking. The irony. I didn't pick any numbers, these are the numbers produced by the Anthropocene Equation which the author of that article I linked and another scientist developed and have published in a peer reviewed science journal. Considered you don't know how many years make up a century I don't think your qualified to challenge their figures.

I’m sure with a bit of effort he could have found a period with no temperature change and he  could then claim temps were going up infinitely faster than in the past. Except I’m sure he doesn’t know when you divide by zero you get infinity. One would think it was a joke, except these chaps can’t laugh about this stuff….it’s a religion.

Again says the man who constantly cherry picks his data and ignores/dismisses data he doesn't like. And oh yes I forgot no 8, its a religion rebuttal.

Meanwhile Anger who I just schooled on basic Newton,  blunders on and Peeper who is too quantitatively  challenged to actually debate anything has gratefully accepted the role of a lackey.

Truly pathetic.

What's pathetic is your absolute d esperation to win every argument no matter the topic and no matter what evidence is stacked against you.

What’s more pathetic is not my need to win, but your propensity to lose. I didn’t post that crap about 170 times greater warming, you did. I demonstrated it flows  from dividing by a very low number in perhaps the most dishonest Climate claim I’ve ever seen, peer reviewed or not. But it  went over your head because you just don’t process numbers very well.

But the really stupid part is your inability to extrapolate your claim. You said:

‘But natural processes can't account for the current rate of warming which some research indicates is now occurring at rate 170 times greater than one would expect from natural causes.’

And I responded:

‘So natural causes produced 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1940 and the rate of warming  is now 170 x 0.6 warmer. Gosh temps are going up by 102 degrees in the next 40 years.’

….. 

You claim the rate of warming is 170 times natural causes. I claim natural causes produced 0.6 degrees in the 40 years to 1940. The rate per unit of time is 170 times greater, you simply multiply by that number….whatever the measurement period is you are examining.

Ergo in 40 years you would expect 0.6 multiplied by 170,  degrees of change. It has nothing to do with 100 years.  If you were solving for the expected number for a single year ….0.6/40 x 170. Which hilariously is 2.55 degrees.

Either these authors are charlatans or you have totally misrepresented their findings.

Just in case you are still too dumb to get it ..  here’s the equation, to get your 170 factor: 

Current rate multiplier = Expected 100 year rate/ Historical 100 year rate

                                      = Expected rate per year x100/historical rate per year x100

                                      = Expected rate per year/historical rate per year.

Once you express historical and expected rates in terms of any given period, that period simply cancels out. Express it as a week, a month, a year, 40 years, a century it doesn’t matter.

Has the penny dropped?

Oh yeah, I know it's an absolute waste of time debating with him. He will just keep posting whatever old shite until I get bored and stop posting and give him the last post 

Yes it's obvious he has nothing better to do.

He should thank you for breathing activity into his lifeless life.

Game, set and match

Bwhahahahaha

"Obviously…geez, sense of humour much.

Well obviously not, I didn't know you where joking. No need to get defensive."

Oh, so you thought that me saying solar and wind energy are boring was an attempt at a factual statement? If that's the case then, despite my previous recalibrations, I'm still giving you too much credit.

Stop trying so hard.

Also...are we all on the same page as to the below? For the love of all that is holy, i really hope so!

"...here’s the equation, to get your 170 factor: 

Current rate multiplier = Expected 100 year rate/ Historical 100 year rate

                                      = Expected rate per year x100/historical rate per year x100

                                      = Expected rate per year/historical rate per year.

Once you express historical and expected rates in terms of any given period, that period simply cancels out. Express it as a week, a month, a year, 40 years, a century it doesn’t matter."

Dentsie

"Yes it's obvious he has nothing better to do." 

Again, notice how Dentsie perpetually fails to deliver any opinion relating to the subject but only enters to comment on the people involved. 

Here is a paper that proves why you're a girl, Dentsie. "Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people...". 

But to top it off, you're a girl that is bad at reading or dealing with people IE A basic bitch.

Whenever the two site idiots - SB and Rooinek - have nothing to offer under the topic being discussed they run off to Trump - where they totally rely on the media lies going on for many years now.   They were told that they are fed BS by some  and when anybody point that out to them the fat that the media was lying - they believe that somebody doing so is defending or supporting Trump.   

After it was exposed that the Russian collusion stories were lies concocted by the Democrats they still has not learned not to allow the media to think for them and they became as the Communists used to call collaborators "useful idiots".    That is all they really are.   

Stav and Denny do not fall in the same category.   They are convinced about the global warming concept and nobody will change their minds on that.   At least they have some convictions and one should respect them for that.   I think both of them has learnt something about what is really going on in the media at present and Stav even said he does not agree with aspects of what is going on in the Ukraine and he went relatively quiet on what is going on in the media in respect of US Politics and its impact on the world.   One can differ on those points with them without becoming rude and insulting . 

This guy pretty much sums it up.

Nice to see there are still some independent thinkers out there.  The clip cut out just before he completed his thoughts on Germany. But I’m guessing as long as the economic model works they will suck in a labor force from somewhere. But in the process, by not breeding, the Germans will have ceded Germany to a sort of globalist melting pot. It’s worked in the States but the States isn’t as rigid as Germany.

Will the economic model survive though. The first major setback is the effect of Merkel’s disastrous energy policy. The next shoe to fall is the Revolution in the car industry that is so crucial to Germany. They are miles behind Tesla in electrification and if that’s the future all that great German engineering that goes into the internal combustion engine becomes irrelevant. 

Mercedes, BMW, VW and Porsche were all built on their great engines. These brands will be massively diminished in an EV world. The electric S type is a disaster, the Taycan is bested by Tesla and Lucid sedans.

The Germans have always been believers in their conventional wisdom, it may be their undoing this time around.

"The first major setback is the effect of Merkel’s disastrous energy policy. The next shoe to fall is the Revolution in the car industry that is so crucial to Germany. They are miles behind Tesla in electrification and if that’s the future all that great German engineering that goes into the internal combustion engine becomes irrelevant."

I agree.  The Germans put themself in a terrible position prior to the Russian invasion...and post the invasion, it's only been made worse. 

Tesla also have far better autonomous driving than anybody else...and a leader that surpasses Henry Ford in terms of perceived aura. One doesn't like to count the Germans out but their industries do have tough times ahead. Perhaps they're push through the eye of the needle again and maybe this is the motivation they need. 

Far from the US declining, I think the next 80 years will close out yet another American Century. They're very well positioned on most fronts...and have an engine in Mexico right next door. Sitting very pretty as far as I'm concerned.

...and i think that Japan and the UK will certainly go along for the ride.

Edit: As recently as in the last few months, yet another era-defining technology has emerged from the US...OpenAI. As soon Facebook and pals started declining, the US offers up what is clearly going to be another dominant technology. They're already valuing OpenAI at $30Bn and it's still in Beta. 

Same guy talking about China