My prediction for 2023

[gnarly1]

<terminated with extreme prejudice>

I'm not interested in your biased, uninformed opinions on climate change/global warming. Why would I waste my time reading what you think about it when I could be reading informed, considered, peer reviewed content that is orders of magnitude more likely to be correct, in comparison to anything you write.

 

The information quotient of anything you write on that topic approximates zero and is of no more consequence than the millions of other people who, like you, fancy themselves as armchair climate scientists and think other people will be interested in what they have to say.

 

I don't have any 'feelings' about your qualifications - what a bizarre thing to write. You don't have any relevant qualifications for me to have feelings about and even if you did I still wouldn't have feelings about them.

 

 

I didn't cite any sources, firstly, because we were talking in generalities up to this point

No we weren't. You brought it up and used the selective attention fallacy to try to dismiss the entire domain by focussing on one specific aspect. That's not talking in generalities.

 

 

secondly, there is not enough space/attention on this forum

What a limp excuse. There's plenty of space - I've seen some fairly lengthy posts on this forum.

 

 

any sources I could cite would be automatically dismissed by the climate change faithful

Limp excuse no. 2. I think you're scared to post your sources as it would expose how little research you've done about this topic.

 

I use Watts Up With That as the clearinghouse for most of my information

Congratulations you read a blog. PM me your address and I'll send you your Honorary Climate Scientist badge....I'll even use my special gold crayon for writing your name....

[HeyYou]

 

<terminated with extreme prejudice>

I'm not interested in your biased, uninformed opinions on climate change/global warming. Why would I waste my time reading what you think about it when I could be reading informed, considered, peer reviewed content that is orders of magnitude more likely to be correct, in comparison to anything you write.

 

The information quotient of anything you write on that topic approximates zero and is of no more consequence than the millions of other people who, like you, fancy themselves as armchair climate scientists and think other people will be interested in what they have to say.

 

I don't have any 'feelings' about your qualifications - what a bizarre thing to write. You don't have any relevant qualifications for me to have feelings about and even if you did I still wouldn't have feelings about them.

 

 

I didn't cite any sources, firstly, because we were talking in generalities up to this point

No we weren't. You brought it up and used the selective attention fallacy to try to dismiss the entire domain by focussing on one specific aspect. That's not talking in generalities.

 

 

secondly, there is not enough space/attention on this forum

What a limp excuse. There's plenty of space - I've seen some fairly lengthy posts on this forum.

 

 

any sources I could cite would be automatically dismissed by the climate change faithful

Limp excuse no. 2. I think you're scared to post your sources as it would expose how little research you've done about this topic.

 

I use Watts Up With That as the clearinghouse for most of my information

Congratulations you read a blog. PM me your address and I'll send you your Honorary Climate Scientist badge....I'll even use my special gold crayon for writing your name....

 

My degree is in Environmental Geoscience. (and math.....) Climate change IS indeed a thing, however, what the climate doomsayers won't tell you is, NOTHING we do here will make any difference whatsoever, so long as there are other countries out there with their ever expanding contribution of greenhouses gases to the atmosphere. Sure, the US is one of the major contributors, (in the top three.) but, so long as the other two (india and china? I think, haven't paid much attention lately) continue on their present course, and reductions we make will be more than compensated for by them. Not to mention the dozen other third world countries that are also expanding.....

 

And then, of course, we have the slogan "Stop Global Warming"..... as if we actually could..... Even if EVERYONE stopped producing CO2 TODAY, the climate is still going to continue on its present course. Warming. Maybe after several decades of zero CO2 output, the climate will revert back to its normal cycles. Maybe.....

 

Now, does that mean we should do nothing? No. We need to take a batter tack than what we ARE doing now though..... Transitioning to electric vehicles before our infrastructure can support them, is a bad move. We already have many places where power generation doesn't exceed demand..... (thus, brownouts/blackouts....) So, lets add a few million electric cars/trucks to the mix. Yeah. That's a great idea..... Or not.

[7531Leonidas]

Gnarly, peer review is part of the problem - the rather derogatory term 'pal review' exists for a reason. There are many scientific studies in the wild that have been found to not be repeatable or even truthful. Confirmation bias also works in the various journals and societies that serve as gatekeepers.

 

Yes, you do have 'feelings' about my qualifications, because you do not know anything about them. Please tell me what the qualifications should be for anyone who investigates topics that they are interested in/have vested interests in? I intentionally do not try to limit my interpretation of anyone's passing comments, because too many ppl have trusted the statements of 'experts', and I will not go down into that rabbit hole w/you - I have seen no qualifications posted by yourself, by the way. You did pass on commenting on one qualified individual (Judith Curry) that I named as having been poorly treated because of her evolving views, add to that the name of Roger Pielke.

 

I posted the website name, so you could go and look for yourself, and see what is, or isn't posted there, (and look at the stuff I have aggregated over the last several years) and ask the posters directly. There are a lot of them, many just honestly stating their problems with the current state of the science, and they have access to paywalled information and studies, and simply a lot of information of all types, both bogus and profound. My 'limp excuses' also come from the fact that I have had to re-type each passage several times because of cervical stenosis screwing with the impulses to my arms and hands. Add to that the fact that you just completely discount/discard those opinions I offered up, because I am not an expert. The adrenaline from my response to you tone makes it even more difficult.

 

@Hey You - like you, I agree that things are warming up, I just don't think that we have enough good data to accurately attribute causes, and most certainly not any predictions. The global temperatures have been increasing since the late 17th century, and the rate of change is not that much different all the way through the current day. I am distressed by the seeming overflow of propaganda-styled climate information, often summarized by journalists that have no science/math background whatsoever.

[gnarly1]

Yes, you do have 'feelings' about my qualifications, because you do not know anything about them.

That's quite the non sequitur. An absence of knowledge necessitates that feelings exist. You have a rare talent at indulging in logical fallacies and jumping to conclusions based on no evidence.

 

Do you always insist that someone has feelings about something even after they tell you that they don't? That could be rather creepy. Not to mention quite arrogant. Do you find that it works on people you are interested in romantically?

 

You: Hi, my name is 7531Leonidas and I can tell you have feelings for me.

Him/Her: I'm sorry but I don't

You: Oh but you do.

Him/Her: Look, I'm sure you're a nice guy who doesn't at all suffer from crippling confirmation bias and an inability to string together logically coherent sentences, but I don't have feelings for you.

You: I can detect the feelings in another person's head, even over the internet.

Him/Her: Is this another one of your delusions, like that time you thought you had a PhD in climate science...?

You: I've got an Honorary qualification - here's the badge that proves it. Some random guy on the internet sent it to me - look the words are in gold crayon.

 

 

I am distressed by the seeming overflow of propaganda-styled climate information, often summarized by journalists overconfident amateurs on social media that have no science/math background whatsoever and who willingly believe in and regurgitate BS because it suits their point of view.

Fixed it for you.

 

I'm not going to read any more of your replies. Given you struggle with logic, you're too scared to post your sources and you seem to think, bizarrely, that there's not enough room on the forums for a robust discussion, I can't see this conversation being terribly productive.

Edited August 12, 2023 by gnarly1

[7531Leonidas]

Sorry, Gnarly - your hostile tone comes from feelings, you are the one transitioning to personal attacks. I posted my source for information, so you could look around a bit, engage the authors/sources there, since I know I am not 'qualified' to discuss years of scanning and reading on that site, only relate what I have assimilated, and am ready to be shown I am wrong, which you have not done. In addition, ou still have not cited your own qualifications to comment, so you are arguing from an appeal to authority when you rely so heavily on 'qualifications' and peer review. I gave enough information that you could have given some of your evidence/studies that counter the things I stated as opinion, and corrected me. Instead, as so often happens, you choose to dismiss and/or denigrate a search for truth when things lead in a direction you do not like.

 

So, I am left with this takeaway - you are an elitist, and you can go back to your XR meetings/plottings. Have a great life, don't get arrested too often!

[ScytheBearer]

Given the volume of evidence collected on planetary warming since the early warnings in the 1950s by Spencer Weart, to the ponderous amount of data collected since the 1980s, global warming is neither theory nor opinion. It is a fact.

 

From the rising levels of CO² in trapped gases in ice cores to the temperature variability documented in tree growth rings and the same ice cores, to the vanishing glaciers to the growing Northwest passage, it is clear that humanity has been dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without limit since the industrial revolution. The two parallel trends of rising levels of CO², methane and other greenhouse gases and rising temperatures are undeniable. Humanity is messing our nest.

 

To paraphrase a good friend of mine now doing climate research in the Antarctic, "There are only two kinds of people who deny the reality of climate change and humanities impact. The irredeemably stupid or the willfully ignorant, which is pretty much the same thing."

Edited August 13, 2023 by ScytheBearer

[7531Leonidas]

Yes, but the rise in the concentrations of greenhouse gases and the rise in temperatures are not as correlated as some would believe, the warming started somewhere in the late 1700's, I think, long before any industrial revolution greenhouse gas increase could have been of any effect. The warming rates in the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century have not been smooth and pacing each other closely. The temperatures have been increasing step-wise, and the minimum temps have been increasing faster than the maximum temperatures.

 

Once again, I do not deny the warming, I just believe that some are over-hyping the results to the point of propaganda, WRT 'hottest ever' claims, especially since it has been warmer in the not too-distant past (Minoan and Roman eras), according to proxy records. Those proxy records have built-in smoothing, in a similar fashion to ice core analysis, and neither can tell us much about year-to-year, or even decade-to-decade temperature trends. I would assume that the variance in temperatures on a daily/seasonal basis were just as extreme then as during the present day, and would oscillate around the averages for those proxies.

 

Thank you for your comments, your Antarctic friend is doing difficult work, in a deadly land. I hope he stays safe.

[MrJoseCuervo]

Methane is the culprit, but you can't make money and control people by attacking methane, unless you're anti-farting.

[7531Leonidas]

Methane may be a small contributor, but not a major factor in AGW, in spite of the many scary posts about how methane is 60+ times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming potential. Please note - I have overstated the concentration of CH4 (used only a current, not time-averaged concentration), and used an approximation of the warming potential of CH4 compared to CO2. That estimated warming potential has varied about as much as the climate sensitivity estimates have over the years.

 

I have remembrances of a satellite based analysis of CH4 atmospheric concentrations, which did NOT show higher concentrations of the gas over agricultural areas, but over oil fields and remote wilderness areas like the Amazon. I think that the CH4 contributions by agriculture, especially animal husbandry, should be limited by estimates of how much the decay of vegetation of their areas would/should contribute upon normal decay rates of vegetation in the wild (of comparable areas of growth). I think that WRT CH4, animal husbandry is much closer to carbon-neutral than current studies would attest, since much of the fodder that animals break down would have generated CH4 upon decay anyway.

 

Found this on a search - ( https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/4863/2023/acp-23-4863-2023.html ) a quick read of the information states some interesting stuff, but still does not break down CH4 concentration changes with types of usage of the underlying land area.

 

Carbon dioxide concentration is about 440 ppm in the atmosphere, while methane, even at 2000 ppb (2 ppm), can NOT come close to the claimed warming effects of >50% of total warming. Simple math: (2 ppm CH4/420 ppm CO2)(80 warming potential) = 0.48, or 48%. This is what they want you to assume is the effect of CH4. IT IS NOT. Atmospheric chemistry is directly related to the amount of particles present as a proportion of the whole, not by weight.

 

One way to think about it is that CO2 in the atmosphere is (44 amu)(440 ppm) or 19360 mass units per milliion atmospheric gas particles, where CH4 is (16 amu)(2 ppm) = 32 mass units per million.

Edited October 9, 2023 by 7531Leonidas

[Guest deleted34304850]

Methane is the culprit, but you can't make money and control people by attacking methane, unless you're anti-farting.

you're incredible.

your powers of reasoning and deduction are truly off the chart.