"heat-trapping gas back in the mid 1800s" No, Arrhenius discovered the exponential decline of CO2's GHG effect back in 1896 (50% of its GHG effect in the first 20 ppm), and the math is now correct - see MODTRAN at U of Chicago. Modern calculations suggest that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by around 3%. But that's just theory. GHGs do not trap, they absorb and re-emit unless they bump into another molecule before re-emission. IR is relayed out to space, with some back emission that makes the planet comfortable, raising it off the Stefan-Boltzman equilibrium of 255K (0°F).
"Man is clearly accelerating...AGW"? CO2 emission human 40 gigatons; natural CO2 emission 770 gigatons. What's clear is that you haven't a clue, but you believe what you're told.
"fires and floods of the past 10+ years are NOT normal." Well, not normal but not unusual. That Tillamook Burn?
"The forest wasn't "thinned better" just a few decades ago" Actually it was, and still is in the areas in the midwest managed by Native Americans.
"the last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 MILLION years ago in the Pliocene" True, and irrelevant. 140,000 years ago, the Eemian, CO2 was 280ppm, the temp was around 2C higher, sea level was at least 6 m higher, and humans were doing very well indeed. As were polar bears and corals.
"I wouldn't bet against James Hansen being right " Why not? It's not like he's been right before, as Kevin Trenberth noted.
Don't forget to quote the words you disagree with, and cite your evidence.
"Just another episode in local media’s latest bandwagon, Climate Change™ and the certainty, verging on religious belief, that the world is burning up."
While woke aspects of using climate change as a political tool get flaky, the phenomenon itself is a very big deal.
You're witty with words but poor at observing evidence in the real world, starting with the fact that CO2 was identified as the main heat-trapping gas back in the mid 1800s, not under the influence of any political agenda. Global warming became political because money was at stake in entrenched industries, and that's what people do, being so often greedy and shortsighted. The other main reason it was politicized is the threat to cozy lifestyles, which supposedly can be sustained by wiping out scenery with wind & solar, inconveniently built entirely with oil. Denial is a complex thing.
AGW is not some conjured leftist nightmare, rather a physics phenomenon (caused by triatomic molecules) that Man is clearly accelerating, unless one looks away from evidence and skips to vague sarcasm (the GOP has made climate snark into an art). Just like bringing up the black crime problem at a Portland council meeting, few on the right will be frank about the climate problem. Same tribalism, different perceived enemies.
Even if temperature data bounces off you, it's very hard to ignore that the fires and floods of the past 10+ years are NOT normal. How can anyone witness all the smoke or see a map of Oregon fire scars and pretend those are typical burn seasons? The forest wasn't "thinned better" just a few decades ago. There's just been a lot more drought and prolonged heat to cause desiccation. Many of those big fires easily crossed through managed tree farms, especially with wind.
The base greenhouse effect keeps most of the world from freezing, and 280 ppm CO2 was the general benchmark for most of human civilization. We're now up to 420 ppm and the last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 MILLION years ago in the Pliocene. Back then, polar ice hadn't been able to stack up over time and the Arctic was mostly ice-free. Now, that ice is like a camping cooler left out in the sun with less ability to rejuvenate in cold weather. A good analogy is that we're in a waiting game for the "food to spoil" when the cooler can no long keep enough ice.
I wouldn't bet against James Hansen being right when he thinks the (above) analogous food cooler will melt much faster than the IPCC claims.
On many Fridays about 5 p.m., at the corner of SW Capitol Hwy. and SW Sunset Blvd. in Portland, you can find a group of folks waving signs with messages like “Climate Action Now!” and “Honk!” — as if the mere act of honking a horn will change anything.
At best, these folks are harmless. At worst, they are a distraction and could cause a vehicle crash.
They would likely be in agreement with the concepts of Seeding Justice. But how would they square Se-ah-dom Edmo’s $150,000 annual salary with the group’s concept of life “where everyone has enough, and no one has too much.” How many of Powell’s striking employees make $150,000 a year? Some of them are probably better read on the subject of climate change than Edmo.
What special expertise does she bring to climate change?
I saw her in action when she was a member of the Community Oversight Advisory Board, one of Portland’s police oversight groups that was disbanded when agitators continually interrupted the meetings.
Edmo’s contribution to the Community Oversight Advisory Board was the reading of “Guidelines for Maintaining Common Ground.” The guidelines included do’s and don’ts such as “share the air” and “avoid putdowns (even humorous ones)” and “recognize the legitimacy of people’s feelings.”
Let’s hope she recognizes the legitimacy of Richard Cheverton’s sharing of the air.
The new corruption is to dole out public tax money to "non profits" who are totally unaccountable and often impossible to discover where their money goes and who get it.
The other part of the mangling of the language is to add "justice" to things that do not lend themselves to such analysis, such as "food justice," "climate justice," and "health justice."
Real science (which is based on doubt) is all over the board on this. The climate agenda people have been caught exaggerating and misleading time and again, all for purposes of political control. Check out Bjorn Lomborg for a balanced view.
Bjorn Lomborg is much more of a forced optimist than a balanced thinker. He won't really accept that the atmosphere has CO2 absorption limits. Michael Shellenberger plays that same game, but he's wise about nuclear power. James Hansen has long said that "100% renewable energy" is a oil-based fantasy, and a reckless thing to hope for.
Man (not volcanoes) has caused CO2 to reach 420 ppm from a civilization-allowing baseline of 280 ppm for centuries. The last time it reached even 400 ppm was 3 million years ago, and it's absurd to just shrug off that fact. A lot of ice built up since then, and we're now waiting to see how long it will take to melt. Dumb to err on the side of optimism.
People naturally don't want life to be tough and miserable, but the same ideology that scoffs at AGW evidence (all around them now) also scoffed at the idea that oil would ever peak. Conventional crude oil flatlined and led to the 2008 recession (shallowly blamed on mortgage tricks), then fracking kicked in and made people forget the concept. But when fracking peaks (Permian basin is now America's last stand) people will be caught off guard in a much worse way and regret all the wasteful habits they continued after that big recession, then COVID, forced austerity.
Ironically, Peak Oil may be the only thing that causes major drops in CO2 emissions, with a steep price for human economies. No easy way out, and denial won't help.
Their statement "Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming" is obviously true. What is not true is that we are responsible for that. The facts that CO2 at this time at these levels is not in control of climate and that we are not in control of CO2 are irrefuted and in my opinion irrefutable. Climate is controlled by the vector sum of the 9 major forcings, of which CO2 at this time at these levels is not dominant and of minor significance.
Fluctuations in our meager ~4% addition annually to the atmospheric contributions have not made the slightest difference in the languid rise of CO2 over the last 183 years. That contribution began to be measurable in 1880. We note no effect on CO2 rise for 1929-1931 and for 2020, despite our decreases in output (30% in 1929-1931 and perhaps 17% of a much higher production in 2020). Nor any effect from WWII and postwar production. Its insignificance is clear in the exponential decay of the GHG effect of CO2, 50% in the first 20 ppm, first discovered by Arrhenius, and now the math is correct. The next doubling of CO2 to 800 will increase its GHG effect by less than 2% (MODTRAN at U of Chicago).
You're posting a bunch of sophisticated-looking stuff with huge gaps in context. The vast majority of scientists (who actually study this topic and originally made CO2 known to laymen) would ditch your angle as a word salad. The most dangerous deniers are the ones who can make themselves seem credible to non-studied people, and a very willing bunch of ideologues.*
Nothing else is releasing anywhere near the carbon of people burning fossil fuels. We've raised CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, and the last time Earth saw just 400 ppm was 3 million years ago. It's daft to call that trivial. Earth would be frozen without the base greenhouse effect (which didn't trigger denialism), so you can't just treat it like a trivial trace gas, ignoring its power to store heat over long periods of time.
You at least didn't try to blame it on volcanoes, but you seem to be quoting from a Jordan Peterson / Rush Limbaugh compilation of low-context information, hoping nobody reading this has much of a science background, or is too much of an ideologue to care about contextual facts.
The GHG effect of CO2 is not trivial but it is in exponential decline (see Arrhenius, then MODTRAN at U Chicago with the arithmetic now correct). The next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 3%, submerged in the other 8 forcings.
If you really intend to reply rather than blather, please quote the words you disagree with and the quote the text from your citation that suffices for rebuttal. You sound like a politician.
I neglected to call nonsense on your "Nothing else is releasing anywhere near the carbon of people burning fossil fuels. We've raised CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, and the last time Earth saw just 400 ppm was 3 million years ago." That latter sentence is true and inconsequential. The logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The end-Ordovician Ice Age began abruptly with CO2 around 4000 ppm, and ended with it around 3000, going abruptly back to the previous 22C. The Last Glacial Maximum from which we emerged 15,000 years ago began 120,000 ya with CO2 years ago around 280ppm and ended with it at around 190 ppm. CO2 and the more important water vapor are important for elevation of global temperature above the Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium of 255°K(0°F), but CO2 at these times is much less important than water vapor because of its exponential decline in GHG effect.
Can you really be so astonishingly ignorant of the sources - and sinks - for CO2 in the air.
I have to write you off as no smarter than the fools in Portland who keep pretending we have a "police accountability" problem instead of a bunch of bums & thugs running around ruining things.
Just as pink haired druggies whine about narcs, your kind is constantly whining about EPA fascism, though I'm sure you wouldn't drink water straight from the Willamette, or sleep in a garage with a car idling. But do you think rolling coal is funny when someone does it to a cyclist? The 2021 case of that punk in Texas who hit six of them needs more publicity. His mind works a lot like Antifa ghouls running around smashing windows.
You might be in some industry that profits from fossil fuels or lax pollution regulations, which drives your inability to see what's really going on.
People are bad at handling evidence that cramps their style, and that's hardly unique to the global warming predicament.
The fact that so many people willingly destroy their lungs with smoking is a strong analogy to climate stupidity. It's been around 20% of the population, a good correlation to those who look at staggering forest fires in their own state and just shrug or pretend more logging would have stopped it, or that Antifa set all the fires (which magically burned far worse than in previous decades).
Looks like you've been driven to incoherence. No surprise, though. No point made, no quote to refute, no refutation, not even clear who you're responding to. Let me know when you can turn in your homework.
No. You're just a wingnut, and far too arrogant about what you (don't) know.
If you've read any of my other posts on topics here, you'd know I'm no leftie. The environment became a "hippie" issue in the 60s and 70s but had nothing to do with them, technically. Associations die hard with small-minded reactionaries.
I don't support fools like "Just Stop Oil," FYI. Oil is embedded in far too many things. Economies are generally screwed after it peaks, but at least AGW will fade away then.
Then you'll have no problem refuting one - just one, any one - of those statements with either historical fact or theoretical argument. I've posted those on many sites including nbc.com and science.org and of course wuwt and judithcurry.com with no refutation. You'll make history. The problem with tired truths is that people just don't like them and choose agreement by others over actual evidence. Perhaps one of your vast majority of scientists can help you?
I won't hold my breath.
The many scientists who agree with me are actually reasonable people. I could name a couple of dozen, but that would be non-evidentiary.
Why would I bother? Your kind is as impossible to reach with evidence about droughts, fires, storms and floods as the Left is with blatant crime data. Your bogeyman is the EPA (pollution = cash) while the Left hates cops because they interrupt drug use and other deviant behavior.
Actually, I'll try this on you: What precisely is illogical about a heat-trapping gas actually trapping more heat as its volume rises? Are you aware that without a mere 280 ppm of CO2, the Earth would be mostly frozen? Following that, why would you think today's 420 ppm is trivial to more warming? Judith Curry and other contrarians won't deny that base greenhouse effect, so they have to weasel out of logic when discussing Man's rising contributions. Curry is one of the more reasonable ones, but still unwise.
I can do nothing about your inability to connect one fact to another without ideology getting in the way. I post in this substack because I'm sick of crime apologia for blacks in particular. Conservative writers (who see that crime is obviously bad) are often fools on climate to go along with their gang. They'll look at vast smokes plumes over CA & OR in satellite images and make brainless comments about how thinning trees could have stopped that. Fires driven by rising heat and desiccation easily jump through thinned forests, and getting rid of all dry grass and flammable undergrowth is impossible. The whole planet would need to be weed wacked! Canada's summer-long boreal forest fires are in areas very hard to reach, and only dummies would call them a fluke.
We're all committing crimes against nature every day as a lifestyle. Some of us are at least willing to admit it, even if we can't do much about the others.
Did you miss the part about the Eemian, 140,000 years ago, 2C warmer, seas 6m higher, and CO2 280 ppm? Golly, it isn't that hard to read, is it? Oh, and the exponential decline in the "GHG" effect of CO2, discovered by Arrhenius? For your homework, describe how an actual greenhouse differs from a "greenhouse gas".
Crimes against nature? How about killing whales and dolphins with ocean sonar for wind farms? Eagles and bats with land wind turbines? Real land pollution with the products of mining and processing for batteries?
Find a statement you disagree with, quote it verbatim, and refute it with evidence, not opinion.
All you're ever going to do here is repeat contrarian, low-context talking points. I'm not new to those alternative facts. Glass is an obvious greenhouse, CO2 is more subtle and vastly bigger, but you don't care since you're all about ideology. You'll duck & dodge and change context forever. Just not a bright spark.
Before leftists got out of control, I saw one of the lowest behavior traits as anti-environmentalism (disrespecting what keeps you alive is evil and stupid). I think most of you are simply greedy and support for Trump is typical of the screw-nature persona. His 2016 campaign emphasized defunding the EPA, just like BLM & Antifa hate street cops who break up their crimes.
Here's a list of other man-made environmental problems that you can't BS about when they're visibly evident.
DEFORESTATION AKA LOGGING: Impossible to deny because it's seen on a vast scale. So, right wingers use the angle that God wants us to use ever more timber so jobs won't be lost, etc. It's always about jobs this, jobs that, sustainable or not.
SPECIES, ENDANGERED & EXTINCT: Hard to deny because animals can be roughly counted in most cases. In the ocean they're hidden but declining catches are evidence.
WATER POLLUTION: Often visible when blatant, but measurable when not. Right wingers weasel out of caring by saying it's just a byproduct of civilization. The recent ruling on "Waters of the United States" is typicall weasely stuff. Nature comes after commerce, so tough luck.
AIR POLLUTION AS PARTICULATES: Hard to deny when you can see it. The man-made component is obvious in cities when forest fires aren't covering the state with smoke in recent years due to AGW.
AIR POLLUTION AS EXCESSIVE CO2, ozone (upper atmosphere) and other gases: Invisible to the human eye, so denials are easier. All you have to do is create some doubt, even though everything above proves that Man can alter nature on a large scale.
To single out AGW as something we can't possibly be causing is illogical at best and plain nuts, really. One of the reasonable arguments long ago was the urban heat island effect skewing data, which was debunked by many other thermometers, but Anthony Watts wouldn't let it go, and so it goes with the other denials.
Laborious to list all the logical errors in your text. But you really should separate out GW from AGW i.e. CO2 from the other human effects on environment. I now realize it's useless to try to help you understand the process of addressing problems. I will say that I do object to being identified as a right-winger, Trump supporter, and anti-environmentalist, which I consider insulting. Clearly you can't read, else you'd quote my words. Don't Cathy Newman me, unless that's the only thing that's left to you, and you just can't help it.l
One thing we can all agre on is that CO2 is adored, loved, essential for plant life...and you could make a case that forests are burning because there is not enough CO2 for the trees.
IIRC, CO2 lack impairs/prohibits plant growth around 180ppm. but has a linear relationship with growth that is bigger faster and more drought resistant, up to about 1700 ppm. Commercial greenhouses keep CO2 around 1000 ppm.
Oxygen levels influence the temperatures at which fires can start, CO2 doesn't. In the Carboniferous period, O2 levels reached more than 30% and it is alleged that "the world burned", but that isn't quite true because of feedback mechanisms.
Carl-Otto Weiss has done the spectral analysis of the temperature changes for the last 2000 years, [With two colleagues, a mathematician/statistician and an astronomer, he published this paper in 2017: https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44 "Spectral Analysis Of Climate Data Shows: All Climate Change Is Due To Natural Cycles". He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the historic absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature. Modification, yes, though not as much as the major GHG, water vapor. Not causality. A carefully worded conclusion does not say that CO2 cannot cause global climate change, just that there is no evidence that it ever has. He notes that all climate change (in that period, so far) is due to natural cycles, and there is no signal at all from our [or any] CO2 emissions. He has found major components related to solar activity. He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature.
No you couldn't. High levels of CO2 probably would suppress fire, but also animal life. Plants only use CO2 during photosynthesis which requires light so at night they take in 02 and give off CO2. I highly recommend a very short and inexpensive book called 'The Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward. I think you would agree with just about everything he says as well as get a very short and concise education in Biology and the history of our planet. Really. Check this book out of the library before you make anymore comments on a subject that you know very, very little about. Love your blog.
CO2 increase might hinder fire if it was accompanied by a decrease in O2.
US Navy submarines do not address CO2 reduction until it reaches 8,000 ppm. Global CO2 levels have been above 2,000ppm for most of the last 550 million years
"Global CO2 levels have been above 2,000ppm for most of the last 550 million years"
That's a contextually vague claim. Are you saying it's anywhere close to that level now? Your Navy submarine thing has nothing to do with global warming, anyhow. The gas has different effects in different contexts, and a hallmark of bogus arguments is bad context.
CO2 now sits at around 420 ppm (because of Man) and the baseline for a stable climate with good weather for agriculture and non-submerged coasts was 280 ppm. The last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 million years ago when the Arctic was ice-free (we've just had a lot of ice buildup since then, now less sustainable).
Me being the only one to correct your nonsense is telling me I'd better find a smarter non-woke substack! It's a shame so few people are capable of critical thinking without tribal loyalties. Jonathan Haidt is a random example and Coleman Hughes is another.
I didn't watch this thread earlier but I replied plenty today. You probably denied the ozone hole and various other environmental problems as leftist inventions before you latched onto global warming.
My opinion of people who think human commerce is more important than the natural systems keeping us alive (or aesthetic values, e.g. the wind power idiots) is on par with my view of BLM & Antifa looting cities yet leeching off their pubic services. You're thugs all around.
I took you for brighter than assuming people who respect the laws of physics are merely woke.
You seem to grasp that the film Koyaanisqasti was about Man living out of balance with nature, having written a post on it. If AGW was obvious back in the 1980s, they'd have included it in that film. Releasing stored carbon 24/7 for well over a century at increasing rates is not trivial, nor is it leftist or woke to care about the future.
Read below about why CO2 traps heat. People who argue against the laws of physics have poor survival awareness, or are simply arrogant.
Excellent post! The grift runs deep and constantly shifts.
Also, I am happy to report that the World Climate Declaration is now up to 1609 signatories. The "fact checkers" continue to attempt to discredit it and the scientists who have signed it.
They're already here, and they're running the show. A disturbing number of them are female. The state of Oregon is becoming a day-care center, and Mommy knows best.
What I most appreciate here is the witty writing backed up by facts and common sense. It’s hard to find these days. As far as the State of Oregon, it has found ingenious ways to take hard earned money from taxpayers and funnel it into the ever-open pockets of our betters as this piece on one of many nonprofits makes crystal clear.
I have an open file on "Nonprofits," and it is full of big money and small results. It is so vast at this point that it is difficult to get one's head around just how much public money is going to these cut-outs. An dare we use the term, "money laundering?"
Wrong on all counts:
"heat-trapping gas back in the mid 1800s" No, Arrhenius discovered the exponential decline of CO2's GHG effect back in 1896 (50% of its GHG effect in the first 20 ppm), and the math is now correct - see MODTRAN at U of Chicago. Modern calculations suggest that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by around 3%. But that's just theory. GHGs do not trap, they absorb and re-emit unless they bump into another molecule before re-emission. IR is relayed out to space, with some back emission that makes the planet comfortable, raising it off the Stefan-Boltzman equilibrium of 255K (0°F).
"Man is clearly accelerating...AGW"? CO2 emission human 40 gigatons; natural CO2 emission 770 gigatons. What's clear is that you haven't a clue, but you believe what you're told.
"fires and floods of the past 10+ years are NOT normal." Well, not normal but not unusual. That Tillamook Burn?
"The forest wasn't "thinned better" just a few decades ago" Actually it was, and still is in the areas in the midwest managed by Native Americans.
"the last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 MILLION years ago in the Pliocene" True, and irrelevant. 140,000 years ago, the Eemian, CO2 was 280ppm, the temp was around 2C higher, sea level was at least 6 m higher, and humans were doing very well indeed. As were polar bears and corals.
"I wouldn't bet against James Hansen being right " Why not? It's not like he's been right before, as Kevin Trenberth noted.
Don't forget to quote the words you disagree with, and cite your evidence.
"Just another episode in local media’s latest bandwagon, Climate Change™ and the certainty, verging on religious belief, that the world is burning up."
While woke aspects of using climate change as a political tool get flaky, the phenomenon itself is a very big deal.
You're witty with words but poor at observing evidence in the real world, starting with the fact that CO2 was identified as the main heat-trapping gas back in the mid 1800s, not under the influence of any political agenda. Global warming became political because money was at stake in entrenched industries, and that's what people do, being so often greedy and shortsighted. The other main reason it was politicized is the threat to cozy lifestyles, which supposedly can be sustained by wiping out scenery with wind & solar, inconveniently built entirely with oil. Denial is a complex thing.
AGW is not some conjured leftist nightmare, rather a physics phenomenon (caused by triatomic molecules) that Man is clearly accelerating, unless one looks away from evidence and skips to vague sarcasm (the GOP has made climate snark into an art). Just like bringing up the black crime problem at a Portland council meeting, few on the right will be frank about the climate problem. Same tribalism, different perceived enemies.
Even if temperature data bounces off you, it's very hard to ignore that the fires and floods of the past 10+ years are NOT normal. How can anyone witness all the smoke or see a map of Oregon fire scars and pretend those are typical burn seasons? The forest wasn't "thinned better" just a few decades ago. There's just been a lot more drought and prolonged heat to cause desiccation. Many of those big fires easily crossed through managed tree farms, especially with wind.
The base greenhouse effect keeps most of the world from freezing, and 280 ppm CO2 was the general benchmark for most of human civilization. We're now up to 420 ppm and the last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 MILLION years ago in the Pliocene. Back then, polar ice hadn't been able to stack up over time and the Arctic was mostly ice-free. Now, that ice is like a camping cooler left out in the sun with less ability to rejuvenate in cold weather. A good analogy is that we're in a waiting game for the "food to spoil" when the cooler can no long keep enough ice.
I wouldn't bet against James Hansen being right when he thinks the (above) analogous food cooler will melt much faster than the IPCC claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning
On many Fridays about 5 p.m., at the corner of SW Capitol Hwy. and SW Sunset Blvd. in Portland, you can find a group of folks waving signs with messages like “Climate Action Now!” and “Honk!” — as if the mere act of honking a horn will change anything.
At best, these folks are harmless. At worst, they are a distraction and could cause a vehicle crash.
They would likely be in agreement with the concepts of Seeding Justice. But how would they square Se-ah-dom Edmo’s $150,000 annual salary with the group’s concept of life “where everyone has enough, and no one has too much.” How many of Powell’s striking employees make $150,000 a year? Some of them are probably better read on the subject of climate change than Edmo.
What special expertise does she bring to climate change?
I saw her in action when she was a member of the Community Oversight Advisory Board, one of Portland’s police oversight groups that was disbanded when agitators continually interrupted the meetings.
Edmo’s contribution to the Community Oversight Advisory Board was the reading of “Guidelines for Maintaining Common Ground.” The guidelines included do’s and don’ts such as “share the air” and “avoid putdowns (even humorous ones)” and “recognize the legitimacy of people’s feelings.”
Let’s hope she recognizes the legitimacy of Richard Cheverton’s sharing of the air.
The new corruption is to dole out public tax money to "non profits" who are totally unaccountable and often impossible to discover where their money goes and who get it.
The other part of the mangling of the language is to add "justice" to things that do not lend themselves to such analysis, such as "food justice," "climate justice," and "health justice."
Real science (which is based on doubt) is all over the board on this. The climate agenda people have been caught exaggerating and misleading time and again, all for purposes of political control. Check out Bjorn Lomborg for a balanced view.
Bjorn Lomborg is much more of a forced optimist than a balanced thinker. He won't really accept that the atmosphere has CO2 absorption limits. Michael Shellenberger plays that same game, but he's wise about nuclear power. James Hansen has long said that "100% renewable energy" is a oil-based fantasy, and a reckless thing to hope for.
Man (not volcanoes) has caused CO2 to reach 420 ppm from a civilization-allowing baseline of 280 ppm for centuries. The last time it reached even 400 ppm was 3 million years ago, and it's absurd to just shrug off that fact. A lot of ice built up since then, and we're now waiting to see how long it will take to melt. Dumb to err on the side of optimism.
People naturally don't want life to be tough and miserable, but the same ideology that scoffs at AGW evidence (all around them now) also scoffed at the idea that oil would ever peak. Conventional crude oil flatlined and led to the 2008 recession (shallowly blamed on mortgage tricks), then fracking kicked in and made people forget the concept. But when fracking peaks (Permian basin is now America's last stand) people will be caught off guard in a much worse way and regret all the wasteful habits they continued after that big recession, then COVID, forced austerity.
Ironically, Peak Oil may be the only thing that causes major drops in CO2 emissions, with a steep price for human economies. No easy way out, and denial won't help.
No it's not. There I just used real science on you.
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4738-hot-or-not.html?mc_cid=9e1ffd0399&mc_eid=343d9ee5bf
Their statement "Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming" is obviously true. What is not true is that we are responsible for that. The facts that CO2 at this time at these levels is not in control of climate and that we are not in control of CO2 are irrefuted and in my opinion irrefutable. Climate is controlled by the vector sum of the 9 major forcings, of which CO2 at this time at these levels is not dominant and of minor significance.
Fluctuations in our meager ~4% addition annually to the atmospheric contributions have not made the slightest difference in the languid rise of CO2 over the last 183 years. That contribution began to be measurable in 1880. We note no effect on CO2 rise for 1929-1931 and for 2020, despite our decreases in output (30% in 1929-1931 and perhaps 17% of a much higher production in 2020). Nor any effect from WWII and postwar production. Its insignificance is clear in the exponential decay of the GHG effect of CO2, 50% in the first 20 ppm, first discovered by Arrhenius, and now the math is correct. The next doubling of CO2 to 800 will increase its GHG effect by less than 2% (MODTRAN at U of Chicago).
You're posting a bunch of sophisticated-looking stuff with huge gaps in context. The vast majority of scientists (who actually study this topic and originally made CO2 known to laymen) would ditch your angle as a word salad. The most dangerous deniers are the ones who can make themselves seem credible to non-studied people, and a very willing bunch of ideologues.*
Nothing else is releasing anywhere near the carbon of people burning fossil fuels. We've raised CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, and the last time Earth saw just 400 ppm was 3 million years ago. It's daft to call that trivial. Earth would be frozen without the base greenhouse effect (which didn't trigger denialism), so you can't just treat it like a trivial trace gas, ignoring its power to store heat over long periods of time.
You at least didn't try to blame it on volcanoes, but you seem to be quoting from a Jordan Peterson / Rush Limbaugh compilation of low-context information, hoping nobody reading this has much of a science background, or is too much of an ideologue to care about contextual facts.
Those bogus points have been covered here and other places: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php (that site unfortunately pushes tribal "renewables" hopium)
I'd have voted for the GOP* decades ago if they'd stop lying about climate the way Democrats lie about POC crime.
The GHG effect of CO2 is not trivial but it is in exponential decline (see Arrhenius, then MODTRAN at U Chicago with the arithmetic now correct). The next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 3%, submerged in the other 8 forcings.
If you really intend to reply rather than blather, please quote the words you disagree with and the quote the text from your citation that suffices for rebuttal. You sound like a politician.
I neglected to call nonsense on your "Nothing else is releasing anywhere near the carbon of people burning fossil fuels. We've raised CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, and the last time Earth saw just 400 ppm was 3 million years ago." That latter sentence is true and inconsequential. The logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The end-Ordovician Ice Age began abruptly with CO2 around 4000 ppm, and ended with it around 3000, going abruptly back to the previous 22C. The Last Glacial Maximum from which we emerged 15,000 years ago began 120,000 ya with CO2 years ago around 280ppm and ended with it at around 190 ppm. CO2 and the more important water vapor are important for elevation of global temperature above the Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium of 255°K(0°F), but CO2 at these times is much less important than water vapor because of its exponential decline in GHG effect.
Can you really be so astonishingly ignorant of the sources - and sinks - for CO2 in the air.
I have to write you off as no smarter than the fools in Portland who keep pretending we have a "police accountability" problem instead of a bunch of bums & thugs running around ruining things.
Just as pink haired druggies whine about narcs, your kind is constantly whining about EPA fascism, though I'm sure you wouldn't drink water straight from the Willamette, or sleep in a garage with a car idling. But do you think rolling coal is funny when someone does it to a cyclist? The 2021 case of that punk in Texas who hit six of them needs more publicity. His mind works a lot like Antifa ghouls running around smashing windows.
You might be in some industry that profits from fossil fuels or lax pollution regulations, which drives your inability to see what's really going on.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2020/nasas-aqua-satellite-captures-devastating-wildfires-in-oregon (no big deal, eh?)
People are bad at handling evidence that cramps their style, and that's hardly unique to the global warming predicament.
The fact that so many people willingly destroy their lungs with smoking is a strong analogy to climate stupidity. It's been around 20% of the population, a good correlation to those who look at staggering forest fires in their own state and just shrug or pretend more logging would have stopped it, or that Antifa set all the fires (which magically burned far worse than in previous decades).
Looks like you've been driven to incoherence. No surprise, though. No point made, no quote to refute, no refutation, not even clear who you're responding to. Let me know when you can turn in your homework.
No. You're just a wingnut, and far too arrogant about what you (don't) know.
If you've read any of my other posts on topics here, you'd know I'm no leftie. The environment became a "hippie" issue in the 60s and 70s but had nothing to do with them, technically. Associations die hard with small-minded reactionaries.
I don't support fools like "Just Stop Oil," FYI. Oil is embedded in far too many things. Economies are generally screwed after it peaks, but at least AGW will fade away then.
I agree. You don't sound like much of a lefty. But you don't sound smart or well educated. Work on that.
Ah.
Then you'll have no problem refuting one - just one, any one - of those statements with either historical fact or theoretical argument. I've posted those on many sites including nbc.com and science.org and of course wuwt and judithcurry.com with no refutation. You'll make history. The problem with tired truths is that people just don't like them and choose agreement by others over actual evidence. Perhaps one of your vast majority of scientists can help you?
I won't hold my breath.
The many scientists who agree with me are actually reasonable people. I could name a couple of dozen, but that would be non-evidentiary.
Why would I bother? Your kind is as impossible to reach with evidence about droughts, fires, storms and floods as the Left is with blatant crime data. Your bogeyman is the EPA (pollution = cash) while the Left hates cops because they interrupt drug use and other deviant behavior.
Actually, I'll try this on you: What precisely is illogical about a heat-trapping gas actually trapping more heat as its volume rises? Are you aware that without a mere 280 ppm of CO2, the Earth would be mostly frozen? Following that, why would you think today's 420 ppm is trivial to more warming? Judith Curry and other contrarians won't deny that base greenhouse effect, so they have to weasel out of logic when discussing Man's rising contributions. Curry is one of the more reasonable ones, but still unwise.
I can do nothing about your inability to connect one fact to another without ideology getting in the way. I post in this substack because I'm sick of crime apologia for blacks in particular. Conservative writers (who see that crime is obviously bad) are often fools on climate to go along with their gang. They'll look at vast smokes plumes over CA & OR in satellite images and make brainless comments about how thinning trees could have stopped that. Fires driven by rising heat and desiccation easily jump through thinned forests, and getting rid of all dry grass and flammable undergrowth is impossible. The whole planet would need to be weed wacked! Canada's summer-long boreal forest fires are in areas very hard to reach, and only dummies would call them a fluke.
We're all committing crimes against nature every day as a lifestyle. Some of us are at least willing to admit it, even if we can't do much about the others.
Did you miss the part about the Eemian, 140,000 years ago, 2C warmer, seas 6m higher, and CO2 280 ppm? Golly, it isn't that hard to read, is it? Oh, and the exponential decline in the "GHG" effect of CO2, discovered by Arrhenius? For your homework, describe how an actual greenhouse differs from a "greenhouse gas".
Crimes against nature? How about killing whales and dolphins with ocean sonar for wind farms? Eagles and bats with land wind turbines? Real land pollution with the products of mining and processing for batteries?
Find a statement you disagree with, quote it verbatim, and refute it with evidence, not opinion.
All you're ever going to do here is repeat contrarian, low-context talking points. I'm not new to those alternative facts. Glass is an obvious greenhouse, CO2 is more subtle and vastly bigger, but you don't care since you're all about ideology. You'll duck & dodge and change context forever. Just not a bright spark.
Before leftists got out of control, I saw one of the lowest behavior traits as anti-environmentalism (disrespecting what keeps you alive is evil and stupid). I think most of you are simply greedy and support for Trump is typical of the screw-nature persona. His 2016 campaign emphasized defunding the EPA, just like BLM & Antifa hate street cops who break up their crimes.
Here's a list of other man-made environmental problems that you can't BS about when they're visibly evident.
DEFORESTATION AKA LOGGING: Impossible to deny because it's seen on a vast scale. So, right wingers use the angle that God wants us to use ever more timber so jobs won't be lost, etc. It's always about jobs this, jobs that, sustainable or not.
SPECIES, ENDANGERED & EXTINCT: Hard to deny because animals can be roughly counted in most cases. In the ocean they're hidden but declining catches are evidence.
WATER POLLUTION: Often visible when blatant, but measurable when not. Right wingers weasel out of caring by saying it's just a byproduct of civilization. The recent ruling on "Waters of the United States" is typicall weasely stuff. Nature comes after commerce, so tough luck.
AIR POLLUTION AS PARTICULATES: Hard to deny when you can see it. The man-made component is obvious in cities when forest fires aren't covering the state with smoke in recent years due to AGW.
AIR POLLUTION AS EXCESSIVE CO2, ozone (upper atmosphere) and other gases: Invisible to the human eye, so denials are easier. All you have to do is create some doubt, even though everything above proves that Man can alter nature on a large scale.
To single out AGW as something we can't possibly be causing is illogical at best and plain nuts, really. One of the reasonable arguments long ago was the urban heat island effect skewing data, which was debunked by many other thermometers, but Anthony Watts wouldn't let it go, and so it goes with the other denials.
Whew!
Laborious to list all the logical errors in your text. But you really should separate out GW from AGW i.e. CO2 from the other human effects on environment. I now realize it's useless to try to help you understand the process of addressing problems. I will say that I do object to being identified as a right-winger, Trump supporter, and anti-environmentalist, which I consider insulting. Clearly you can't read, else you'd quote my words. Don't Cathy Newman me, unless that's the only thing that's left to you, and you just can't help it.l
Agreed, I guess...
One thing we can all agre on is that CO2 is adored, loved, essential for plant life...and you could make a case that forests are burning because there is not enough CO2 for the trees.
Couldn't you?
IIRC, CO2 lack impairs/prohibits plant growth around 180ppm. but has a linear relationship with growth that is bigger faster and more drought resistant, up to about 1700 ppm. Commercial greenhouses keep CO2 around 1000 ppm.
https://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/co2trees.jpg
Oxygen levels influence the temperatures at which fires can start, CO2 doesn't. In the Carboniferous period, O2 levels reached more than 30% and it is alleged that "the world burned", but that isn't quite true because of feedback mechanisms.
https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/flammable-planet
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35081-z
Carl-Otto Weiss has done the spectral analysis of the temperature changes for the last 2000 years, [With two colleagues, a mathematician/statistician and an astronomer, he published this paper in 2017: https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44 "Spectral Analysis Of Climate Data Shows: All Climate Change Is Due To Natural Cycles". He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the historic absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature. Modification, yes, though not as much as the major GHG, water vapor. Not causality. A carefully worded conclusion does not say that CO2 cannot cause global climate change, just that there is no evidence that it ever has. He notes that all climate change (in that period, so far) is due to natural cycles, and there is no signal at all from our [or any] CO2 emissions. He has found major components related to solar activity. He is only the latest of several battalions of actual climate scientists to point out the absence of causality between CO2 and global temperature.
A video recap of the somewhat demanding paper is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ
2013 version https://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf
No you couldn't. High levels of CO2 probably would suppress fire, but also animal life. Plants only use CO2 during photosynthesis which requires light so at night they take in 02 and give off CO2. I highly recommend a very short and inexpensive book called 'The Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward. I think you would agree with just about everything he says as well as get a very short and concise education in Biology and the history of our planet. Really. Check this book out of the library before you make anymore comments on a subject that you know very, very little about. Love your blog.
CO2 increase might hinder fire if it was accompanied by a decrease in O2.
US Navy submarines do not address CO2 reduction until it reaches 8,000 ppm. Global CO2 levels have been above 2,000ppm for most of the last 550 million years
"Global CO2 levels have been above 2,000ppm for most of the last 550 million years"
That's a contextually vague claim. Are you saying it's anywhere close to that level now? Your Navy submarine thing has nothing to do with global warming, anyhow. The gas has different effects in different contexts, and a hallmark of bogus arguments is bad context.
https://www.google.com/search?q=global+historical+co2+levels
CO2 now sits at around 420 ppm (because of Man) and the baseline for a stable climate with good weather for agriculture and non-submerged coasts was 280 ppm. The last time CO2 was even 400 ppm was 3 million years ago when the Arctic was ice-free (we've just had a lot of ice buildup since then, now less sustainable).
Me being the only one to correct your nonsense is telling me I'd better find a smarter non-woke substack! It's a shame so few people are capable of critical thinking without tribal loyalties. Jonathan Haidt is a random example and Coleman Hughes is another.
"CO2 now sits at around 420 ppm (because of Man)"
Cite your evidence. 96% of CO2 input is natural.
Note 1929-1931 and 2020
What, no rebuttals? C'mon wokies!
I didn't watch this thread earlier but I replied plenty today. You probably denied the ozone hole and various other environmental problems as leftist inventions before you latched onto global warming.
My opinion of people who think human commerce is more important than the natural systems keeping us alive (or aesthetic values, e.g. the wind power idiots) is on par with my view of BLM & Antifa looting cities yet leeching off their pubic services. You're thugs all around.
Wokies prefer dashboard data — not detailed facts.
I took you for brighter than assuming people who respect the laws of physics are merely woke.
You seem to grasp that the film Koyaanisqasti was about Man living out of balance with nature, having written a post on it. If AGW was obvious back in the 1980s, they'd have included it in that film. Releasing stored carbon 24/7 for well over a century at increasing rates is not trivial, nor is it leftist or woke to care about the future.
Read below about why CO2 traps heat. People who argue against the laws of physics have poor survival awareness, or are simply arrogant.
https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+triatomic+molecule+infrared+greenhouse+effect
To be 'Awake' once met you had taken Jesus into your heart.
Excellent post! The grift runs deep and constantly shifts.
Also, I am happy to report that the World Climate Declaration is now up to 1609 signatories. The "fact checkers" continue to attempt to discredit it and the scientists who have signed it.
Send in the clowns.
They're already here, and they're running the show. A disturbing number of them are female. The state of Oregon is becoming a day-care center, and Mommy knows best.
What I most appreciate here is the witty writing backed up by facts and common sense. It’s hard to find these days. As far as the State of Oregon, it has found ingenious ways to take hard earned money from taxpayers and funnel it into the ever-open pockets of our betters as this piece on one of many nonprofits makes crystal clear.
I have an open file on "Nonprofits," and it is full of big money and small results. It is so vast at this point that it is difficult to get one's head around just how much public money is going to these cut-outs. An dare we use the term, "money laundering?"
Richard is super on wit and humor. I love his journalism!!