Climate Change Mega Thread

[Drip_Torch]

My favorite scientist is William Happer. His work in adaptive optics and the sodium level in the mesosphere was ground breaking. It forever changed how telescopes can view distant objects in the Universe from here on the surface of the Greening Earth.
His credentials and awards are numerous.

I like Dr. Happer as well. His outlook on climate is similar to Dr. Spencer in that 'climate sensitivity' (if climate assumptions can be boiled down to any sort of constant values) is low and CO2 absorption is near saturation. Once again, limiting the effects of any additional CO2 in the atmosphere. His papers look convincing.


https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s ... 302668.pdf

A. There is No Urgency to Act Now and Thus There is No Need for the Proposed Rule

Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming. But assuming that doubling CO2 levels from today’s 415 ppm to 830 ppm will raise temperatures by a “dangerous” 2° C (about 4° F), which is unsupported by science, it would take a century or more for that to happen at the levels of CO2 emissions today.

He sure had the opportunity to advance the science (his science) with his appointment to the Presidential Committee on Climate Security as the designated Federal Government official. It says under tab C in the Whitehouse document, the Deputy Assistant to the President for Emerging Technologies shall "advise the President on scientific understanding of today's climate and how it might change in the future under natural and human influences, including green house gas concentrations,..."

It goes on to say, "The heads of the executive departments and agencies shall provide...(him) with the scientific information related to climate when requested..."

He was the man at the top for a brief moment in time with a full access pass to look behind the curtain at all the available science and set the record straight - if in fact, that's what needs to happen.

Instead he resigned and went back to chair the CO2 Coalition - where he charges oil and gas companies $250 per hour to write CO2 friendly papers. Of course, he'd prefer they pay through a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust. For some reason or other.

In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.

Wonder why he went back to being a shill, when he had such a perfect opportunity to advance the science?


.

a “dangerous” 2° C (about 4° F), which is unsupported by science, it would take a century or more for that to happen at the levels of CO2 emissions today.

So in other words, the 84 year old isn't all that concerned about 100 years from now.

[Drip_Torch]

Prolly nuffin... at least the Turnips and Spuds are flourishing.

NASA Announces Summer 2023 Hottest on Record

Summer of 2023 was Earth’s hottest since global records began in 1880, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The months of June, July, and August combined were 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (0.23 degrees Celsius) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record, and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980. August alone was 2.2 F (1.2 C) warmer than the average. June through August is considered meteorological summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

This new record comes as exceptional heat swept across much of the world, exacerbating deadly wildfires in Canada and Hawaii, and searing heat waves in South America, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., while likely contributing to severe rainfall in Italy, Greece, and Central Europe.

.

[JagXKR]

Wonder why he went back to being a shill, when he had such a perfect opportunity to advance the science?

Did you watch the video? I think not, he answered it at 47:25.
GOP did not want the controversy and did not want the fight with the eco nut jobs. So he did what most people would do, go somewhere else, make some money and not fight with the stupid people that could not understand 1/100th of his knowledge in physics.
Tough to fight mass hysteria cloaked in the dogma of saving the world from something that gives life and is necessary for our future.
More CO2! I want the planet to thrive, so more more more. Keep those deserts shrinking. Keep the planet greening. Keep crop yields climbing.

[JagXKR]

I wish people would stop using the starting point of these graphs at an anomalous low. 1880 era was way way below normal. Saying it was only -0.5C is a lie. It was way colder than that. The graph is skewed and basically junk.
Also the urban heat island effect and the fact that the majority of temperature readings are now taken within those zones makes accurate temperature measurement purposeless and futile.
But let's slag a professor that is many times smarter than those who can't fathom the deep and complex atmosphere. Let's keep on digging out graphs and charts that are skewed and deceitful. Let's ignore the reality of the greening of the earth. All due to that life giving molecule, CO2.

[Drip_Torch]

I wish people would stop using the starting point of these graphs at an anomalous low. 1880 era was way way below normal. Saying it was only -0.5C is a lie. It was way colder than that. The graph is skewed and basically junk.

I suspect you might be mixing up your Irish famines, myself, but nevermind... I fixed it for you.

.

Untitled-1.jpg

.
In honor of your favourite scientist, I started it in the decade William Happer was born into.

Better? If that doesn't work for you, I can always move it up to the year he defended his thesis on Frequency shifts in atomic beams resonances. (1964)

Did you watch the video? I think not, he answered it at 47:25.
GOP did not want the controversy and did not want the fight with the eco nut jobs. So he did what most people would do, go somewhere else, make some money and not fight with the stupid people that could not understand 1/100th of his knowledge in physics.
Tough to fight mass hysteria cloaked in the dogma of saving the world from something that gives life and is necessary for our future.
More CO2! I want the planet to thrive, so more more more. Keep those deserts shrinking. Keep the planet greening. Keep crop yields climbing.

Good gawd no! I didn't watch it to 47:25. There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot. In simple terms, it starts with "In my opinion..." and then it offers nothing in the way of science to base that opinion on. Happer's scientific career was in the fields of Optical Pumping and Atomic Physics. He has an opinion on climate change, but he's never written a peer reviewed paper published in a science journal.

Why?

...in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. “Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review,” he said. “I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

He's relevant when he publishes in his field, no doubt, you can see he's been cited over 2400 times on one of his articles from 1972, but it has nothing to do with climate science.

.

Untitled-2.jpg

And, he's not cited at all, at least in circles of people doing climate science, when he uses an "alternative process" to publish his opinions outside of his scientific field.

.

Untitled-3.jpg

You might think I'm cherry picking, but I'm not. "Climate 'emergency'? Not so fast" published in Capital Matters, has been cited twice - Just like "Climate science in the political arena" - twice. Many of his other "alternative process" published papers have never been cited by the scientific world at all. (Although I'm sure I've seen a few on Castanet forums, so I could be wrong there.)

CO2 makes plants grow faster is a bit of an oversimplification. There's certainly evidence to suggest that's true when the right balance of nutrients and moisture are maintained, but one doesn't have to look far to see what happens when that isn't the case.



Happer is a smart man. Overlook the academic dishonesty of presenting other peoples work as his own, (not citing his sources) and the bald assertions and you can certainly see that he understands the science. Problem is he also presents some very easily dismissed statements as fact.

Don't know, is age playing a role, or is he simply letting ideology dictate his outlook on things? Don't care either... I'm interested in climate science, not conservative dogma and the whole "Donor Trust" connection tells me all I need to know about the man.

Hey, you're welcome to have your favorite scientist and express your opinion that NASA's earth observations are garbage... we're just not likely to share some common ground there.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... -on-record

Now a quick look at some other fun numbers.

Al-Bayda, Libya - (Sept 10, 8:00 am to Sept 11, 8:00 am) 414.1 mm of rain.
Zagora, Greece - (Sept 5, 8:00 am to Sept 6, 8:00 am) 750 mm of rain. Many other stations reported 400 to 600 mm range.

Both cases represent about 1 1/2 to 2 years worth of rain dropped in 24 hours. In Libya, last I heard, it's about 10,000 dead, or missing. In Greece it's over 700 sq km of the central farm belt (about 25% of farmable land) under up to 1.5 meters of water.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.

[Jlabute]

There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.

Well, at least you know how to spot an old man.

And this is how you come to me, without why, without power.

Weather is not climate. Everything you are saying, to quote your favorite activist, "blah blah blah". All categories of random weather events are meaningless since they have always happened.

If warmer air holds more moisture, would that result in more rain? Well, global precipitation measured by satellite doesn't correlate to warmer temperatures or CO2. Sorry clouds don't form and rain doesn't pour in patterns you expect. This doesn't indicate catastrophic changings because of CO2.

global precip history.png

Scientists argue the effects of any green house effects.

https://edberry.com/greenhouse-gas-theo ... tmosphere/


New study indicates models do not conserve mass or energy. Yet more scientists contribute to a growing pile of dirt on modern models and how simplistic and wrong they are. Yet, only the left relies predominantly on them to prognosticate the future.


https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/si ... or-energy/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 0281.1.xml

[Jlabute]

A point of interest. This github link is where modellers/scientists can collaborate.


https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming ... idmodel.md

This shows charts with a logarithmic CO2 response model, and a sunspot model. The sunspot model with no CO2 compensation actually aligns quite well with hadCRUT temperature set.

CO2 only

IMG_0069.png

Sunspots

IMG_0070.png

[Drip_Torch]

There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.

If warmer air holds more moisture, would that result in more rain? Well, global precipitation measured by satellite doesn't correlate to warmer temperatures or CO2. Sorry clouds don't form and rain doesn't pour in patterns you expect. This doesn't indicate catastrophic changings because of CO2.

global precip history.png

No, warmer air holds more moisture - that doesn't mean it would result in more rain events. I assume the blogs haven't covered the difference between absolute humidity, specific humidity and relative humidity?

Sorry, the strawman argument you created doesn't fly.

What does happen, however, is climate change and where we would expect X inches of rain in a year, it doesn't necessarily happen the way climate models would suggest it should. Greece, which broke high record temperatures for months, and suffered from catastrophic wildfires, got it's whole years worth of rain (+) in 24 hours.

Satellites don't measure precipitation, but you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between measuring brightness temperature and calculating climate datasets, from actual measurements. Hint: "Derived", "deduced" means something entirely different than "observed", or "measured". Basically, the data deduced from TB is comparable with the data deduced from TB to show trends over time - and not a whole lot else.

Your github link is where climate change sceptics can spitball BS pseudo-science at folks that refuse to look at real science. If there was anything remotely believable in the chart you provided, the actual data shows we should be realizing cooling, if indeed sunspots and solar cycles were responsible for anything other than an insignificant amount of temperature fluctuation.



The peaks and valleys in solar geomagnetic activity since 1900, based on the number of sunspots observed on the face of the Sun each day (orange dots). The Sun's activity increased in the early half of the twentieth century, but it can't be responsible for warming over the past 50 years. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium.

A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... al-warming

[nepal]

.
I don’t understand how EV’s will help save the plant, as they destroy the environment in other ways, such as mining for and disposal of batteries. All forms of vehicle locomotion have a negative environmental footprint.

Impact of metal mining:
https://news.lincoln.ac.uk/2023/09/22/g ... oodplains/

The planet simply has too many people, and an increasing proportion who want their own vehicles.
.

[Spiff]

Sorry, nepal, I just can't resist 'cause I love this quote.

Take most people, they’re crazy about cars. They worry if they get a little scratch on them, and they’re always talking about how many miles they get to a gallon, and if they get a brand-new car already they start thinking about trading it in for one that’s even newer. I don’t even like old cars. I mean they don’t even interest me. I’d rather have a g-dam horse. A horse is at least human, for God’s sake.

– J. D. Salinger

The Catcher in the Rye. Holden Caulfield in Chapter 17.

[77TA]

Fossil fuel demand to peak predictions...

There is so much garbage to unpack in this article I'm nearly at a loss for words. The media keeps telling us that government can control the earth's temperature with money they don't have. This plan fails before it even starts so don't invest in any new fossil fuel projects I guess?

Remember when the media told us there was a toilet paper shortage? There was more truth there I think.


https://www.castanet.net/news/Business/ ... IEA#448779

[Jlabute]

No, warmer air holds more moisture - that doesn't mean it would result in more rain events. I assume the blogs haven't covered the difference between absolute humidity, specific humidity and relative humidity?

Warmer air 'can' hold more moisture, but that doesn't mean it does. It isn't the point of the discussion. More precipitation is not falling as inferred by satellite. Relative measurements have been somewhat decreasing. Cloud patterns and precipitation is not modelled or understood. Models are extremely poor mathematical representations of earths climate and that is a fact. Global warming doesn't cause flooding, doesn't make storms stronger, doesn't do anything claimed by those that want your carbon tax dollars.

Sorry, the strawman argument you created doesn't fly.

What does happen, however, is climate change and where we would expect X inches of rain in a year, it doesn't necessarily happen the way climate models would suggest it should. Greece, which broke high record temperatures for months, and suffered from catastrophic wildfires, got it's whole years worth of rain (+) in 24 hours.

Strawman? Where? Climate models are useless. No one cares about Greece, or wild fires. All weather is chaotic and random. We've been observing and recording weather for a very short time so you can expect to see many things you've never seen before. A wide variation in weather is possible. You don't even know how much variation is possible. Hot and cold and speed records will continue to be broken for a long time irrespective of climate change.

Satellites don't measure precipitation, but you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between measuring brightness temperature and calculating climate datasets, from actual measurements. Hint: "Derived", "deduced" means something entirely different than "observed", or "measured". Basically, the data deduced from TB is comparable with the data deduced from TB to show trends over time - and not a whole lot else.

Inferred measurements are calibrated and usually quite close. Maybe you should tell NASA to stop launching satellites for this purpose. Relative changes are easier to see than a small number of random samplings around the planet. 'Measure' only means to ascertain an amount.

Your github link is where climate change sceptics can spitball BS pseudo-science at folks that refuse to look at real science. If there was anything remotely believable in the chart you provided, the actual data shows we should be realizing cooling, if indeed sunspots and solar cycles were responsible for anything other than an insignificant amount of temperature fluctuation.


The peaks and valleys in solar geomagnetic activity since 1900, based on the number of sunspots observed on the face of the Sun each day (orange dots). The Sun's activity increased in the early half of the twentieth century, but it can't be responsible for warming over the past 50 years. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium.

A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

Github is a collaboration tool for anything at any location. It wasn't built specifically for people who spit. Not that you could recognize pseudo-science. If you could, you wouldn't be putting your trust in Michael Mann and James Hansen.

You might already believe CO2 and climate science is solid, when in fact it isn't even beginning. Climate science is complex and the 'hard work' is too difficult. There is pretty good correlation between sun-spot cycles and global average temperature. The question is why. Science never 'rules out' anything, especially if it's role is not understood. Simplistically looking at total solar irradiance might not mean anything. What happens if solar or cosmic rays modulate/increase/decrease cloud formation? Would you know? No, you wouldn't. The easiest conjecture is 'CO2 is bad' and scientists work backwards from that using bad models. CO2 is not a smoking gun, and to many scientists it is less than a pea-shooter. This is not validated in any form of proof. The IPCC says half the warming is natural. Not to mention, the CO2 theory doesn't work well in many geological time periods, or in recent history of our current interglacial.

[Drip_Torch]

Oh, prolly nuffin...



(Daily Area Burned chart for Canada. Northern BC, Alberta, Sask and NWT were the culprits.)

.

Untitled-2.jpg

[foenix]

There is pretty good correlation between sun-spot cycles and global average temperature. The question is why.

That assumption has been debunked since the 1960 where the global average temperatures is on a upward trend regardless of solar activity. Perhaps, a reminder is in order, AGAIN...

A.PNG

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti ... arming.htm