Man made global warming is a hoax

[istodolez]

Oh I know what climate scientists say and do.
Ask a Climate Scientist - You Tube
Dr. Josh Willis is ever so cute (-:

Besides that Dr. Gavin Schmidt and NSAS's GISTEMP rewrite the historical data every month.
NASA's Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) has entries for every month since 1880. Here's
the number of changes made to LOTI in 2020:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
319 240 313 340 298 404 319 370 303 389 381 370

That goes on as a monotonous drone every month, year after year, warming the present and
cooling the past.

So, just out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers and what kind of changes were made?

I ask because I am guessing you don't really know the nuts and bolts of this particular data set.

 

[longview]

Not always!

More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections

The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Had you read the actual paper about food crops being less nutritious, you would have known that the plants grew so much faster with higher CO2 levels,
That they had less time to pick up nutrients.

 

[Lord of Planar]

AGW is real, but it is not an issue!
You keep implying the two concepts are linked.
AGW can be real, and the sensitivity too low for it to be an issue!

That's how dogma works, and he complains about creationists...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Third year in a row here where Jan saw no sub zero temps. Hell, this year we didn't even have a single day in the teens. So, I say your comment is garbage.

Your regional experience dow not represent the rest of the world. Do you line in or near a city? Do you know what the urban heat island effect is?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I live in Canada and wouldnt mind a bit warmer weather

Yep.

Some places in the world would like a little more heat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's nice. Would you mind a potential collapse of Canada's agricultural infrastructure?

See what I mean about alarmism. You find it everywhere.

Just how will that "collapse" Canada's agriculture. Please do explain. If anything, warming will make,more area that can support agriculture.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not always!

More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections

The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.

yaleclimateconnections.org

An unsourced student group with a nice blog site.

That's to be expected. Just hype, no sources...

--- correction. It has some sources, but nothing I read in them is to worry about.

Please point out what there is to worry about in the source links?

Lower evaoptransiration is to be expected. if the water supply is the same. More CO2 allows the plants to use more water in the photosynthisis effect.

 

[Steve Case]

So, just out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers and what kind of changes were made?

I ask because I am guessing you don't really know the nuts and bolts of this particular data set.

Every month, usually after the 15th NASA's GISTEMP

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

data.giss.nasa.gov

puts out the monthly update to their Land Ocean Temperature Index

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

and I copy and file it. Each month I compare it to the previous month's
update and lo and behold about 300 entries are changed usually all the
way back to 1880. In December's update Feb Sep Nov Dec of 1880 were
changed plus 366 other changes. When Dr. Schmidt was asked why all
these changes back to the 19th century, the answer was:

You will either have to change all new readings from here on out or change
the old readings once and for all. The second option is preferred, because
you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to
change them.

The answer as to why so many must still be in the pipeline.

 

[Randomutation]

Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.

That calculation is correct. But it attacks only a strawman.
Global warming is not claimed to result from the total weight of the atmosphere.
It results from the infrared absorption of the atmosphere.
Weight and IR absorption are two different things entirely.
If you want to do the appropriate calculation, then compute how much the IR absorption of the atmosphere has increased.

 

[pamak]

Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.

I did not check out the accuracy of your numbers but obviously, you are not aware of chaos theory which tells us how slight changes in initial conditions can lead to big changes in outcomes (butterfly effect)

 

[vegas giants]

Oh I know what climate scientists say and do.
Ask a Climate Scientist - You Tube
Dr. Josh Willis is ever so cute (-:

Besides that Dr. Gavin Schmidt and NSAS's GISTEMP rewrite the historical data every month.
NASA's Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) has entries for every month since 1880. Here's
the number of changes made to LOTI in 2020:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
319 240 313 340 298 404 319 370 303 389 381 370

That goes on as a monotonous drone every month, year after year, warming the present and
cooling the past.

Good. So you know when you quote them what their actual position on AGW is

 

[Luther]

Good. So you know when you quote them what their actual position on AGW is

Vegas, I love Global warming as much as you like taxes(wink)

 

[vegas giants]

Vegas, I love Global warming as much as you like taxes(wink)

Nudge nudge

 

[istodolez]

See what I mean about alarmism. You find it everywhere.

No, it's the same point I have always made.

Just how will that "collapse" Canada's agriculture. Please do explain. If anything, warming will make,more area that can support agriculture.

I have explained ad nauseum. Change in climate does NOT necessarily mean just a monotonic warming. I can also lead to drastic changes in local weather patterns. Rainfall may increase in some areas but it can also decrease in others.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT: It's a gamble. A giant irreversible gamble.

The other poster glibly said they could use for some more warmth. That's like saying I could go for more money so I'll go to Vegas and turn my life savings into a giant pile of money.

It's a gamble and there's ZERO guarantee of betting against the house.

 

[istodolez]

An unsourced student group with a nice blog site.

That's to be expected. Just hype, no sources...

So you are of the opinion that just dumping more fertilizer on a garden will make it grow...especially if you stop watering it?

That's the point: climate change can lead to OTHER effects which will offset the benefits of added CO2 fertilization.

And, again, climate change does NOT mean a universal monotonic increase in precipitation everywhere. It can lead to droughts in some places as local weather patterns change.

History is littered with societies that have collapsed because of agricultural collapse due to localized climate changes.

 

[istodolez]

That's how dogma works, and he complains about creationists...

Excellent point, Lord of Planar. This is similar to the Creationist argument of "kinds" vs "species". They allow that changes can happen at the species level but they deny that evolution can create a new "kind". They have taken the OBVIOUS parts of science that cannot be denied but have yet to fully embrace the WHOLE of the science. It requires ignoring the inconvenient parts.

When someone says "AGW is real but not a problem" they obviously have to accept that there is warming and that it is due to humans. Now beyond that it would be inconvenient for them if humans were required to take action so it must be cast as "not a problem". That, of course, is absurd since we don't know what the full effects will be but we DO know it will be different in a way we cannot yet fully predict.

This is gambling with the only planet we have to live on.

I am not of the opinion that it will wipe humans out, but I am of the opinion that it will likely decimate vast swaths of society through agricultural and economic upheaval, which is bad enough. It could, of course, be so much worse.

Humans can adapt, yes. No one denies that. But in this case humans are causing a quicker change than we will be able to or willing to adapt to. And the timeline between NOW and "That Future Date" will be rather unpleasant indeed. Adaptation is never a pretty thing.

And just like evolution there's a certain Darwinian component to adaptation. Survival of the fittest doesn't come without a cost.

So, yes, once again, we see the excellent parallels between Creationism vs Evolution and AGW vs "Climate Skepticism"

 

[watsup]

That's how dogma works, and he complains about creationists...

Your regional experience dow not represent the rest of the world. Do you line in or near a city? Do you know what the urban heat island effect is?

Has nothing to do with the overall effect of manmade climate change.

 

[watsup]

Excellent point, Lord of Planar. This is similar to the Creationist argument of "kinds" vs "species". They allow that changes can happen at the species level but they deny that evolution can create a new "kind". They have taken the OBVIOUS parts of science that cannot be denied but have yet to fully embrace the WHOLE of the science. It requires ignoring the inconvenient parts.

When someone says "AGW is real but not a problem" they obviously have to accept that there is warming and that it is due to humans. Now beyond that it would be inconvenient for them if humans were required to take action so it must be cast as "not a problem". That, of course, is absurd since we don't know what the full effects will be but we DO know it will be different in a way we cannot yet fully predict.

This is gambling with the only planet we have to live on.

I am not of the opinion that it will wipe humans out, but I am of the opinion that it will likely decimate vast swaths of society through agricultural and economic upheaval, which is bad enough. It could, of course, be so much worse.

Humans can adapt, yes. No one denies that. But in this case humans are causing a quicker change than we will be able to or willing to adapt to. And the timeline between NOW and "That Future Date" will be rather unpleasant indeed. Adaptation is never a pretty thing.

And just like evolution there's a certain Darwinian component to adaptation. Survival of the fittest doesn't come without a cost.

So, yes, once again, we see the excellent parallels between Creationism vs Evolution and AGW vs "Climate Skepticism"

Humans can adapt, but in the long run it will be much cheaper to attack the problem rather than to simply respond to it by, for instance, having to relocate million of people worldwide due to rising ocean levels or greater flooding inland.

 

[Desert Storm]

No, it's the same point I have always made.



I have explained ad nauseum. Change in climate does NOT necessarily mean just a monotonic warming. I can also lead to drastic changes in local weather patterns. Rainfall may increase in some areas but it can also decrease in others.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT: It's a gamble. A giant irreversible gamble.

The other poster glibly said they could use for some more warmth. That's like saying I could go for more money so I'll go to Vegas and turn my life savings into a giant pile of money.

It's a gamble and there's ZERO guarantee of betting against the house.

You Lefties are constant worry worts. If its not global warming its plastic bags, or transfatty acids you constantly worry about.
The world is gradually moving towards electric cars anyways, with Tesla leading the way.
Global warming will be a non-issue in 50 years from now. It has to because oil is slowly running out

 

[istodolez]

You Lefties are constant worry worts. If its not global warming its plastic bags, or transfatty acids you constantly worry about.

I also worry about making uninformed decisions.

The world is gradually moving towards electric cars anyways, with Tesla leading the way.

I own an electric car. While I love it dearly it isn't yet the panacea because the infrastructure isn't there yet. Besides until we move our electricity over to more renewable sources it's just a means of shifting the burden from petroleum over to coal/natural gas.

Global warming will be a non-issue in 50 years from now. It has to because oils is slowly running out

As noted before: there's probably more than 50 years worth of warming in the pipeline even if we stopped burning fossil fuels right now. But, don't worry about a lack of technical knowledge in the field. I'm sure since you are not a "worry wort" you don't worry about uninformed decisions.

(And if you hadn't noticed you folks in Canada are busy there in ALberta showing us exactly how desperate humans will get for fossil fuels with your tar sands, some of the worst, dirtiest forms of petroleum. Which is exactly what any economic geologist would tell you: as a resource gets more difficult to get we go after more and more expensive and lower grade versions. So good luck with your "market based" approach to switching over. And speaking as a professional R&D chemist who has had to "invent" things let me tell you that just HOPING that innovation will save you is not necessarily the best approach. You can't WILL invention into being. There's going to be some hard choices ahead).

 

[Deuce]

Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.

Do you think we’re worried about the atmosphere getting too heavy? Why are you talking about mass?

 

[Buzz]

That goes on as a monotonous drone every month, year after year, warming the present and
cooling the past.

You are not really going back to repeating this lie again? Are you? You know that the adjustments do not always warm the present and cool the past. I have shown you this fact more than once.

And for everyone's information, NASA's Gistemp is completely recalculated every month when new data is added to the record. And most of the changes are typically a hundredth of a degree or two. There is nothing wrong with or nefarious about NASA's monthly changes in their temperature record.

 

[Steve Case]

You are not really going back to repeating this lie again? Are you? You know that the adjustments do not always warm the present and cool the past. I have shown you this fact more than once.

And for everyone's information, NASA's Gistemp is completely recalculated every month when new data is added to the record. And most of the changes are typically a hundredth of a degree or two. There is nothing wrong with or nefarious about NASA's monthly changes in their temperature record.

You can plot it out for your self. Here's what the changes look like:

The changes add up over time. Any month may have changes after 1980 that are negative, but overall, those changes since
1980 all average out to warming the present and most of those prior to 1980 cool the past. You can call it a lie if you want
and your cheering section will give you likes, but the numbers don't lie. That particular chart is five years old but a redo
to illustrate the changes since 2010 isn't going to be significantly different.

 

[Buzz]

You can plot it out for your self. Here's what the changes look like:

The changes add up over time. Any month may have changes after 1980 that are negative, but overall, those changes since
1980 all average out to warming the present and most of those prior to 1980 cool the past. You can call it a lie if you want
and your cheering section will give you likes, but the numbers don't lie. That particular chart is five years old but a redo
to illustrate the changes since 2010 isn't going to be significantly different.

Wrong.

That graph is of the changes between two very different versions of Gistemp with significantly different data sets and applied adjustments. It is not just the differences from the monthly recalculations that you love to make a big deal about.

Do you want to back up your assertion that the monthly updates are always warming the present and
cooling the past?

Why don't you use those excellent Excel and graphing skills of yours and give us a graph of the changes from just 1 version of Gistemp over as long a period as you can come up with and give us some real evidence to see if you are right?

 

[Steve Case]

Wrong.

That graph is of the changes between two very different versions of Gistemp with significantly different data sets and applied adjustments. It is not just the differences from the monthly recalculations that you love to make a big deal about.

Do you want to back up your assertion that the monthly updates are always warming the present and
cooling the past?

Why don't you use those excellent Excel and graphing skills of yours and give us a graph of the changes from just 1 version of Gistemp over as long a period as you can come up with and give us some real evidence to see if you are right?

So you don't like the graph that compares 2015 to 2005 here's one hot off the Excel
spreadsheet comparing 2020 to 2010 I'm guessing you won't like that one either.

How 'bout that, all the monthly changes averaged up for each year, right off the AnnMean J-D

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

column in the above link compared to the J-D column from the January 2010 LOTI edition and lo and
behold all of those averages since 1970 are increases. This goes on month after month year after year
in a monotonous drone. You can jump up and down spit nickels and claim apples and oranges, but
it's the same report I've been looking at all that time, it just changes every month. Numbers don't lie.