So what is this 'ideal' climate and why is todays all wrong

[istodolez]

It is more likely that the economic disaster of tilting at climate windmills will be worse for my Grandchildren

The mantra. Keep repeating it.

than addressing the actual problem, instead of some imagined problem.

Remember: climate change is only imaginary to you.

 

[watsup]

The last glacial period lasted for 103,300 years, from the end of the Eocene Interglacial 115,000 years ago to the end of the Younger Dryas 11,700 years ago. Even though the glacial maximum occurred very late, almost at the very end of that glacial period. Occurring bettween 26,500 and 19,000 years ago.

Which means that it took 88,500 to 96,000 years to reach glacial maximum. The climate may have actually be pleasant during this period before the glacial maximum.

Milankovitch Cycles play a role, but I have yet to figure out what that role may be yet. Other orbital mechanics play a much bigger role in our climate. For example, Earth's perihelion changes by just over 28 minutes every year. Which means that every 9,000 years Earth's perihelion changes by 6 months.

Currently Earth's perihelion is in early January (4th or 5th of January), but 9,000 years ago Earth's perihelion was in early July. By changing the orbit of the planet so that the southern hemisphere is no longer the closest to the sun, it altered the monsoon season in the Indian ocean, and that resulted in the desertification of the Sahara.

I can find no such evidence of Milankovitch Cycles causing similar climate issues. Other than determining the North Star, I can find nothing that Milankovitch Cycles causes that would effect humans. It does not appear to have any impact on the climate.

I agree that we are approaching the end of the Holocene Interglacial, but I'm not overly concerned for two reasons: 1) Based upon the data we have from the end of the Eocene Interglacial, the transition appears to be very gradual; and 2) We will have plenty of advanced warning. When we see the majority of the world's glaciers begin to advance rather than retreat then we will know the Holocene Interglacial period has ended. We aren't there yet.

The centuries long cooling periods have always been a very bleak time for humanity. The cold period between the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming periods, from 450 AD to 950 AD was also known as the Dark Ages, for good reason.

It is during those centuries long warming periods when humanity truly thrives. The Medieval Warming period gave us the Renaissance, and consider all the technological advancements made since the Modern Warming began in 1850.

I live above 60°N latitude, and we have longer than a 10 week growing season. Not much longer, but in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley we start getting days that are consistently above 50°F beginning in late May and extending to early September. So maybe 13 to 14 weeks at best, but definitely a solid 12 weeks.

The intensity of the sunlight is much less in my neck of the woods, but it is also much longer in duration. Which is why we can grow 10 foot tall, 2,118 pound squash and 6 foot wide, 138.25 pound cabbage.View attachment 67317230

Technology can, and already has, helped produce more crops by creating disease resistant plants.

As the permafrost in Alaska melts more arable land is opened to farming. In the last 30 years the number of farms in Alaska have doubled.

So the people who live along the Gulf of Mexico are experiencing more devastation as warmer waters provide more strength to hurricanes, more inland flooding as warmer air allows thunderstorms and clouds to hold more water, Eskimos having to move villages that they have occupied for hundreds of years due to permafrost melt, South Sea Islanders having to move from atolls where they have lived for hundreds of years over because of rising seas, people who live along the coasts worldwide having more flooding,,,,,,but as long as “you” are not being affected, everything is fine with the world.
Yes, that’s the right wing atttitude that we always expect: “I got mine, so screw everybody else,I just don’t care”.

 

[longview]

The mantra. Keep repeating it.



Remember: climate change is only imaginary to you.

Remember we are not arguing if man can have an affect on the climate, but how great an affect he can have?
I think adding CO2 can cause some warming, with a 2XCO2 level somewhere between .8 C and 1.8C,
with limitations of how much oil can be found and extracted cheaply.
Again, our real problem is energy!

 

[watsup]

These were the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center and National Space Science & Technology Center scientists who got it completely wrong. They were not the ignorant alarmists, they were the ignorant scientists.

This is what NOAA predicted in March 2007:
View attachment 67317233

This is what actually occurred:
View attachment 67317234

They weren't even close. So don't try to pretend that scientists have all the answers. They very obviously do not.

Once again you offer charts without a link to their original source. As such, they mean exactly NOTHING.

 

[longview]

So the people who live along the Gulf of Mexico are experiencing more devastation as warmer waters provide more strength to hurricanes, more inland flooding as warmer air allows thunderstorms and clouds to hold more water, Eskimos having to move villages that they have occupied for hundreds of years due to permafrost melt, South Sea Islanders having to move from atolls where they have lived for hundreds of years over because of rising seas, people who live along the coasts worldwide having more flooding,,,,,,but as long as “you” are not being affected, everything is fine with the world.
Yes, that’s the right wing atttitude that we always expect: “I got mine, so screw everybody else,I just don’t care”.

Sounds like BS to me, I live on the Gulf Coast, and weather patterns, while bad, have not changed.
We get Hurricanes, and Tropical storms, and yes they cause a lot of rain and flooding, but they always have.
They say that between 1836 and 1936, Houston had 16 major floods.
Harris County flooding history
"Harris County suffered through 16 major floods from 1836 to 1936,
some of which crested at more than 40 feet, turning downtown Houston streets into raging rivers. "
So roughly every 7 years or so, in the 50 years I have lived in the area, we have had several significant rain events,
at least 3 major Hurricanes, and many Tropical storms.
The flooding is getting less, because of Human activity, not worse!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see. But all of the scientific organizations all over the planet don’t understand the science. Got it.

I didn't say that.

Your argument is silly. Have you really read and understood how ambiguous most their statements are?

 

[watsup]

I didn't say that.

Your argument is silly. Have you really read and understood how ambiguous most their statements are?

Ambiguous (according to you) or not, the evidence is insurmountable that man-spewed CO2 is the prime factor in the present global warming, well more than half.

 

[ataraxia]

I didn't say that.

Your argument is silly. Have you really read and understood how ambiguous most their statements are?

About as ambiguous as saying "smoking may be hazardous to your health".

 

[longview]

Ambiguous (according to you) or not, the evidence is insurmountable that man-spewed CO2 is the prime factor in the present global warming, well more than half.

To which I would say, so what! Saying that Human emitted CO2 accounts for even most of the observed warming of the last century,
does not mean that the climate will respond to added CO2, the way the IPCC predicts!
Let's put some numbers on for an example.
Wood For Trees 120 month mean
Wood for trees 120 month mean of the 3 primary data sets, GISS, Best, and HadCrut4, averaged from 1900 to 2014 (the last number in a 120 month mean),
is .97 C, the total observed warming.
Forcing from CO2 in that same time window, would be 5.35 X ln(397/291) X .3=.498C, I.E. roughly half of the observed warming.
If we used NOAA's CO2-eq, which includes all the major greenhouse gasses,
NOAA AGGI
Forcing would be 5.35 X ln(481/315) X .3=.67C, ~2/3 of the observed warming.
Yet none of this mans that the 2XCO2 ECS level for added CO2, would be anywhere near the predicted 3C or greater.

 

[Mircea]

Milankovitch Cycles play a role, but I have yet to figure out what that role may be yet. Other orbital mechanics play a much bigger role in our climate. For example, Earth's perihelion changes by just over 28 minutes every year. Which means that every 9,000 years Earth's perihelion changes by 6 months.

I'm inclined to believe the orbital period might prolong a Glacial or Inter-Glacial Period, but like you, I see no evidence they cause them.

The axial tilt may also prolong a Period. When the tilt is at maximum, it means UV radiation is striking ice, sand and water surfaces at more oblique angles resulting in more of the UV radiation being reflected back into Space.

Technology can, and already has, helped produce more crops by creating disease resistant plants.

That matters not when you can't even get the seed into the ground.

Yeah, there's Winter Wheat, but not if you can't put the seed 2" into the ground.

Wait....I got the answer. You want the answer? More wind turbines.

If we build enough wind turbines we'll kill all the birds and then there won't be any birds to eat the seeds you throw on top of the ground because the ground is frozen.

The point I was making is that global warming kills no one, but global cooling would cause economic turmoil and dead people.

 

[watsup]

I'm inclined to believe the orbital period might prolong a Glacial or Inter-Glacial Period, but like you, I see no evidence they cause them.

The axial tilt may also prolong a Period. When the tilt is at maximum, it means UV radiation is striking ice, sand and water surfaces at more oblique angles resulting in more of the UV radiation being reflected back into Space.



That matters not when you can't even get the seed into the ground.

Yeah, there's Winter Wheat, but not if you can't put the seed 2" into the ground.

Wait....I got the answer. You want the answer? More wind turbines.

If we build enough wind turbines we'll kill all the birds and then there won't be any birds to eat the seeds you throw on top of the ground because the ground is frozen.

The point I was making is that global warming kills no one, but global cooling would cause economic turmoil and dead people.

"I'm inclined to believe"...….yea, that's how science is done. *L*

 

[longview]

"I'm inclined to believe"...….yea, that's how science is done. *L*

Anyone who has worked on multi frequency constructive interference patterns knows they can create some unusual patterns.
Our climate is composed of perhaps hundreds of cycles, from as short as a few hours to many
thousands of years. Without knowing all the cycles that are input, it would be nearly impossible to calculate
when these various cycles would interfere to create maxima and minima lobes.

 

[Mircea]

So you believe scientists that speculate on the state of the climate a billion years ago,...

It's not speculation, it's scientific fact.

Earth's original atmosphere was Nitrogen, CO2, Methane and Ammonia compounds.

The Methane was gone in short order and the Ammonia compounds were gone in less than 500,000 years.

If you have to ask why, then take some science courses. There is a reason why there can never be large concentrations of Methane in the atmosphere (it's called the Photo-Electric Effect).

After the Methane and Ammonia -- which are both "greenhouse gases" -- disappeared, Earth's atmosphere was 26% CO2 and the rest Nitrogen and trace Noble gases.

At about 2.5 Billion years, the Great Oxygenation Event started happening.

By that time there were large colonies of cyano-bacteria in the oceans produce O2 as a by-product of photosynthesis.

The oceans absorbed the O2 and also reactive metals in solution bonded with the O2.

If you do doubt, go to Wisconsin/Minnesota or South Africa or Australia and look at the large bands of iron in rock formations. Iron in solution bonded with the O2 and then precipitated out falling to the sea floor and piled up millennia after millennia as did other reactive metals.

Finally, the seas were saturated and there were no more reactive metals left, so the O2 began to leach into the atmosphere.

It killed anaerobic bacteria because O2 is poison to them, but one lucky guy got zinged with UVA/B/C radiation or a hard or soft gamma ray or a hard or soft x-ray or a neutron or a proton or a fission fragment and he mutated to be able to tolerate O2.

That's why we're all here.

Eventually, the O2 reached large concentrations and then the Ozone Layer started to form.

Anyway, it shows you what a liar Hansen is. Understand, there is no proof Venus is the way it is due to the runaway greenhouse gas effect. That is just an unconfirmed hypothesis.

 

[istodolez]

I'm inclined to believe the orbital period might prolong a Glacial or Inter-Glacial Period, but like you, I see no evidence they cause them.

They are not the sole cause but they do factor in.

Or at least the know-nothing within the earth science community think,

Milutin Milankovitch: Seeking the Cause of the Ice Ages | AMNH

This mathematician calculated how cycles in the Earth's orbit affect the advance and retreat of the polar ice caps.

www.amnh.org

The point I was making is that global warming kills no one, but global cooling would cause economic turmoil and dead people.

Global warming kills no one? How did you arrive at the conclusion?

 

[istodolez]

how ambiguous most their statements are?

Methinks you are somewhat confused about the language of science. Science is ALWAYS couched in terms of uncertainty. The ONLY people who are perfectly certain are usually charlatans. Science is built around estimates of possible error. It's literally the HEART of science.

So of course to the untrained eye that "ambiguousness" might make you think that it's all a giant guessing game. That isn't accurate either.

You see, this is EXACTLY what Creationists do as well. They take the inherent "honesty" of science's obsession with "error" and try to leverage it to make it sound like science can be ignored when inconvenient.

 

[Threegoofs]

Methinks you are somewhat confused about the language of science. Science is ALWAYS couched in terms of uncertainty. The ONLY people who are perfectly certain are usually charlatans. Science is built around estimates of possible error. It's literally the HEART of science.

So of course to the untrained eye that "ambiguousness" might make you think that it's all a giant guessing game. That isn't accurate either.

You see, this is EXACTLY what Creationists do as well. They take the inherent "honesty" of science's obsession with "error" and try to leverage it to make it sound like science can be ignored when inconvenient.

It’s both absolutely hilarious and profoundly pathetic at the same time.

 

[istodolez]

It’s both absolutely hilarious and profoundly pathetic at the same time.

My biggest complaint about that approach is that it takes the best part of science and attempts to beat science up with it.

 

[flogger]

The last thing we need is more "carrying capacity" given the environmental devastation that humans are already wreaking on the Earth.

I see ...... so its humans you hate

Got it

 

[Glitch]

The last thing we need is more "carrying capacity" given the environmental devastation that humans are already wreaking on the Earth.

Yes, we are already aware of your deep hatred for all of humanity. It is a very common trait among all leftists. It is one of those things that indicates their mental disease. It also explains why anti-American Democrat filth are so eager to kill Americans.

 

[watsup]

Yes, we are already aware of your deep hatred for all of humanity. It is a very common trait among all leftists. It is one of those things that indicates their mental disease. It also explains why anti-American Democrat filth are so eager to kill Americans.

Yes, we know your deep dedication to right-wing talking point falsehoods. Here's hint: it doesn't make me look bad because it is a lie. So guess who it makes look bad?

 

[Glitch]

So the people who live along the Gulf of Mexico are experiencing more devastation as warmer waters provide more strength to hurricanes, more inland flooding as warmer air allows thunderstorms and clouds to hold more water, Eskimos having to move villages that they have occupied for hundreds of years due to permafrost melt, South Sea Islanders having to move from atolls where they have lived for hundreds of years over because of rising seas, people who live along the coasts worldwide having more flooding,,,,,,but as long as “you” are not being affected, everything is fine with the world.
Yes, that’s the right wing atttitude that we always expect: “I got mine, so screw everybody else,I just don’t care”.

Except that is all just another deliberate leftist lie.

Hurricanes are not getting stronger or more frequent. Eskimos are always moving their villages for one reason or another. There are no Eskimo villages older than a century. People who live along the coasts worldwide are not experiencing flooding. A global annual average of 3 mm increase in sea levels does not constitute a "flood" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless, of course, you are a leftist who utterly detests humanity and will intentionally lie to get as many humans killed as possible. We know your ilk.

 

[watsup]

Except that is all just another deliberate leftist lie.

Hurricanes are not getting stronger or more frequent. Eskimos are always moving their villages for one reason or another. There are no Eskimo villages older than a century. People who live along the coasts worldwide are not experiencing flooding. A global average of 3 mm increase in sea levels does not constitute a "flood" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless, of course, you are a leftist who utterly detests humanity and will intentionally lie to get as many humans killed as possible. We know your ilk.

"Your ilk". *L*

 

[Glitch]

Once again you offer charts without a link to their original source. As such, they mean exactly NOTHING.

Actually, it is you that means exactly nothing.

 

[watsup]

Actually, it is you that means exactly nothing.

Still no source, eh? Color me not surprised. Wouldn't want us to actually check your statements, would you?

 

[watsup]

Actually, it is you that means exactly nothing.

You seem like a very hateful person. What causes that? Why are right wingers so hateful as a group?