When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

[Lord of Planar]

LOL! And again you go for the junior high school "Nuh-huh! I'm not that...YOU ARE!"

What a child.

Sorry, but it is clear to everyone here that you are the one being childish.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have no choice but to appeal to international organizations and treaty, then link international participation to policy. Sounds rough but there is not much else available to organize a change all nations at least in part agree to.

As for the birthrate bit, the baiting in your question, I'll respond with the 'I generally dislike everyone born on a Thursday' theory.

I didn't mean the birthrate to be any type of baiting. It is a reality that the world population is growing. We are already seeing problems in several locations with water supplies falling short of demand, more and more frequently. Growing populations simply require us to use more land for food and housing. More water for drinking and irrigation.

My point is that we are not addressing the real problems. Instead, the mantra is to blame CO2. I see this as nothing but an easy way to have another ever-growing tax.

As for a treaty? How many of them are legally binding treaties? How many of them went through the senate with the required votes?

I can call a dog... a horse. That doesn't make it a horse!

 

[OrphanSlug]

I didn't mean the birthrate to be any type of baiting. It is a reality that the world population is growing. We are already seeing problems in several locations with water supplies falling short of demand, more and more frequently. Growing populations simply require us to use more land for food and housing. More water for drinking and irrigation.

My point is that we are not addressing the real problems. Instead, the mantra is to blame CO2. I see this as nothing but an easy way to have another ever-growing tax.

As for a treaty? How many of them are legally binding treaties? How many of them went through the senate with the required votes?

I can call a dog... a horse. That doesn't make it a horse!

Of course you do, the whole intention of bringing up birthrate is an intention to draw out what we would all do about it. Any hint of limitation, which I am not advocating, is an intention to trap by ideological alignment to prior horrors. In other words, a complete bait on your part as you are absent to propose your own solution looking to pounce on others.

As for the treaty there is no other option as nations are largely sovereign. A path to deal with a vast group of nations all within some phase of evolution / industrialization / etc. themselves is to link global participation to treaty agreements. The only other way is force. Regardless nations have their own means to enter into treaties and what that means to their own policy. There is interest or there is not, the not part means dealing with other things those nations do generally want. Like trade.

So either you are baiting again talking about how far one nation should go to force others again offering nothing in response yourself, or you have some other solution yet to be offered on getting people to the table.

CO2 is a legitimate concern, as are other metrics, in dealing with climate change. No one has to let that go simply because of your "mantra" bit that also has no real counter from you other than you bitching about it.

If you want to discuss the issue we can continue but that means a two way street, and you coming down from the cheap seats. Given your history of talking about this subject the smart money is on avoidance, denial there is an issue, and retreat to use of scary words all to avoid we do have an issue.

 

[istodolez]

It would be nice if for once you would address things related to the topic, and stop going out of your way to attack me.

If you REALLY wanted that you would not have attacked me.

 

[istodolez]

Sorry, but it is clear to everyone here that you are the one being childish.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure of it.

At least I know that when people disagree with me most of the time they are NOT lying.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course you do, the whole intention of bringing up birthrate is an intention to draw out what we would all do about it. Any hint of limitation, which I am not advocating, is an intention to trap by ideological alignment to prior horrors. In other words, a complete bait on your part as you are absent to propose your own solution looking to pounce on others.

Not at all. I'm only pointing out a fact. It appears it's a fact you would prefer to deny, pretending it doesnt exist.

As for the treaty there is no other option as nations are largely sovereign. A path to deal with a vast group of nations all within some phase of evolution / industrialization / etc. themselves is to link global participation to treaty agreements. The only other way is force. Regardless nations have their own means to enter into treaties and what that means to their own policy. There is interest or there is not, the not part means dealing with other things those nations do generally want. Like trade.

But they are only a treaties by name, and carry no actual force of law. To do so, they must be approved by the senate also. Have you ever read that part of the constitution?

So either you are baiting again talking about how far one nation should go to force others again offering nothing in response yourself, or you have some other solution yet to be offered on getting people to the table.

I'm just pointing out that this isn't anything that can be properly enforced. Since when are the proper use of facts, baiting?

CO2 is a legitimate concern, as are other metrics, in dealing with climate change. No one has to let that go simply because of your "mantra" bit that also has no real counter from you other than you bitching about it.

I find the pollutants created by inefficient and old methods of using hydrocarbons the problem. Not CO2 itself when using modern technology. Yes, it has a minimal effect, but there are so many other things far worse than CO2 that need to be address first. Once these other problems are addressed, we might see that CO2 levels really are not as harmful as claimed.

If you want to discuss the issue we can continue but that means a two way street, and you coming down from the cheap seats. Given your history of talking about this subject the smart money is on avoidance, denial there is an issue, and retreat to use of scary words all to avoid we do have an issue.

Please stop with the insults. That simply means to me you have no valid points. If anyone is in denial here, it is you. Claiming facts as baiting is denial.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you REALLY wanted that you would not have attacked me.

I didn't attack you until after you attacked me, if you want to call my remarks an attack.

You should just own it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Not at all. I'm only pointing out a fact. It appears it's a fact you would prefer to deny, pretending it doesnt exist.

But they are only a treaties by name, and carry no actual force of law. To do so, they must be approved by the senate also. Have you ever read that part of the constitution?

I'm just pointing out that this isn't anything that can be properly enforced. Since when are the proper use of facts, baiting?

I find the pollutants created by inefficient and old methods of using hydrocarbons the problem. Not CO2 itself when using modern technology. Yes, it has a minimal effect, but there are so many other things far worse than CO2 that need to be address first. Once these other problems are addressed, we might see that CO2 levels really are not as harmful as claimed.

Please stop with the insults. That simply means to me you have no valid points. If anyone is in denial here, it is you. Claiming facts as baiting is denial.

And again, you avoid anything and everything but pointing things out "facts" you can hide behind offering nothing about them.

It is all noted.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And again, you avoid anything and everything but pointing things out "facts" you can hide behind offering nothing about them.

It is all noted.

Please explain what you are looking for. I'm at a loss as to your point, and you have been so dismissive of reality.

So please, elaborate.

 

[istodolez]

I didn't attack you until after you attacked me, if you want to call my remarks an attack.

You sure 'bout that? I'd say spending months casting aspersions on someone's bona fides is not what GROWN UPS would call particularly "friendly".

You opened the can, now eat the worms.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And again, you avoid anything and everything but pointing things out "facts" you can hide behind offering nothing about them.

It is all noted.

In an earlier post, you said "How about we slow down the damage to things as we see them now, before getting into a contest over what things should be in fantasy land?" I simply pointed out some facts. I believe at one point, I said we need to address certain actual problems like specific pollutants. I mentioned the growing population and resource usage as a factual concern, that you seem to want to deny the existence of.

Again, what are you looking for?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You sure 'bout that? I'd say spending months casting aspersions on someone's bona fides is not what GROWN UPS would call particularly "friendly".

You opened the can, now eat the worms.

You have to let that go. I didn't do that anywhere for a long time. Keep it up, and people might consider you a Hillbilly, that has feuds over stupid stuff for generations.

 

[watsup]

That isn't the case. This idea is expecting cycle to repeat itself that has more variables that we had time to track. The next ice age will be far longer. Around 10,000 years from now. I will add my personal claim that it will be even longer than that, because the eccentricity will reach a very low point in 26,000 years, and I will contend the effects of the eccentricity is underestimated.

The abstract of this paper even puts earlier thoughts out as far as 1,500 years. Not now, but this paper say why it shouldn't be for another 10,000 years:

Determining the natural length of the current interglacial.

Now the abstract does say "Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv." However, the article itself is challenging this idea. Not agreeing with it. However, the paper is not available to the general public. I subscribe to Nature Geoscience, so I have full access. The first paragraph of the paper says:

The notion that the Holocene (or Marine Isotope Stage 1, MIS1), already 11.6 thousand years (kyr) old, may be drawing to a close has been based on the observation that the duration of recent interglacials was approximately half a precession cycle (∼11 kyr; ref. 8). However, uncertainty over an imminent hypothetical glaciation arises from the current subdued amplitude of insolation variations as a result of low orbital eccentricity (Fig. 1). It has thus been proposed that at times of weak eccentricity–precession forcing, obliquity is the dominant astronomical parameter driving ice-volume changes, leading to extended interglacial duration of approximately half an obliquity cycle (∼21 kyr; ref. 9). In this view, the next glacial inception would occur near the obliquity minimum ∼10 kyr from now.

It would help your knowledge if you read ther actual papers instead of what the lying pundits tell you.
[/QUOTE]

Lying pundits.

 

[watsup]

You have to let that go. I didn't do that anywhere for a long time. Keep it up, and people might consider you a Hillbilly, that has feuds over stupid stuff for generations.

Ad hom.

 

[watsup]

Sorry, but it is clear to everyone here that you are the one being childish.

Psychological projection BIGTIME!!!!!!

 

[watsup]

It would be nice if for once you would address things related to the topic, and stop going out of your way to attack me. I showed you wrong, and all you do is find ways to bully me for pointing out the facts you don't like.

I have noticed several spelling mistakes in your posts as well. I just don't point them out because it doesn't address the topic.

So... back to the BBC article you linked. After I pointed out its shortcomings, what is your viewpoint?

Spelling mistakes! Oh no! Prime factor! Oh no!

 

[watsup]

It is subjective if the observed changes to the climate are more beneficial than harmful.
Earth is greening up all over, and the pant hardiness zones are increasing in size, allowing more arable land.

It’s about say more than greening, and you have no idea if any land that is a result of AGW is “arable”.

 

[istodolez]

You have to let that go. I didn't do that anywhere for a long time.

 

[watsup]

Not at all. I'm only pointing out a fact. It appears it's a fact you would prefer to deny, pretending it doesnt exist.


But they are only a treaties by name, and carry no actual force of law. To do so, they must be approved by the senate also. Have you ever read that part of the constitution?


I'm just pointing out that this isn't anything that can be properly enforced. Since when are the proper use of facts, baiting?


I find the pollutants created by inefficient and old methods of using hydrocarbons the problem. Not CO2 itself when using modern technology. Yes, it has a minimal effect, but there are so many other things far worse than CO2 that need to be address first. Once these other problems are addressed, we might see that CO2 levels really are not as harmful as claimed.


Please stop with the insults. That simply means to me you have no valid points. If anyone is in denial here, it is you. Claiming facts as baiting is denial.

“...others things worse than CO2.....”
“.....not as harmful as claimed......”
More denier talking points.

 

[watsup]

The problem is the ignorant masses who believes the lies.

Like right wing deniers? You are so correct!

 

[watsup]

In an earlier post, you said "How about we slow down the damage to things as we see them now, before getting into a contest over what things should be in fantasy land?" I simply pointed out some facts. I believe at one point, I said we need to address certain actual problems like specific pollutants. I mentioned the growing population and resource usage as a factual concern, that you seem to want to deny the existence of.

Again, what are you looking for?

What specific pollutants?

 

[Deuce]

Denying a hypothesis about science without proving it wrong is denying science.

Why don't you understand that?

To flat out deny a hypothesis is denying science.

My hypothesis is that all temperature changes are caused by squirrels.

Are you denying my hypothesis? Science denier!!!

You have it backwards, friend. I am not responsible for proving every wild ass thought of yours wrong. You are literally anti-science right now. Like, the antiparticle of science. An exact opposite. You have the hypothesis, you have to support it with evidence.

****, did you really think this was how it worked!?

 

[Deuce]

The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.

I would point out that the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation absolutely is laboratory tested.

 

[longview]

I would point out that the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation absolutely is laboratory tested.

CO2 absorption spectrum, is not in question, it clearly has a dipole moment at 667 cm-1, the question,
is how does that absorption interact with the rest of the atmosphere to cause net positive forcing and feedback.

 

[Deuce]

CO2 absorption spectrum, is not in question, it clearly has a dipole moment at 667 cm-1, the question,
is how does that absorption interact with the rest of the atmosphere to cause net positive forcing and feedback.

So what are you demanding, a literal earth-sized laboratory or else you'll just declare nothing about climate science can ever possibly be proven?