Tuesday, October 8, 2019

HOW MANY CLIMATE CULTISTS HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF MILANKOVITCH?



The Milankovitch Cycles were  given some exposure on BFD News yesterday.

The theories from a Serbian  engineer emanating during the pre WW2 decade did not gain much acceptance until the 1970s.

They are a very interesting theory on what actually happens to the climate of  Earth that expands on my simplistic statements on the Nuclear reactor ninety three million miles distant. That mid twentieth century education figure was only an average distance, it is but one leg of three promulgated in the video BFD posted under "does Thunberg understand Milankovitch".

Milankovitch has a rational explanation as to why Eric the Red nearly 1500 years ago might have given the  curious name to a big Island in the North Atlantic,  of  "Greenland" . when current observation has it almost entirely covered by an Ice Sheet. A large lump of Ice that the morons use incessantly to exploit as it's melting from Global warming will drown almost the entire human race.

Of course the high priests of the Climate Druids will never give any credence to such heresy and in truth may well wish they had the powers  the Catholic Clergy enjoyed to counter and  denigrate the theories of Galileo and others who actually understood the laws of physics in their world, they saw only as a threat to their creationist dominant teachings.

I realise the Climate High Priests and their sheeple, intent on using the natural occurring climate variables almost unaffected by what man does with carbon and its compounds  to improve the advance of human development as it copes with an ever growing population, as a Taxing exercise to perpetrate their swindle on those who do not have the intellectual grunt to think for themselves.

Such people who question the motives of those who inveigle themselves to positions of power as rulers are in a minority but just as knowledge dissemination destroyed the Berlin Wall, the false church of the false prophets will also fall, it is only a question as to how long before the truth is exposed to sufficient citizens of the world and  the ridicule will begin.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course, climate scientists know what Milankovitch cycles are and that they, the changes to the Earths axis, orbit and precession, are not a driver currently in increasing global temperatures.

Psycho Milt said...

tl/dr: when it comes to climate change, timescale matters.

"HOW MANY CLIMATE CULTISTS HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF MILANKOVITCH?"

If you mean climate scientists, the figure would be approx. 100%. If you mean climate change activists, probably very few have even heard of Milankovitch but that doesn't matter much because Milankovitch cycles aren't relevant to AGW.

Milankovitch has a rational explanation as to why Eric the Red nearly 1500 years ago might have given the curious name to a big Island in the North Atlantic, of "Greenland".

If he has such an explanation, he never published it. Milankovitch cycles affect climate on timescales of thousands of years, not hundreds. The fact that Greenland had some areas capable of sustaining agriculture in medieval times isn't due to them.

Of course the high priests of the Climate Druids will never give any credence to such heresy...

Assuming that's intended to refer to climate scientists, of course they wouldn't give any credence to Milankovitch cycles explaining the medieval warm period because, as mentioned above, the cycles affect climate on a timescale of thousands of years, not centuries.

The less-comprehensible remainder of your post seem to be suggesting Milankovitch cycles also explain current global warming, which is obviously wrong because (and I really shouldn't have to keep repeating this), Milankovitch cycles affect climate on a timescale of thousands of years, not centuries.

Anonymous said...

Should also add, the reason that Eric the Red nearly 1500 years ago might have given the curious name to a big Island in the North Atlantic, of "Greenland" has nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles and is a result of variation in Solar Activity. Current solar cycles (over the last 40years) show a decreasing trend in activity, normally the sign of a cooling period (e.g. the Maunder Minimum), yet greenhouse gases are a greater forcing on the climate and hence the observed warming.

Judge Holden said...

Intelligent and rational responses. Don’t expect a response beyond CLIMATE CULTIST HIGH PRIEST OF CLIMATE CHANGE IT’S ALL THE SUN SLGPTPMCOL!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12.58 when you say “the observed warming“ do you mean the cooling that has been observed since 2016?

https://i2.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

Paranormal

Psycho Milt said...

Since 2016? OMG, you've refuted AGW! /sarc

Even the graph you linked to shows an increasing trend. Find yourself one that goes back to the 19th Century and you'll find that increasing trend goes back that far. Funnily enough, the increase matches what scientists would expect to see as a result of us spending that time chucking gigatonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. That's why those of us who value science more than we value comforting endorsement of our gut feelings from wingnut sites have little patience with AGW deniers.

Judge Holden said...

Subnormal is what’s known as a fucking idiot. I thought the warming stopped in 1998, or whatever year you right wing nut bars cherry picked. 2016? FFS. Who pays Roy Spencer, Subby?

Andrei said...

You know Milt you come across as quite rabid and irrationaal on this thread

Dispite GD's errors in fact in is undeniably true that the Vikings pastured dairy cows in Greenland 1000 years ago but had to abandon their settlements around 700 years ago when the land froze over and their ancient pastures are now permafrost.

There are two lessons to be immediately drawn from this factoid
(1) The climate is in a constant state of change
(2) Humans flourish where its warm and not so much where it is cold

So why is it in anyway alarming that the planet might be a fraction of a degree warmer than it was 100 yers ago?

Why is it necessarily a bad thing if the planet is warming, particularly in light of the fact that historically humanity has prospered in previous warm eras and struggled in the cooler ones

We know from history there was a cooling period beginning about 1300 that saw the Vikings of Greenland off and Europe loose about 2/3 of its population through famine, war and disease. Indeed the 14th century has been described as the worst time to have been alive.

This global warming scare is literally insanity - the measurement errors (that is the uncertainity in the data values) are so great as to make any meaningful conclusions regarding recent warming impossible but whatever warming signal there is in the data is so small as to be trivial.

The truth is when you discuss AGW you are not talking science, you are talking politics and you have taken to this topic with a religious zeal.

This is almost a classic example of the political maxim if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

The truth is the climate is changing
Nobody knows exactly how it is changing
Nobody can stop it changing
Nobody can predict the future
And nobody can determine what effects, if any, any "Climate Change policy" will actually have on the climate

Anne Tiffa said...

Come on Andrei, don't forget to enlighten us about the time The Thames froze over, you know, another localised event that you scientific illiterates cling to.

The truth is the climate is changing

OK, Noble Prize in its way to you.

Nobody knows exactly how it is changing

Ooops, withdraw Nobel Nomination, Andrei ignores the evidence.

Nobody can stop it changing

Here comes that Nobel Prize again, Andrei is on to something. Guess nobody knows more about climate than Andrei, except DJT.

Nobody can predict the future

Ooops, withdraw the nomination again. Sure, we cannot predict tonight's Lotto Numbers, but scientific hypotheses make predictions, and t is the fulfilling or not of those predictions that determine if or if not we have arrived a theory. The theory also makes predictions that are tested to ensure it remains valid.

And nobody can determine what effects, if any, any "Climate Change policy" will actually have on the climate

The fact that Andrei knows nothing is supposedly a given that nobody knows anything.

Andrei, I bet your parents regret the roubles they wasted on your education.



Anonymous said...

So PM why only go back to the 19th century? If you want trends what about these graphs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

And Drudge, providing positive comments of substance as always...

Anonymous said...

Sigh, Eric, do you understand the scientific method requires measurable repeatable results to come to a conclusion? You know that stuff that is rigorously missing from a lot of the climate religion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Paranormal

Ps the 10.22 comment was mine as well

Psycho Milt said...

So PM why only go back to the 19th century?

Feel free to go back further if you like.

If you want trends what about these graphs?

Graphs covering geological timescales aren't very helpful when we're considering temperature increase over the last couple of hundred years. The whole point is that this increase is not occurring on a geological timescale.

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei: you keep commenting that climate is in a constant state of change as though someone were disputing that. Nobody is.

So why is it in anyway alarming that the planet might be a fraction of a degree warmer than it was 100 yers ago?

Scientists have written plenty about why it's alarming. Your truculent refusal to read any of it isn't their problem.

The truth is the climate is changing
Nobody knows exactly how it is changing
Nobody can stop it changing
Nobody can predict the future
And nobody can determine what effects, if any, any "Climate Change policy" will actually have on the climate


The first of those is undisputed by anybody and therefore irrelevant. The rest are irrational beliefs that you happen to hold, and beliefs aren't susceptible to rational argument.

Andrei said...

No Milt I am not irrational

I have spent my entire adult life measuring things making calculations based on those measurements in order to accomplish the goals of my employers at the minimum cost

In my game mistakes are expensive and potentially could cost people their lives.

I know the limitations of measurement and I know how to factor those limitations into the calculations so that the solutions arrived at will in fact work and be safe in the real world as well as financially viable to implement.

Which is so very different from your own political heroes who recently came up with a scheme to convert the entire Governmental vehicle fleet to electric only to find they couldn't actually do it. Like the scheme to plant millions of trees or their kiwibuild scheme.

It is fucking easy to talk the talk but a lot more difficult to walk the walk

Anonymous said...

PM “Scientists have written plenty about why it's alarming.” and yet none of the alarming stuff has come to pass. If you’re aware of the scientific method, you really need to ask questions about why there is such a disconnect between the alarmism and reality.

In fact the alarmists are starting to get shriller because even other climate scientists aren’t listening. Have you ever stopped to consider PM you have been fed a line?

Hopefully there is something in here to make you stop and think, rather than your continued reliance on your preferred authority: https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/07/alarmism-enforcement-on-hurricanes-and-global-warming/#more-25194

Paranormal

Psycho Milt said...

Have you ever stopped to consider PM you have been fed a line?

All the time, but especially so in this case. 15 years ago I had AGW filed under "Probably Bullshit," but since then it's become pretty clear that the scientists who were warning about it back then were right and the people trying to refute their claims were mostly fossil-fuel-industry shills engaging in propaganda. Which also makes it quite ironic that you ask me if I've ever stopped to consider I might be being fed a line - more to the point, have you?

Hopefully there is something in here to make you stop and think...

I was already aware that every storm, flood, heatwave or drought has idiots claiming it's a result of AGW, as though we didn't have those things until recently. That doesn't mean that the likely effects of this level of global warming aren't alarming.

Andrei said...

"All the time, but especially so in this case. 15 years ago I had AGW filed under "Probably Bullshit," but since then it's become pretty clear that the scientists who were warning about it back then were right..."

LoL
"One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.

In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.

RosscoWlg said...

Global Warming Milt..bah hambug most scientists agree that the Earth is not warming, even if they can agree it is warming, at anywhere near the predicted rate.

Most would agree about 1,5c by 2100 assuming a cooling cyle doesn't interrupt that trend.

As you would know that is significantly below IPCC estimates and any of the so called climate models.

Bet you don't know this little fact, nearly all the climate models assume the earth is flat!!! No wonder they cant back test the data to replicate the Middle Ages Mini Ice Age.

And to finish on... you drank the Koolaid so you would accept that there is a higher proportion of CO2 in the atmposphere, therefore by logical deduction you would also agree that there is about 15% more foliage on the planet. (A measured fact)

So a Milankowvitch movement occurs, the planet cools, the reverse of what you have logically agreed to above, therefore foliage shrinks as CO2 shrinks, oh dear less food , people starve.

The "inconvenient" truth hurts.. more people have died, will die, than have ever, ever died of warmth!! (or slight elevated Co2)



Psycho Milt said...

One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.

Reminds me of creationists' "arguments" in which they find something a scientist got wrong and present it as a refutation of evolution. Not how it works, sorry.

Psycho Milt said...

Rossco Wlg: you can pack so much wrong into a single comment there's something almost admirable about it. Almost.

Andrei said...

Sorry Milt that is how it works i nthe psuedo science of "Climate Science"

In real science done properly a scientist makes a claim and other scientist examine that claim, check his data, the way it was collected and how it was analysysed and critique it/

In the psuedo science of "Climate Science" data is witheld and those that challenge the assertions made by the psuedo scientist are called "deniers"

The real problem is that scientists plugging away collecting and soberly analysing data and presenting their results in learned papers filled with equations (and caveats) does not make good fodder for the media - Armageddon sells.

You don't even know what Temperature is - you think you do but you don't

Do you know what statistical mechanics is? Be honest with yourself

Real science does not work in soundbites and cannot be conveyed in a tweet = we live in a world of soundbites and tweets

Psycho Milt said...

Your belief that your engineering background makes you more of an expert on climate than the world's climate scientists is just that, a belief, and not one that anyone who isn't you has any obligation to share.

Psycho Milt said...

Rossco: nice timeline here, showing how major fossil fuel companies have known via their own internal investigations since at least 1988 and likely since the 1970s that CO2 emissions would become a problem, and that their response was to fund a disinformation programme aimed at discrediting the findings. Their assumption is that there are a lot of suckers out there, and fuck were they right.

RosscoWlg said...

Well Milt I think coal powered power stations may have a general issue with pollution, that's well known, and technology has been applied to that issue.

As for CO2 levels the earth is a long , long way from being in danger from it, just look at green houses, and the age of dinosaurs.

Its been well known for a long time too indirect pollution of EV battery production and disposal is huge, as is Silicon solar panels, as is the pollution fom wind turbines.

Just ask your mate Eggie who lives near them, visual and sound pollution with sub sonic waves etc. Let alone the CO2 emitted in the concrete production of their bases

A rational person would have to agree that some form of nuclear power is the only solution long term for the planet.

Hard to be rational when you drank the Koolaid and worship at the cult alter with your peers..eh

Andrei said...

I don't claim to be an expert on climate Milt - but I am expert on identifying bullshit when people use science, especially numbers to double talk.

If it wasn't for the industrial revolution powered by fossil fuels you wouldn't be in your cosy library right now Milt, you'ld be out heavy labouring out in the fields til sunset when you would go home to your dirt floored hovel and if you were lucky dining on roasted hedgehog cooked by your toothless wife and praying for a good harvest so you could survive next the winter

Psycho Milt said...

If it wasn't for the industrial revolution powered by fossil fuels you wouldn't be in your cosy library right now Milt, you'ld be out heavy labouring out in the fields til sunset when you would go home to your dirt floored hovel and if you were lucky dining on roasted hedgehog cooked by your toothless wife and praying for a good harvest so you could survive next the winter

True, but also completely irrelevant. And if you can't see that for yourself, how good can you be at distinguishing between science and bullshit?

Psycho Milt said...

As for CO2 levels the earth is a long , long way from being in danger from it, just look at green houses, and the age of dinosaurs.

It's like your comments are put together by a random gibberish generator.

Andrei said...

"True, but also completely irrelevant."

No not irrelvant at all.

Your conceptual error is to believe that the Earth is in some sort of equilibrium and that our activities are disrupting that "natural" equilibrium.

In fact the Earth is not in any equilibrium, there is no "normal" level of atmospheric CO2 nor an "average temperature", the later being an ill defined concept in the first place becaue temperature varies wildly over small spatial distances = on a winters morning the surface temperature at ground level can be 3 or even 4 degrees colder than a meter above the surface (interesting subject that) - the front of my hosue is typically 2 degrees warmer than the back in daylight hours

What we can say is that if atmospheric CO2 drops too low then all life on earth will cease and we can also say that in this era the atmosphere is relatiely depleated in CO2 compared to previous ages. The CO2 released from fossil fuels was in fact taken from the atmosphere in the first place at a time when the atmospheric co2 was far far higher than today, around 1500ppm at the beginning of the Carbiniferous - it was even higher in the Cambrian 3000ppm.

Now to the point if you forgo the energy from fossil fuels without finding a more economical alternative then the result will inevitably be a return to 16th century lifestyles...

But that wont put the planet back into any equilibrium because there wasn't one to start with

Roj Blake said...

I go off for a short break, and return to find "Business as usual". Andrei still claiming to be the great scientist who knows more than anyone else, yet sadly lacking on empirical, repeatable, testable, verifiable, evidence.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Scientists in Siberia have discovered an area of sea that is "boiling" with methane, with bubbles that can be scooped from the water with buckets. Researchers on an expedition to the East Siberian Sea said the "methane fountain" was unlike anything they had seen before, with concentrations of the gas in the region to be six to seven times higher than the global average.

We know that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but it is increased CO2 induced warming that causes the permafrost to melt, and methane to be released.

Locked within in the permafrost is organic material. When the ground thaws, this material starts to break down and, as it does, it releases methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. With global temperatures increasing, scientists are concerned the warming will result in more permafrost thawing, causing more methane to be released, leading to even more warming. This is known as a positive feedback loop.

https://www.newsweek.com/methane-boiling-sea-discovered-siberia-1463766

Those pesky Climate Scientists - they got this all wrong, they were too conservative in their estimates.

+


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

RB

You'd be welcome to take a long break.

You are to science as Al Capone was to philanthropy.

There is NO verifiable evidence that CO2, let along man made CO2, has a significant or even measurable effect on the rate at which the world warms or cools.

Further, there is NO verifiable or reliable evidence that the world has warmed at all over the last thirty years.

Psycho Milt said...

Your conceptual error is to believe that the Earth is in some sort of equilibrium and that our activities are disrupting that "natural" equilibrium.

You're mistaking me for that straw man you've made. Here in the non-straw universe, I'm well aware that climate changes over time. If there's any "equilibrium" being disrupted by our greenhouse gas emissions, it's the equilibrium that evolution manages to maintain with "normal" climate change that occurs over thousands of years. If something occurs that causes significant climate change within a short period, existing life forms have a big problem. We are currently doing something that causes significant climate change within a short period, so we should cut back on that pretty drastically - us being an existing life form an' all.

Now to the point if you forgo the energy from fossil fuels without finding a more economical alternative then the result will inevitably be a return to 16th century lifestyles...

And again, how is that relevant? It's not like "continue to utilise the energy from fossil fuels without finding a less-damaging alternative" is an option, unless we're OK with climate change leaving our descendants looking back with envy at the lifestyles of the 16th Century. If we want to avoid returning to pre-industrial times, we'd better do that "finding a less-damaging alternative" bit, which fossil fuel companies, right-wing politicians and people like yourself are busy agitating against.

Psycho Milt said...

There is NO verifiable evidence that CO2, let along man made CO2, has a significant or even measurable effect on the rate at which the world warms or cools.

More accurately, there is no evidence that AGW-deniers like yourself would be willing to accept, much like there's no evidence for evolution that a creationist will accept.

Deep State Operative said...

Fucking Hell, Adolf. Show us your Nobel Prize in Science.

Andrei said...

"More accurately, there is no evidence that AGW-deniers like yourself would be willing to accept, much like there's no evidence for evolution that a creationist will accept."

If there is anyone who consistantly refuses to "accept evidence" Milt it is yourself.

The reason why you climate change" nutters are getting ever more strident is that we now have thirty years of your doom laden predictions and not one of them has eventuated. NOT ONE!

Eighteen months ago the homeless were freezing to death on the streets of London and Paris eight years after 2012 when according to you loonies England was going to be snow free.

And you can't sort out homelessness - in fact one thing abour left wingers I have noticed over the years is their total incompetence to acheve anything tangible.

This is why we get pie in the sky schemes like Kiwi Build and grandious plans to convert NZ Government vehicles to be all electric by 2025 and they come to nought

But despite that fact you cannot come up with a way to provide adequate housing for everyone in this tiny little country with all its wealth you think you can control the climate of the whole fucking Globe indefinetly into the future...

Psycho Milt said...

The reason why you climate change" nutters are getting ever more strident is that we now have thirty years of your doom laden predictions and not one of them has eventuated. NOT ONE!

Actually, we've had 50 years of scientists noticing that CO2 content in the atmosphere is rising, that that's having an effect on climate and that it will cause problems if we don't do something about it. 30 years is about how long the fossil fuel industry's been funding the anti-science propaganda you guys lap up. The increased stridency is because the longer we do nothing, the worse the effects will be. Your ranting about "doom-laden predictions" not coming true might make you feel better but doesn't alter the facts.

And you can't sort out homelessness...

You seem to be aiming for a masterclass in "true but irrelevant" today.

RosscoWlg said...

Milt time to leave the field of play, you never had much to start with, and most of it is just drivel rather than reasoned answers.

Seems you didnt know that most of the climate models make the assumption the earth is flat... did it occur to you to ask why they make that assumption?

CO2 has risen, but from very low levels, so low that plant growth was under threat. As Adolf indicates there is no scientific link to temp and CO2 anyway.

Besides the earth is a system it has a way of compensating, thats why its still here after 4.5 billion years.

Better email your fallen idol, Al Gore for guidance, he can explain why the Artic Sea Ice is still there!

You are so far up climate creek you cant paddle back even though your rational mind, in its moments of lucidity, knows you have adopted the wrong position.

I guess a 16 year old girl is your next idol given Al's fall from grace ?

Andrei said...

An interesting chart on the state of the apocalypse

Andrei said...

An interesting chart on the state of the apocalypse

Anonymous said...

Andrei, what is interesting about your graph is the decrease in deaths in spite of the increased exposure we have. I’m not talking climate change, rather the growth of population in hazard exposed regions eg building in Florida and Turkey.

A good read on the subject is Disasters by Design by Dennis Mileti

Paranormal

Anne Tiffa said...

Seems you didnt know that most of the climate models make the assumption the earth is flat... did it occur to you to ask why they make that assumption?

Well Wiggles, I am astounded. I did not know that. But by the smell in here, I reckon you pulled that one out of your arse.

Let's see your scientific reasoning that idiocy is based upon.

RosscoWlg said...

Eeerick, DYOR, clearly mot reading widely enough. If you cant find it, tough, phone a friend if you have one.

Its quite obvious if you thunk about it. Ill give you a clue since you are respected poster here, its more difficult to model a sphere...oh in case you are still in school, actually the earth is not a perfect sphere either.

Back testing doesnt work...hence they cant replicate the Middle Ages mini Ice Age, so you cant model forward..the last bit is for Miltie

Psycho Milt said...

Rossco: in among the irrelevant blather and schoolyard taunting, you made this claim:

CO2 has risen, but from very low levels, so low that plant growth was under threat. As Adolf indicates there is no scientific link to temp and CO2 anyway.

If you can prove that claim, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you. No doubt the "if" is going to be a bit of a problem, though.

Anne Tiffa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anne Tiffa said...

his one's for you Eric & PM.

Rossco on the right

RosscoWlg said...

Thanks Anna that is actually funny!. Way past your mate Eric whose humour seems to be scrotal based... is he a member of the Labour Party by any chance?

If he is suggest you don't attend any conferences with him or work in the PM's office

RosscoWlg said...

I know I am wasting my time but as a final fling:

"page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)
•Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not pollutant.
•The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of plant life.
•Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
•Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS, it supports all life on earth.

At about half the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, plant Photosynthesis falters and the world soon dies. In comparison with the Geological past the World is now in a period of CO2 starvation, because most of the CO2, once at least 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere at the time when plants evolved, has since been sequestered in the oceans as limestone."

Nuff said..right out of the IPCC manual!!!

Adolf's Lawnmower said...

All of which proves your claim Seems you didnt know that most of the climate models make the assumption the earth is flat... did it occur to you to ask why they make that assumption? how?

Psycho Milt said...

《I》Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not pollutant.
•The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of plant life.
•Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
•Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS, it supports all life on earth《/i》

Er, yes. Were you under the impression that someone on the thread is disputing those things, or did you just paste them in because the letters CO2 are in there?

RosscoWlg said...

Er....yes Milt no harm in re-stating base facts, you cant just make assumptions about your audience's level of knowledge especially as they seem to believe in weegee theory of climate change.

I guess you deliberately ignored the paragraph that came after that.

Milt time for your bed and a cup of cocoa.. you have a climate emergency to deal with in the morning.... it might be raining!

Psycho Milt said...

I guess you deliberately ignored the paragraph that came after that.

I ignored it because it's irrelevant wittering from a denier site (wattsupwiththat.com). It provides a reference to an unspecified IPCC assessment that I assume is bogus, since Google can only find that text on wattsupwiththat.com (and the fact they reference page "666" of the IPCC report might be a giveaway). Feel free to prove me wrong by finding that text in an IPCC assessment, though.

Here's something more relevant than that blather: the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore changing the tonnage of it in the atmosphere will have an effect on climate is well known to scientists. So, if there are scientists presenting irrelevant other facts about atmospheric CO2 as though they were an argument against AGW, those scientists will be aware of the truth and a person might well ponder why they're instead peddling lies. The fact that the fossil fuel industries are putting a lot of money into AGW-denial propaganda is relevant here.

Andrei said...

What are the relevant facts Milt? The ones you choose to cherry pick in order to berate the productive elements of society with from your comfy armchair?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the major factor in the Greenhouse effect - which is a phenomina that is beneficial not malign btw is water vapour

The farts of vegans are full of CH4 a more potent GHG than the dreaded CO2 and H2S besides that leads to acid rain and stinks, a most offensive odour. In fact vegan farts are highly antisocial

If the planet is marginally warmer now than it was a century ago that is a good thing not a harbinger of doom

Humanity will face challenges in the future - it a given. There are and always have been storms, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and occaisional meteor strikes and when they happen the people affected have to rise to the challenges posed.

And in a world of fossil fuels it is easier to bounce back from these challenges because people from non effected areas can quickly mobilize to get the resources into the effected area needed to recover - as a tiny example from recent times in are own locale, after the Christchurch Earthquakes there were Australian Policemen patroling Christchurch streets

Psycho Milt said...

What are the relevant facts Milt?

The ones you can read if you spend even a moment searching for them: that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the amount we're increasing it by is having an effect on global temperatures, and that the increase will have effects that are likely to cause significant to catastrophic disruption to human civilisation, depending on the extent to which we do something about the problem.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the major factor in the Greenhouse effect... is water vapour

The masterclass in "true but irrelevant" continues. CO2 doesn't need to be the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to have an effect.

...which is a phenomina that is beneficial not malign btw...

And still it continues. Well, duh - yes, life wouldn't exist without the greenhouse effect. That doesn't alter the fact that relatively small changes in the greenhouse effect can have effects that are quite significant for us.

If the planet is marginally warmer now than it was a century ago that is a good thing not a harbinger of doom

Well, you keep believing that if you want, but people who've studied it say it's not going to be a good thing for us at all.

Andrei said...

"If the planet is marginally warmer now than it was a century ago that is a good thing not a harbinger of doom

Well, you keep believing that if you want, but people who've studied it say it's not going to be a good thing for us at all."


Which people "who have studied it" Milt? Do you not understand the intrinsic bias built into this Milt? Sober Scientist A says there is nothing to be worried about - hysterical Scientist B conjures up visions of an impending apocalypse. The media flock to hysterical scientist B because if it bleeds it leads and sober scientist A is a boring killjoy - and politicians flock to scientist B because he gives them a rationale to enact laws that advance their power and agendas justified by avoiding his predicted catastrophe.

FFS the population of Mexico is much larger than the poulation of Canada despite Canada having a much larger land area - why Milt?

California is more populous than Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas combined - why Milt?

Life is more diverse and dense in the tropics than the Siberian Taiga Milt - why?

If things warm up growing seasons lengthen at high latitudes, more food is produced (and as an aside more CO2 sequestered) which is good for humanity, good for wildlife.

But all you people can see is negativity - you are dreary pessimists, living in a golden age and pathologically incapable of appreciating that and hell bent on denying the benefits you have inherited and take for granted to those less fortunate in other lands

Psycho Milt said...

Which people "who have studied it" Milt?

Ignorance on your part isn't a problem on my part. The publications on the likely effects of global warming go back decades and are numerous, but if you want a basic starting point, Wikipedia has a bunch of references at the bottom of this article. If you'd like more in-depth reading, the IPCC has published plenty of reports on the subject.

Do you not understand the intrinsic bias built into this Milt?

I understand it very well, but I don't think AGW-deniers do, which is why they keep going to denier sites funded by the fossil fuel industry for their talking points.

If things warm up growing seasons lengthen at high latitudes, more food is produced (and as an aside more CO2 sequestered) which is good for humanity, good for wildlife.

That's a fine example of how for every complicated question there's a simple, and wrong, answer.

As mentioned right up at the top of this thread, timescales matter. Warming over thousands of years would be fine - all life forms, including us, would adapt to the changing environment via evolution (or application of technology, in our case). Warming over a couple of centuries, not so much. In short: plants that have evolved for the level of CO2 we've had for millennia won't necessarily grow better or be more nutritious if suddenly (in evolutionary terms) given a different amount of CO2. See this article for an explanation.