wokeness

[jazz]

chuck is pure comedy gold now. His scientists told us winters would be gone and the Statue of Liberty underwater.

Wow incredibly accurate.

[chuckChuck]

There are 1000s of climate scientists working on climate change. And there are no scientific organizations that say human caused climate change is not happening.

[blackpowder]

Who's right, who's wrong can't be proven today. But I know a crusade when I hear one.

[blackpowder]

I know a fellow who grew up in Nigeria. He remembers it was common to eat only once a day. He calls us spoiled. In China ,in the countryside, I was told that not long ago a common greeting was "You eat today"?
Now, I don't have the fixes for that, but I do believe we are through affluence unaware of others' situations.
If the foremost daily thought on 2/3 of the world's mind is food, what do they see anthropogenic climate theories as?

[chuckChuck]

Rum must have missed this article I posted on another thread.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

[fjlip]

Good find Rumrocks. Most of us have been saying similar but we just use REASONING and common sense.
How do we get the MORONS in power to open their eyes and ears?

[blackpowder]

I wonder if there is a relationship between people who spend most of their time indoors and those who spend most of their time outdoors. One believes and is afraid, one is sceptical and is not.

[rumrocks]

Chuck some of your comments reach university level, but lately I'm seeing some grade school which leaves your credibility in tatters. For this reason I rarely read your comments anymore.

You have obviously dug in hard and deep in your views on the the climate but don't be afraid to use logic and common sense and you'll see the word "may" being used in your conclusions regarding fossil fuels and their relationship with climate evolution.

Here is some information that might steer you in the direction of the "may" word.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Profile photo for Steve Sawyer
Steve Sawyer
Former Engineering, and Accounting & Finance. Now retired Author has 408 answers and 65.5K answer views Jun 1
Related
What do climate skeptics think about computer modeling of the earth’s climate?

There has been a lot of discussion about the accuracies or the inaccuracies of the climate models. This as an important topic because we are basing our climate related policy decisions and entering into global climate agreements on the model’s predictions. and are in the process of spending trillions of dollars world-wide for actions that will likely have little effect on global warming.

The graph of the model predictions vs actual temperatures is repeated below to reinforce how far off the models are and how far off they are in predicting much higher temperatures than we are experiencing.

The real issue isn’t just that they are just inaccurate, but why are they so grossly inaccurate? To explain we have to get back to the science of the global climate. The modelers are not and cannot “follow the science”.

The primary error is that the global climate is affected by a wide variety of different and complex natural processes. In the modelers defense, the climate is so complex that it is virtually impossible to model as there are way too many variables, most of which they cannot accurately measure or know how each affects the climate. In other words, they can’t even model or predict some of the inputs, like the oceans, the sun, the upper atmosphere, or the impact of CO2, to name a few. So how can they accurately predict or estimate what will happen in the climate as a whole when all these inputs are acting simultaneously? The bottom line is that the climate is a “complex system” defined as “a system whose behavior is intrinsically difficult to model due to the dependencies, competitions, relationships, or other types of interactions between their parts or between a given system and its environment.”

The other major error that the modelers are making is that they are putting most of the emphasis on carbon dioxide as the driver of the earth’s temperature. CO2 is a component of the system, but not the primary control knob. It is just being used for political purposes as a means to wield power and control over us (think COVID mandates).

Recently there seems to be more scientists acknowledging the shortcomings of the climate models. A couple of recent articles provide insight into the failures of the models.

An article in the February 7, 2022 edition of the Wall Street Journal is one. The article is entitled “Climate Scientists Encounter Computer Models Limits: Complexity of Thousands of Weather Variables Bedevils Policy” The article is primarily based on the work being done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) with their open-source model called Community Earth System Model 2 (CESM2). The work is being funded through The US National Science Foundation and according to the article “is arguably the world’s most influential study”.

Some interesting quotes from the article and from some of the scientists working on the project follow:·

“The old way is just wrong, we know that.” Andrew Gettelman, NCAR Physicist. “I think our higher sensitivity (to CO2) is wrong too.”·

“We have a situation where the models are behaving strangely”, Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute. “We have a conundrum.”·

From the article, “Still, models remain prone to technical glitches and are hampered by an incomplete understanding of the variables that control how our planet responds to heat-trapping gases.”·

From the article, “…the new models seemed overly sensitive to changing CO2 levels…”·

Again, from the article, “then there is the cloud conundrum. Because clouds can both reflect solar radiation into space and trap heat from earth’s surface, they among the biggest challenges for scientists honing climate models.”·

“If you don’t get clouds right, everything is out of whack.” Tapio Schneider atmospheric scientist at the California Institute of Technology. “Clouds are crucially important for regulating earth’s energy balance.”

Clouds, aka water vapor, are the most prominent and, by far, the greenhouse gas with the greatest impact on global warming. CO2 has much less impact on climate change. At any given time, clouds cover more than two-thirds of the planet. But their impact on warming depends on how reflective they are, how high they rise and whether it is day or night. They can accelerate warming or slow it down (cooling). Their behavior is affected by a myriad of things from cosmic rays to ocean microbes. As mentioned, they are a conundrum for modelers and one of the main reasons the models are inaccurate. But as noted, there are many other reasons for all the inaccuracies.

The global warming argument is that the increasing carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are blocking or absorbing the heat radiation emanating from the earth, causing our globe to warm. So let’s look at the science of radiation, and more specifically at the solar radiation from the sun coming to our planet and the thermal radiation emanating from our planet into space. These scientific facts will explain the limitations of CO2 for further warming of the planet and why CO2 is not the primary driver of global warming.

The following chart shows the radiation transfers coming from the sun to earth and then radiating away from earth, both with the effects of greenhouse gas absorption.

The left side of the chart (red) shows the incoming solar radiation which is shorter wavelength, higher intensity radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum, the visible spectrum and the lower end of the infrared spectrum. The red shaded area at the top of the chart is the radiation that gets through the atmosphere and reaches the earth’s surface. About 70-75% of the shorter wave radiation is able to pass through and warm the planet. Oxygen and ozone behave like greenhouse gases and block/absorb certain wavelengths of the incoming solar radiation, but the incoming radiation is not absorbed by CO2 and the other trace greenhouse gases. In addition, some of the radiation is refracted by the atmosphere due to what’s called Rayleigh Scattering, radiation that also does not reach the surface. This refraction is what makes our sky look blue.

The right side of the chart in blue depicts the outgoing thermal radiation. Since the surface of the planet has been warmed and is warmer than the atmosphere, the earth’s surface will radiate its heat to the cooler atmosphere. This thermal radiation is longer wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. Only about 15-30% of the thermal infrared radiation escapes beyond the atmosphere (noted by the blue color), the remainder being absorbed/blocked by the greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor. Again, note that the greatest absorption, by far, is due to water vapor. Everyone is so focused on carbon dioxide that larger role of water vapor is usually ignored and rarely mentioned.

Also note that carbon dioxide only absorbs a very small portion of the infrared spectrum, wavelengths centered at 2μ, 2.7μ, 4.3μ and 15μ (μ = one millionth of a meter). The absorption by CO2 covers only an estimated 8% of the infrared spectrum. But more importantly, if you look to the top of the chart, notice that the parts of the radiation spectrum absorbed by CO2 are almost completed absorbed/blocked. In other words there is already virtually no radiation getting through the atmosphere in the wavelengths absorbed/blocked by CO2. Along with a major contribution from H2O, the CO2 has already done its job. More CO2 in the atmosphere will have very little effect on retaining more thermal radiation, or more heat in the atmosphere.

Said another way, additional CO2 amounts in the atmosphere will have only very minimal effect in providing additional warming as current levels of CO2 and H2O are already absorbing almost all of the thermal radiation in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. Additional CO2 will not block/absorb the radiation waves now getting through because they are not in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. This fact explains why the GW proponents have been squelching this information. This destroys their base argument, that we have to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels in order to eliminate CO2 emissions which would then stop global warming. Further CO2 emissions will have little effect on global warming. We may continue to have global warming, but it won’t be because of carbon dioxide.

The bottom line, we are wasting our time and resources trying to save the planet from carbon dioxide. That is not our major problem, nor our most urgent. problem. We as humans living on planet earth have much bigger and more pressing problems to solve.

And it must be reiterated that climate modeling is not climate “science”. The models are just projections which are really the same as estimates or guesses. They cannot and should not be relied upon to make trillion dollar policy decisions.

[cropgrower]

That must be why you like it so much here ! listen and learn

[chuckChuck]

Agrisilly the home of flat earthers and other rightwing anti science conspiracy theories!

[jazz]

Looks like it was a woke hoax. Exposed all the retards in the school division for more than a year.

[blackpowder]

Go to hell with accusing others that challenge the status quo as “extremists” , you going too far chuck , being a skeptic is full on a policy of your Mensa group. You are the biggest hypocrite in AV history bar none .
It’s becoming embarrassing to read your full fledged propaganda lately . And guess what , you’re alone now , even the few like buddies have walked away from your b/s UN plagiarism now .
Simply a full fledged troll on your own now , but sadly you love every minute of it .

Question. You used Chuck and Mensa in the same sentence. A slip that I needed to point out. One has proven it doesn't belong with the other.

[cropgrower]

part of an excellent poem by 14 year old irish girl , their is more too , look it up , i am not a dress

[cropgrower]

part of an excelent poem by 14 year old irish girl , their is more too , look it up , i am not a dress

[chuckChuck]

That's all you got team agrisilly?

Not a shred of evidence? Just more personal attacks sprinkled with conspiracy and flat earth logic?

Give up!