Lake Mead and Climate Change

[Mina]

Lie.

Could you be specific? What, in my posts, do you think implied that no deserts formed before the use of fossil fuels?

FTW, fossils aren't used as fuels. Fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels don't refer to petrified remains. That's the noun "fossil." "Fossil fuel" is something else -- " fuel (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil fuel

Your objection is akin to hearing someone mention basketballs and saying "Baskets aren't used as balls. Baskets don't bounce."

 

[Mina]

No, you are preaching.

I don't believe in your religion.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and other believers in the Church of Global Warming.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU needing attention.

They are YOUR fallacies. Inversion fallacy.

It's your life to waste.

Just so you're aware, I'll keep an eye out for any sign you're interested in talking about the substance of matters, and engage when that happens, but when you cower behind this "I'll name any fallacies I can remember and hope that makes someone angry" move, I generally won't engage.

 

[Code1211]

No. What would have made you think I could possibly be asserting that? It's a very odd question.

The question is not odd at all in consideration of your sentence that ended your post:

"The West is drying out, and while we might get some intermittent relief, climatologists predict that on average it'll just get worse and worse, thanks to our failure to curb greenhouse gases."

I ASSUMED that by including this in your post, you were agreeing with the climastrologists that advance this odd opinion.

Did you include it to highlight your disagreement with them?

Deserts are forming today. Deserts have always formed and only recently formed while Fossil Fuels were widely used.. I present the Sahara as evidence.

The climastrologists present correlations as if they are effects of the cause they are trying to stand up. There does not seem to be an effect that the climastrologists present that is unique in climate history even within the Holocene.

 

[cancel2 2022]

It come to something when even a arch alarmist like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS complains that CMIP6 models are running unfeasibly hot.

Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

https://www.netzerowatch.com/science-magazine-blows-the-whistle-on-climate-model-failure/

 

[Mina]

Yes a huge number, this is but one.

A “Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”, Says German Expert Gosselin on 11. May 2022

Fritz Vahrenholt: The transition to green energies and the missing warming

By Kalte Sonne


Dear ladies and gentlemen,
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.

The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement. (Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?

What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.

No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?


A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).

The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.


Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph

This is actually good news.
Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.
Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.

The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”

Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt


https://notrickszone.com/2022/05/11...last-40-years-is-apparent-says-german-expert/

You appear to have lost track of what we were arguing about. Again, my claim was that climate change is an observable phenomenon which has been exhaustively studied by scientists. You claimed to have better links showing otherwise. Your link is to a blog by a guy named Pierre L. Gosselin -- a guy with an undergraduate degree from University of Arizona in an unrelated field. He is not a professional climatologist, nor trained in any relevant field. He's just an amateur with a web page... a poorly programmed one, given the fact the link to the "Weakening warming trend" piece is circular... just leading back to the same landing page, rather than whatever publication it's trying to reference.

Now, if you want to actually follow up on that, you'll find out that the German "expert" your blogger is relying on is a German politician and former energy corporation executive. Although his training is in chemistry, he became famous for a bit back in 2012 when, along with a fellow energy company employee, he published a book of climate denialism based on an assertion that the sun would soon start cooling, resulting in cooling of the Earth. However, when that solar dimming cycle actually showed up, it turned out he was wrong, and warming of the Earth continued.

Vahrenholt has ZERO expertise in climate science. His training is in chemistry and his professional experience is working for fossil fuel companies. He has never published peer-reviewed research on climate science. He's just some dude with a corporate bankroll who wrote a propaganda book for the denialist movement.

 

[Mina]

The question is not odd at all in consideration of your sentence that ended your post:

"The West is drying out, and while we might get some intermittent relief, climatologists predict that on average it'll just get worse and worse, thanks to our failure to curb greenhouse gases."

I ASSUMED that by including this in your post, you were agreeing with the climastrologists that advance this odd opinion.

What is a climastrologist? Anyway, obviously nothing about my statement implies that I think deserts never formed before fossil fuels were burnt. Here, let me transpose the same "logic" to a field where your thinking may be less impaired, so you can see your error.

"Your hearing loss is worsening, and your doctor says that on average it will keep getting worse as long as you keep going to the gun range every week without using proper ear protection."

If someone wrote that, would it be at all reasonable to conclude that he thinks nobody ever had hearing loss before guns were invented? Of course not. Lots of things can cause hearing loss. But if your hearing is getting rapidly worse, and you're doing something well understood to cause rapid worsening of hearing, like shooting lots of rounds without ear protection, then it's reasonable to draw a line between the two.

Deserts are forming today. Deserts have always formed and only recently formed while Fossil Fuels were widely used.. I present the Sahara as evidence.

You are presenting evidence for a position nobody is disputing. Of course deserts have always formed. However, what we're seeing now isn't like what we saw in the past, with cycles of local desertification spanning over thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We are seeing very rapid desertification across wide dry lands around the globe. That is why the IPCC has listed the role of human activities in the current desertification process as one of the things that scientists have high confidence about. Although there is only medium confidence about some questions having to do with future desertification (e.g., will there continue to be a global trend towards greater aridity in drylands), there's high confidence that the risks related to desertification are projected to increase due to climate change.

I think one of the things that the climate-change-denial cult remains willfully blind to is the role of RATE OF CHANGE. Yes, over long enough time spans, there are natural cycles of deserts forming and disappearing, sea levels rising and falling, and temperature changing. But, we have lots of ways to track what the pace of those changes were in the past (e.g., ancient sediment layers that tell us about the extent of the Sahara at various past points). When you look at those things along timelines, you realize that the pace of change has generally been extremely slow in the past, relative to what we're seeing now -- that the kind of change that's hitting us in a single human lifespan, these days, is the kind that was more typical for a 10,000-year period in the past. And that pace matters a great deal.

If a desert expands a given distance over 10,000 years, there's all sorts of stuff both humans and natural ecosystems can do to cope. Whole ecosystems can migrate over that time, with the changes from generation to generation being almost imperceivable. Human cities can rise and fall at a normal, multi-generational pace, where even conscious thoughts of adaptation may not be needed... with the changes taking the form of imperceptible generation-long shifts in settlement patterns and building methods. But compress the exact same thing into a human lifetime and you wind up with a crisis that requires monumental engineering efforts just to try to stave off disaster, and meanwhile ecosystems get totally overwhelmed and you get mass extinctions.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You appear to have lost track of what we were arguing about. Again, my claim was that climate change is an observable phenomenon which has been exhaustively studied by scientists. You claimed to have better links showing otherwise. Your link is to a blog by a guy named Pierre L. Gosselin -- a guy with an undergraduate degree from University of Arizona in an unrelated field. He is not a professional climatologist, nor trained in any relevant field. He's just an amateur with a web page... a poorly programmed one, given the fact the link to the "Weakening warming trend" piece is circular... just leading back to the same landing page, rather than whatever publication it's trying to reference.

Now, if you want to actually follow up on that, you'll find out that the German "expert" your blogger is relying on is a German politician and former energy corporation executive. Although his training is in chemistry, he became famous for a bit back in 2012 when, along with a fellow energy company employee, he published a book of climate denialism based on an assertion that the sun would soon start cooling, resulting in cooling of the Earth. However, when that solar dimming cycle actually showed up, it turned out he was wrong, and warming of the Earth continued.

Vahrenholt has ZERO expertise in climate science. His training is in chemistry and his professional experience is working for fossil fuel companies. He has never published peer-reviewed research on climate science. He's just some dude with a corporate bankroll who wrote a propaganda book for the denialist movement.

Ah ok, your use of the word denialist tells me all I need to know about you. I've been down this road too many times with alarmists like you so I bid you adieu, you're not worth engaging.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You can't do much better than watch this video by Prof. Richard Lindzen.

Description
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

Script:

I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called—“climate change.”

There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.

Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.

We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.

But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

1) The climate is always changing.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

 

[Mina]

Ah ok, your use of the word denialist tells me all I need to know about you. I've been down this road too many times with alarmists like you so I bid you adieu, you're not worth engaging.

Your surrender is noted.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You can't do much better than watch this video by Prof. Richard Lindzen.

[video=youtube_share;OwqIy8Ikv-c]https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c?t=10[/vide]

Sure you can. Just read the NASA weblinks.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes a huge number, this is but one.

A “Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”, Says German Expert Gosselin on 11. May 2022

Fritz Vahrenholt: The transition to green energies and the missing warming

By Kalte Sonne


Dear ladies and gentlemen,
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.

The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement. (Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?

What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.

No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?


A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).

The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.


Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph

This is actually good news.
Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.
Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.

The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”

Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt


https://notrickszone.com/2022/05/11...last-40-years-is-apparent-says-german-expert/

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, or the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacies. Math errors: failure to select by randN. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to publish margin of error.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes a huge number, this is but one.

A “Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”, Says German Expert Gosselin on 11. May 2022

Fritz Vahrenholt: The transition to green energies and the missing warming

By Kalte Sonne


Dear ladies and gentlemen,
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.

The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement. (Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?

What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.

No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?


A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).

The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.


Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph

This is actually good news.
Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.
Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.

The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”

Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt


https://notrickszone.com/2022/05/11...last-40-years-is-apparent-says-german-expert/

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, or the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacies. Math errors: failure to select by randN. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to publish margin of error.

 

[Into the Night]

That’s nice but I accept the data from the world’s best Space Agency - NASA.

There is no data. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

NASA put mankind on the Moon, put the James Webb telescope out to L2, has put more successful probes on Mars and the distant reaches of our solar system along with many other scientific advances “for all mankind”.

NASA isn't what it once was.

What has your country done for the world? Why do you persist in attacking my country and my fellow Americans with lies and disinformation? Who are you working for?

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Irrelevant. Putting a man on the Moon has nothing to do with climate. NASA is no longer capable of putting a man on the Moon, you'll notice. NASA isn't what it once was.

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Void reference fallacy. There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' except as a religious artifact. You cannot trap or slow heat. You cannot trap light. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You are discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature

CO2 conducts heat better than most any other gas in the atmosphere.

are described as "forcing" climate change.

There is not 'forcing'. Climate has no value associated with it. Nothing can change. You are attempting to use it as a synonym for Global Warming.

Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

There is no 'feedback'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are again discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

You appear to have lost track of what we were arguing about. Again, my claim was that climate change is an observable phenomenon which has been exhaustively studied by scientists.

Not observable. The phrase 'climate change' is a buzzword...without meaning. You deny and discard science.

You claimed to have better links showing otherwise.

Irrelevant.

Your link is to a blog by a guy named Pierre L. Gosselin -- a guy with an undergraduate degree from University of Arizona in an unrelated field.

Irrelevant. Bulverism.

He is not a professional climatologist, nor trained in any relevant field.

A climatologist is nothing but a high priest for the Church of Global Warming. They and this religion discard science and mathematics.

He's just an amateur with a web page... a poorly programmed one, given the fact the link to the "Weakening warming trend" piece is circular... just leading back to the same landing page, rather than whatever publication it's trying to reference.

Irrelevant. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth nor the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now, if you want to actually follow up on that, you'll find out that the German "expert" your blogger is relying on is a German politician and former energy corporation executive. Although his training is in chemistry, he became famous for a bit back in 2012 when, along with a fellow energy company employee, he published a book of climate denialism based on an assertion that the sun would soon start cooling, resulting in cooling of the Earth. However, when that solar dimming cycle actually showed up, it turned out he was wrong, and warming of the Earth continued.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

Vahrenholt has ZERO expertise in climate science.

There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Buzzword fallacy.

His training is in chemistry and his professional experience is working for fossil fuel companies.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. There are no fossil fuel companies.

He has never published peer-reviewed research

Science has no voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. It does not use peer review. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

on climate science.

No such thing.

He's just some dude with a corporate bankroll who wrote a propaganda book for the denialist movement.

It is YOU that denies science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

What is a climastrologist? Anyway, obviously nothing about my statement implies that I think deserts never formed before fossil fuels were burnt. Here, let me transpose the same "logic" to a field where your thinking may be less impaired, so you can see your error.

"Your hearing loss is worsening, and your doctor says that on average it will keep getting worse as long as you keep going to the gun range every week without using proper ear protection."

If someone wrote that, would it be at all reasonable to conclude that he thinks nobody ever had hearing loss before guns were invented? Of course not. Lots of things can cause hearing loss. But if your hearing is getting rapidly worse, and you're doing something well understood to cause rapid worsening of hearing, like shooting lots of rounds without ear protection, then it's reasonable to draw a line between the two.



You are presenting evidence for a position nobody is disputing. Of course deserts have always formed. However, what we're seeing now isn't like what we saw in the past, with cycles of local desertification spanning over thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We are seeing very rapid desertification across wide dry lands around the globe. That is why the IPCC has listed the role of human activities in the current desertification process as one of the things that scientists have high confidence about. Although there is only medium confidence about some questions having to do with future desertification (e.g., will there continue to be a global trend towards greater aridity in drylands), there's high confidence that the risks related to desertification are projected to increase due to climate change.

I think one of the things that the climate-change-denial cult remains willfully blind to is the role of RATE OF CHANGE. Yes, over long enough time spans, there are natural cycles of deserts forming and disappearing, sea levels rising and falling, and temperature changing. But, we have lots of ways to track what the pace of those changes were in the past (e.g., ancient sediment layers that tell us about the extent of the Sahara at various past points). When you look at those things along timelines, you realize that the pace of change has generally been extremely slow in the past, relative to what we're seeing now -- that the kind of change that's hitting us in a single human lifespan, these days, is the kind that was more typical for a 10,000-year period in the past. And that pace matters a great deal.

If a desert expands a given distance over 10,000 years, there's all sorts of stuff both humans and natural ecosystems can do to cope. Whole ecosystems can migrate over that time, with the changes from generation to generation being almost imperceivable. Human cities can rise and fall at a normal, multi-generational pace, where even conscious thoughts of adaptation may not be needed... with the changes taking the form of imperceptible generation-long shifts in settlement patterns and building methods. But compress the exact same thing into a human lifetime and you wind up with a crisis that requires monumental engineering efforts just to try to stave off disaster, and meanwhile ecosystems get totally overwhelmed and you get mass extinctions.

Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no data. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

NASA isn't what it once was.

Irrelevant. Putting a man on the Moon has nothing to do with climate. NASA is no longer capable of putting a man on the Moon, you'll notice. NASA isn't what it once was.

Void reference fallacy. There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' except as a religious artifact. You cannot trap or slow heat. You cannot trap light. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You are discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 conducts heat better than most any other gas in the atmosphere.

There is not 'forcing'. Climate has no value associated with it. Nothing can change. You are attempting to use it as a synonym for Global Warming.

There is no 'feedback'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are again discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Buzzword fallacy. RQAA. GFY. Mantra#207b

 

[Dutch Uncle]

< post deleted by command decision >

 

[Dutch Uncle]

< post deleted by executive decision >

 

[Dutch Uncle]

< post deleted by popular vote >

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies.

^^^ Random Sybil bullshit ^^^