even some global warming doubters want preparations for stronger storm surges

[Cypress]

Again you just can't being an arsehole! Do you even know who Arrhenius is and what he was famous for, probably not.

I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.

[cancel2 2022]

I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.

There is very good evidence to state that a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum is in the offing, stop being such a prick ffs. It has nothing to do with CO2 and
radiative forcing.

[Cypress]

There is very good evidence to state that a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum is in the offing, stop being such a prick ffs. It has nothing to do with CO2 and
radiative forcing.

You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How long have you been making that prediction? 20 years? 30 years?

[cancel2 2022]

You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How long have you been making that prediction? 20 years? 30 years?

Take it up with your fellow Russian Prof. Valentina V. Zharkova. She has been predicting a Grand Solar Minimum since 2013 and starting around 2020 and finishing in 2050.

Northumbria University · Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering
BSc, MSc , PhD, FRAS

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Zharkova

[Cypress]

Take it up with your fellow Russian Prof. Valentina V. Zharkova. She has been predicting a Grand Solar Minimum since 2013 and starting around 2020 and finishing in 2050.

Northumbria University · Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering
BSc, MSc , PhD, FRAS

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Zharkova

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility:

I have predicted global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

For the past 15 years you have been predicting the imminent onset of global cooling.

[cancel2 2022]

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility:

I have predicted global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

For the past 15 years you have been predicting the imminent onset of global cooling.

Back on ignore, can't be bothered with you as you're only interested in imagined gotchas. You're totally incapable of understanding that sunspot cycles and CO2 forcing are not the same thing. Low numbers of sunspots results in much more quiescent solar winds and consequently higher levels of cosmic rays forming clouds.


CLOUD discovers new way by which aerosols rapidly form and grow at high altitude

The resultant particles quickly spread around the globe, potentially influencing Earth’s climate on an intercontinental scale

18 MAY, 2022

Aerosol particles can form and grow in Earth’s upper troposphere in an unexpected way, reports the CLOUD collaboration in a paper1 published today in Nature. The new mechanism may represent a major source of cloud and ice seed particles in areas of the upper troposphere where ammonia is efficiently transported vertically, such as over the Asian monsoon regions.

Aerosol particles are known to generally cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space and by making clouds more reflective. However, how new aerosol particles form in the atmosphere remains relatively poorly known.

“Newly formed aerosol particles are ubiquitous throughout the upper troposphere, but the vapours and mechanisms that drive the formation of these particles are not well understood,” explains CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby. “With experiments performed under cold upper tropospheric conditions in CERN’s CLOUD chamber, we uncovered a new mechanism for extremely rapid particle formation and growth involving novel mixtures of vapours.”

Using mixtures of sulfuric acid, nitric acid and ammonia vapours in the chamber at atmospheric concentrations, the CLOUD team found that these three compounds form new particles synergistically at rates much faster than those for any combination of two of the compounds. The CLOUD researchers found that the three vapours together form new particles 10–1000 times faster than a sulfuric acid–ammonia mixture, which, from previous CLOUD measurements, was previously considered to be the dominant source of upper tropospheric particles. Once the three-component particles form, they can grow rapidly from the condensation of nitric acid and ammonia alone to sizes where they seed clouds.

Moreover, the CLOUD measurements show that these particles are highly efficient at seeding ice crystals, comparable to desert dust particles, which are thought to be the most widespread and effective ice seeds in the atmosphere. When a supercooled cloud droplet freezes, the resulting ice particle will grow at the expense of any unfrozen droplets nearby, so ice has a major influence on cloud microphysical properties and precipitation.

The CLOUD researchers went on to feed their measurements into global aerosol models that include vertical transport of ammonia by deep convective clouds. The models showed that, although the particles form locally in ammonia-rich regions of the upper troposphere such as over the Asian monsoon regions, they travel from Asia to North America in just three days via the subtropical jet stream, potentially influencing Earth’s climate on an intercontinental scale.

“Our results will improve the reliability of global climate models in accounting for aerosol formation in the upper troposphere and in predicting how the climate will change in the future,” says Kirkby. “Once again, CLOUD is finding that anthropogenic ammonia has a major influence on atmospheric aerosol particles, and our studies are informing policies for future air pollution regulations.”

Atmospheric concentrations of sulfuric acid, nitric acid and ammonia were much lower in the pre-industrial era than they are now, and each is likely to follow different concentration trajectories under future air pollution controls. Ammonia in the upper troposphere originates from livestock and fertiliser emissions – which are unregulated at present – and is carried aloft in convective cloud droplets, which release their ammonia upon freezing.

https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/p...-high-altitude

[gfm7175]

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s,

... and don't forget that the popular chatter before then was about "global cooling". There was fear of "another ice age" happening.

and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

I think it's inaccurate, and rather reckless, to claim that "unbelievers" want their grandchildren to be harmed. They, like anyone else (generally speaking), want their children to be happy and healthy. "Unbelievers", rather, are simply not convinced that "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are "warming the Earth", catastrophically or otherwise. They have a number of reasons for that:

First is the internal consistency check (IOW, re: logic). The simple question "what is global warming" has never been answered by a "believer" in a manner that doesn't amount to a circular definition. In essence, they claim that "global warming" IS "global warming", which is meaningless.

Then come the mathematical issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming. The main problem with trying to measure the temperature of Earth is that there is too much variance in temperature. For instance, temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF per MILE and can even vary quite a bit per minute, and the Earth has approximately 197 million square miles of surface area. Thus, roughly 200 million thermometers would be necessary to even have any sort of an idea as to what Earth's temperature is, and that is only covering the "ground level" surface area of Earth, let alone above it and below it (also parts of Earth). In the end, it would take at least a billion thermometers to have any sort of decent idea as to what Earth's temperature is.

Then come the science issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming via "greenhouse effect". In order for the Earth in increase in temperature, additional energy is required. Where is this additional energy coming from? Additionally, heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only flow from hot to cold. How can "greenhouse gas" (colder) heat Earth's surface (warmer)? Additionally, Earth's radiance is directly proportional to Earth's temperature. IF Earth's radiance is decreased due to "trapped heat", then Earth's temperature will likewise be proportionately DECREASED, not increased.

For these reasons, and more, I am not convinced that the "global warming" faith is true.

[IBDaMann]

it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

Storms aren't getting any stronger and sea level hasn't risen discernibly since the late 1800s. It is a simple matter for any rational adult to verify this.

If you want to prepare move inland. Problem solved. You don't have a right to live where you want at others expense. And it is a hoax. You have been played. But it is easier for you to continue to believe a lie rather than admit you were duped.

A voice of reason. Well done.

I finally realized that for years I was duped by the GOP. They aren't conservative constitutionalists. They are no better than the democrat party.

Correct, but this is a relatively recent change. Back in the late 1990s, Republican Congresses were budgeting to a surplus and were ensuring our individual liberties. The Democrat Party has successfully infiltrated the RNC and now literally controls it through their RINOs.

I think state government leadership in Florida still [understands] global warming is a hoax

Well, there's still some sanity out there then. Good on them.

I think that Ian was just one of those storms, much like the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, that occurs periodically over a long period of time that isn't predicted or planned for.

All weather is random. No weather conditions are predicted or planned. Now before you do the stupid knee-jerk "Of course we have weather forecasts ..." weather forecasts can only be generated from observing the weather conditions that produce such forecasts. Those weather conditions are never predicted or planned, i.e. there are no planned or predicted weather forecasts.

Weather is random. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern." If you hear/read a warmizombie using the term "weather pattern(s)" then you've got yet another scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron on your hands, and your time would be more productively spent watching paint dry.

Exxon scientists knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels and pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would result in global warming.

There are no scientists who believe in physics violations, but I notice that you sure do love to pretend to speak for thmart perthonth. Not only is your pretense of knowing what an entire class of people "knew" totally absurd, what you claim to read from their minds is completely ridiculous.

Once again, your Global Warming religion is a mess of physics violation and no, there aren't any scientists that subscribe to physics violations.

There's little difference between that and the tobacco industry knowing that cigarettes are deadly, but playing it down.

Except that those who smoke cigarettes do so freely. I bet you favor marijuana legalization, but you want to deny We the People the individual liberty to smoke cigarettes? Why the zeal to demonize an industry for offering a product that no one is required to buy? I bet you loved the part about Obamacare that mandated everyone purchase it, enforced by the IRS, denying We the People the freedom to opt out and to choose what we buy and don't buy. But the tobacco industry was evil, you say? ... because nobody was forced to buy any cigarettes ... I see. It makes so much sense now that you put it that way. I appreciate the clarity.

Wait a minute ... don't you demonize conservatives for supposedly holding your positions?

The puzzling thing is why the Reichtards continue to deny deny deny.

Yes, this is what you do. Have you never noticed?

People in general, and Rightwingers in particular, are reticent to admit they were wrong.

That would be every leftist on JPP. You, in fact, haven't really ever been right, but you won't ever admit that you were ever wrong.

You can barely find a Republican on this board who will admit anti-war liberals had good judgement about the folly of the Iraq invasion.

You can barely find a leftist who will acknowledge that the UN Security Council voted unanimously to approve it. You probably couldn't find a leftist who even knows why Iraq was invaded. Yes, yes, yes, there are plenty of leftists who are certain that they understand all the propaganda correctly, but they don't really know anything based in reality.

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s, and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

Correct. People such as yourself would rather usher in economic harm to your grandchildren's future than admit that you should have paid attention in school and not fallen for a religion based on physics violations, a religion based on HATRED and intolerance, a religion that only recruits from the stupidest among us. Your position is that you would rather screw over your grandchildren because, hey, better they get screwed than I be momentarily embarrassed on an anonymous message board.

It seems more likely than not that CO2 emissions are impacting climate.

Nope. There is no likelihood of physics violations impacting something that is totally undefined and completely unfalsifiable. You can rest assured that humanity has dodged that bullet. Whew! More good news, changes in daylight savings time will have absolutely no impact on lavender lunar leprechauns! I think it's time to celebrate. Really.

It has been called 'climate change' at the highest levels of government and science for more than 40 years,

... but it isn't in any of the government's strategic plans, which is what really matters, and it doesn't exist in the body of science. It is a religion, and so it exists in the government along with Christianity, Islam, Marxism, etc..., and none of them exist in the body of science.

By the way, the IPCC is a religious headquarters, like the Vatican or Mecca. All that is issued from these institutions is church material.

Global warming is a more accurate description although not accurate. ‘Regional warming’ is better.

Nope. There is no discernible/perceptible warming.

There has been no change in the Köppen climate classification of any region in the world for centuries to my knowledge.

Correct. The reason you are not aware of any climate that has changed over the last century is because no climate has changed over the last century. So who convinced you that there was warming somehow?

That's been known about since the time of Arrhenius, shit for brains.

Nope. It has not been known because it isn't true. Svante Arrhenius might have enjoyed logging hours in the lab, but the hypotheses that he proposed were wrong and didn't survive the scrutiny of the scientific method. You should have performed your due diligence. Arrhenius wrote a paper, yes, that captured some data from some tests, but data is not science. He proposed some hypotheses and they were falsified ... and Arrhenius was done. None of his work remains in the body of science, although his data is available for study (it was all published). This is why there is no "Arrhenius law," why there is no unit of measure "the Svante" and why you won't find anything of his taught in any physics class.

Recap: there is no "what Arrhenius knew." There is only the erroneous "Arrhenius conjecture." He was wrong. There is no effect on earth's temperatures. You can see why in my signature.

It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is.

Nope. Identify for me one climate that has changed within the last century.

It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is.

Nope. The only things that are clear are:
1. You have no way of measuring the global atmospheric content of CO2.
2. You thus have no way of knowing whether it is ever increasing, decreasing or remaining the same.
3. You are obviously forgetting that CO2 is plant food, that it is heavier than the rest of the air, and that any and all CO2 settling down to the surface will be greedily consumed by the earth's plant life.
4. There is far more plant life than that needed to consume the relatively paltry quantities of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

I don't see how you can claim that CO2 is rising and keep a straight face.

It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.

Nope. That's not possible.

The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to,

Then I have some great news! The correct answer is zero warming. No substance has any magical superpower to defy thermodynamics or any other law of physics. So, this debate is over, unless you enjoy listening to the sound of your own voice.

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming

Zero qualifies as "very little."

... and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.

Well the warming is zero so there is zero impact to storms. However, warming hinders storms. Cold is what causes storms. This is why the windiest and stormiest places on earth are the coldest, and the windiest and stormiest planets are the coldest. Let me know if you need me to explain how that works.

I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.

You both have differing religious beliefs. Why do Christians pray to God while Muslims pray to Allah?

It has nothing to do with CO2 and radiative forcing.

There is no such thing as a "forcing." "Forcing" is just Climate religion jargon for "miracle." "Feedback" is a Climate forcing that specifically violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, culminating in an impressive violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How does that differ substantially from the crap you've been writing?

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility: I have [preached] global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

... and I have told you repeatedly that you have no credibility.

Back on ignore, can't be bothered with you as you're only interested in imagined gotchas. You're totally incapable of understanding that sunspot cycles and CO2 forcing are not the same thing.

The former exists and the latter does not.

... and don't forget that the popular chatter before then was about "global cooling". There was fear of "another ice age" happening.

These funky Climate religions come and go like fads.

I think it's inaccurate, and rather reckless, to claim that "unbelievers" want their grandchildren to be harmed. They, like anyone else (generally speaking), want their children to be happy and healthy. "Unbelievers", rather, are simply not convinced that "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are "warming the Earth", catastrophically or otherwise. They have a number of reasons for that:

First is the internal consistency check (IOW, re: logic). The simple question "what is global warming" has never been answered by a "believer" in a manner that doesn't amount to a circular definition. In essence, they claim that "global warming" IS "global warming", which is meaningless.

Then come the mathematical issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming. The main problem with trying to measure the temperature of Earth is that there is too much variance in temperature. For instance, temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF per MILE and can even vary quite a bit per minute, and the Earth has approximately 197 million square miles of surface area. Thus, roughly 200 million thermometers would be necessary to even have any sort of an idea as to what Earth's temperature is, and that is only covering the "ground level" surface area of Earth, let alone above it and below it (also parts of Earth). In the end, it would take at least a billion thermometers to have any sort of decent idea as to what Earth's temperature is.

Then come the science issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming via "greenhouse effect". In order for the Earth in increase in temperature, additional energy is required. Where is this additional energy coming from? Additionally, heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only flow from hot to cold. How can "greenhouse gas" (colder) heat Earth's surface (warmer)? Additionally, Earth's radiance is directly proportional to Earth's temperature. IF Earth's radiance is decreased due to "trapped heat", then Earth's temperature will likewise be proportionately DECREASED, not increased.

For these reasons, and more, I am not convinced that the "global warming" faith is true.

Another voice of reason. Thank you for adding some sanity to the discussion.

[Cypress]

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

[IBDaMann]

Still no original thoughts. Disappointing. At least I can win bar bets off your guaranteed lack of originality.

[T. A. Gardner]

Storms aren't getting any stronger and sea level hasn't risen discernibly since the late 1800s. It is a simple matter for any rational adult to verify this.

All weather is random. No weather conditions are predicted or planned. Now before you do the stupid knee-jerk "Of course we have weather forecasts ..." weather forecasts can only be generated from observing the weather conditions that produce such forecasts. Those weather conditions are never predicted or planned, i.e. there are no planned or predicted weather forecasts.

Weather is random. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern." If you hear/read a warmizombie using the term "weather pattern(s)" then you've got yet another scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron on your hands, and your time would be more productively spent watching paint dry.

This is utterly stupid bullshit. Weather is not "random." We don't have blizzards at the equator, nor massive winter storms in the Northern Hemisphere in July. Global wind patterns are generally mapped and known. Weather moves from West to East in the Northern Hemisphere for the most part.



It is stupid arrogance to claim that weather is just "random." Weather forecasts become more accurate as they become more near term. Thus, it can be predicted that in December two years from now the temperature at a particular location will be between to values based on years of data. That's how statistics work. The exact temperatures on any given day in December two years from now can't be predicted precisely, but that doesn't invalidate the estimates made two years prior.

[IBDaMann]

This is utterly stupid bullshit.

I never accused you of being very bright.

Weather is not "random."

Of course it is. Why do you think stochastic models exist? You apparently don't know what "random" means.

We don't have blizzards at the equator, nor massive winter storms in the Northern Hemisphere in July.

I was correct. You don't know what random means. When you roll a six-sided die, is that random? Of course not; you never roll an eight, right?

Global wind patterns are generally mapped and known.

So no one ever told you that wind currents change, and that they change randomly? Most people learned all of this stuff in high school. Where were you?

Weather moves from West to East in the Northern Hemisphere for the most part.

Are you saying that weather has a direction, and that direction is West to East? Well that certainly explains why we never get hurricanes that somehow form in the Atlantic and strike the US' east coast. What you're saying makes perfect sense now that you put it that way.

It is stupid arrogance to claim that weather is just "random."

Too funny. It is grammar school-level ignorance to not know that weather is entirely random.

Weather forecasts become more accurate as they become more near term.

I already covered this. You made the knee-jerk rookie error I asked you not to make in my post.

Forecasts are only made when certain weather conditions arise. The weather conditions themselves are what are random. There is no way to predict what weather conditions will occur when. Once those weather conditions materialize and we observe them, yes, we can form a weather forecast. We cannot predict weather conditions.

If you disagree, tell us all when and where the conditions to form the next CAT 3 hurricane will occur in the Atlantic?