Originally posted by cliffw: Climate Change is the new name for what had been called Global Warming. Yet, the climate zealots can not explain how the warming temperatures change climate. They just say "it does."
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The temperatures that are already consistently warmer all around the world than the pre-industrial baseline, and that are clearly locked into a trend of getting even warmer still, absent a significant reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases, are climate.
The already warmer and increasingly warming temperatures all around the world are part of the earth's climate.
So the assertion from cliffw that "climate zealots cannot explain how the warming temperatures change climate," is nonsense. It's an oxymoron.
Explain how warmer temperatures cause flooding and droughts both. Explain how warmer temperatures cause tornadoes and hurricanes to be more violent / stronger.
Originally posted by cliffw: Explain how warmer temperatures cause flooding and droughts both. Explain how warmer temperatures cause tornadoes and hurricanes to be more violent.
There is more to climate than just temperatures.
Search with Google. Set the time period to Past Month. Set for All Results.
quote
warming floods OR droughts OR hurricanes OR tornadoes "climate"
"If you give a man with a home freezer a freshly caught 5 to 10 pound Red Grouper, you do him a small favor. But if you give a man with Internet access a primer on how to use Google to explore climate change, you teach him to feed his mind."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-29-2023).]
Carbon dioxide hysteria? Here's a guy who strikes me as anything but hysterical about carbon dioxide.
In this just under three (3) minutes of YouTube video content, Dr Gaurav Sant talks a little "shop" about carbon dioxide, at a level that's calibrated for the understanding of a general audience.
quote
Gaurav Sant is the Pritzker Professor of Sustainability and Henry Samueli Fellow at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science. He holds faculty appointments in the departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, and is a member of the California NanoSystems Institute. Sant is also the director of the Institute for Carbon Management at UCLA.
Since 2018, Sant has led the institute’s cross-disciplinary teams to create sustainable solutions for carbon removal. In April 2021, he led the UCLA CarbonBuilt team, which developed a new technology that turns carbon dioxide into concrete, to win the $7.5 million grand prize in the COSIA Carbon XPRIZE competition, making UCLA the first university to win an XPRIZE.
The institute’s ongoing projects include SeaChange, an energy-efficient technology that removes carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater; "x/44," a method for achieving electrochemical direct air capture; and EPOCH, an electrochemical process for producing portlandite—a limestone and cement replacement—designed to greatly reduce the carbon dioxide emissions associated with cement and concrete production.
Technologies developed at the institute are being commercialized by UCLA startup companies including CarbonBuilt, Concrete-AI and SeaChange. [SeaChange has been renamed as "Equatic."]
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-29-2023).]
Research physicist John F. Clauser poses for a photo at his home in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Oct. 4, 2022. John F. Clauser jointly won a Nobel Prize in physics with two other scientists, Alain Aspect of France, and Anton Zeilinger of Austria, for their work on quantum information science.
...
Recently, Mr. Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and over 1,600 professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL). This declaration asserts that there is no "climate emergency," that climate change science is not conclusive, and that the earth's history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate.
..
The WCD highlights the limitations of current climate models, stating they overemphasize the impact of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2). "In addition, [climate models] ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial," the WCD reads, in part.
Put me down as skeptical and suspicious about the veracity of this John Clauser and his thinking, but as the day wears on, I might try to see if there are other online commentaries about him.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Research physicist John F. Clauser poses for a photo at his home in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Oct. 4, 2022. John F. Clauser jointly won a Nobel Prize in physics with two other scientists, Alain Aspect of France, and Anton Zeilinger of Austria, for their work on quantum information science. . . .
Recently, Mr. Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and over 1,600 professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL). This declaration asserts that there is no "climate emergency," that climate change science is not conclusive, and that the earth's history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate. . . .
The WCD highlights the limitations of current climate models, stating they overemphasize the impact of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2). "In addition, [climate models] ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial," the WCD reads, in part.
A central tenet of Clauser's thinking is that clouds are a natural thermostat that keeps temperatures around the world in a "Goldilocks" range...not too hot, not too cold.
To cut to the chase, Mother Nature herself has done a fine job of debunking this idea.
Have clouds prevented the average global temperature from rising by 0.9 Celsius, as CO2 levels have increased above the preindustrial baseline? No.
Did clouds prevent the devastating 2023 summer heat waves that struck so many areas across the Northern Hemisphere—heat waves that prominent climate researchers say are statistical evidence of climate change, brought on by greenhouse gases? No.
Mother Nature... smarter than Nobel laureate in physics John F. Clauser.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-02-2023).]
Nobody covers the offshore wind energy beat like the CBS "60 Minutes" franchise.
A couple of months ago—August 7—60 Minutes aired a segment, 13 minutes and "change," on the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world, offshore of Grimsby in the United Kingdom. 60 Minutes' Sharyn Alfonsi is like a tour guide for this investigation of the 300+ turbines behemoth. It includes comments from some of the people who live in the area that scores some of its daily kilowatts fix from these wind-powered wonders.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-02-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Have clouds prevented the average global temperature from rising by 0.9 Celsius, as CO2 levels have increased above the preindustrial baseline? No.
Did clouds prevent the devastating 2023 summer heat waves that struck so many areas across the Northern Hemisphere—heat waves that prominent climate researchers say are statistical evidence of climate change, brought on by greenhouse gases? No.
Mother Nature... smarter than Nobel laureate in physics John F. Clauser.
Mother nature is smarter than you.
Clouds do no good ? Why did you want to blast some of the Moon away to provide a Sun shield ?
Clouds do no good? Why did you want to blast some of the Moon away to provide a Sun shield?
Clauser describes clouds as a negative feedback loop, with respect to solar radiation. He says it works like this:
The surfaces of the oceans are warmed by sunlight. That causes water to evaporate into the bottom of the atmosphere, rise to a high enough altitude where the air is cooler, and condense into water droplets or ice particles because it's reached a cooler temperature regime.
This is cloud formation.
Cloud formation works against the warming effect of greenhouse gases, because any such warming effect will warm the surfaces of the oceans, which will increase the amount of water that evaporates into the atmosphere from the surfaces of the oceans, which will increase cloud formation, which will increase the amount of solar radiation that's blocked from reaching the surfaces of the oceans because of clouds, which reflect solar radiation upwards and outwards from the top of the atmosphere into outer space.
So it's like the thermostat in your house that turns on the HVAC's cooling mode. If solar radiation causes the surfaces of the oceans to become warmer by any degree (pun intended), that triggers increased cloud formation, which works to bring the ocean surfaces' temperatures back down again.
This, according to Clauser.
I gave what I believe is the evidence that Clauser's "clouds as a global thermostat" thesis is bogus. As you may go back and review my post, where I said Mother Nature is smarter than Clauser.
But if we implemented the lunar sun shade idea, by catapulting lunar soil into orbit around the earth, we would not be depending on this purported negative feedback loop involving cloud formation, as described by Clauser, but as debunked (according to my thinking) by Mother Nature.
Game Changer!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-02-2023).]
Clauser's theory of cloud formation as a negative feedback loop that works against greenhouse-gas driven global warming.
I say his theory is debunked by the evidence.
I say his theory fails because it does not take into account the full complexity of how sunlight interacts with clouds. There are different kinds of clouds, that form at different altitudes. Clouds do not just reflect solar energy away from the surfaces of the planet.
During the night, cloud cover generally has a warming effect that is observed at ground level, because, as rocks, soil,,vegetation, pavement and buildings reradiate the heat that was absorbed during the day, low level clouds reflect this infrared (IR) energy back towards the earth's surface.
Where it says "Outgoing longwave radiation,"... that's what I'm talking about.
"Clauser is the climate science of fools." ~ rinselberg.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-02-2023).]
"Warmest September on record as 'gobsmacking' data shocks scientists"
quote
The world's September temperatures were the warmest on record, breaking the previous high by a huge margin, according to the EU climate service.
Last month was 0.93C warmer than the average September temperature between 1991-2020, and 0.5C hotter than the previous record set in 2020.
Ongoing [human] emissions of warming [greenhouse] gases [including but not limited to CO2,] in addition to the El Niño weather event, are driving the heat, experts believe.
Some scientists said they were shocked by the scale of the increase.
September's high mark comes in the wake of the hottest summer on record in the northern hemisphere as soaring temperatures show no signs of relenting. The data, from the Copernicus Climate Change Service, shows that the month had the biggest jump from the long term average in records dating back to 1940. Scientists have been quite shocked by some of the detail in the data.
"This month was, in my professional opinion as a climate scientist—absolutely gobsmackingly bananas," Zeke Hausfather, an experienced researcher, wrote on X formerly known as Twitter.hey say 2023 is now "on track" to be the warmest on record.
The article, which includes some data plots, continues onlne.
What Triggers Lightning Gamma Ray Glows Cosmic Rays Trigger Lightning ! There's a problem with the Sky, it seems to be falling, we've just noticed it, Gamma rays, X-rays, light speed particles. Write an algorithm to calculate an atmospheric heating constant to be included in an overall model for climate change. That will keep you busy, solving for observed phenomena, positing a theory, correcting errors in science.
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 10-09-2023).]
Is that a Clauser picturegraph ? Did you verify that cloud influence is that simple ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I say his theory is debunked by the evidence.
I say his theory fails because it does not take into account the full complexity of how sunlight interacts with clouds. There are different kinds of clouds, that form at different altitudes. Clouds do not just reflect solar energy away from the surfaces of the planet.
During the night, cloud cover generally has a warming effect that is observed at ground level, because, as rocks, soil,,vegetation, pavement and buildings reradiate the heat that was absorbed during the day, low level clouds reflect this infrared (IR) energy back towards the earth's surface.
Tell me green grasshopper,, it seems you are alleging is a result of clouds. In your studies, I suppose you know all about the science of cloud formation. Cloud cover does act like a blanket. It also acts like a shade tree.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Where it says "Outgoing longwave radiation,"... that's what I'm talking about.
How ... [color=]green]green grasshopper,, y'all always talk green grasshopper, ]. How have the clouds changed [color =green] Global Warming[/COLOR] ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-08-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Warmest September on record as 'gobsmacking' data shocks scientists" The article, which includes some data plots, continues onlne.
Damn that Climate Change. The sea level is rising and threatening leftist old money inherited luxury beliefs beachfront vacation homes. Damn that Climate Change. Make the plebeians suffer for their carbon footprint.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 10-08-2023).]
It looks like Wichita saw these two photographs, one from 1943 and one from 2023, and has posted them here in juxtaposition, to imply that there hasn't been any global warming-induced sea level rise during the past 80 years.
I was going to debunk this in a more methodical way, but I accidentally hit the wrong key on my keyboard and lost the text of the message that I had started, so I'll just rush through it.
These photos are not scientific evidence. There's about a 10-foot difference between High Tide and Low Tide in that area. If the 1943 photograph was at High Tide, and the 2023 photograph was at Low Tide, that would help mask the appearance of sea level rise.
Even discounting that, the vantage point is too distant from the structures to make a credible conclusion about whether sea level has risen in this area since 1943.
It's also possible that the structures were purposely dislodged from their foundations on the bottom of the estuary and relocated, since their original construction in 1943. This may have been done for the purpose of historical preservation. That would render the 1943 photo and the 2023 photo even more useless for comparison, in terms of confirming or disproving any sea level rise in this area between 1943 and 2023.
Keep in mind that there are mean global sea level measurements that are produced by numerically averaging sea level measurements from all around the world, but sea level actually varies among the world's coastlines and from place to place along the same coastline. That's because sea level at any one place is affected by local wind patterns, persistent ocean currents near any given locality, the particular undersea topography closest to any locality on a coastline... yada, yada, yada.
About a year ago, Wichita posted this image on the forum, without any comment of his own.
I consider it prima facie evidence that he was gullible enough to be taken in by this hoax.
It's a hoax because the melting of an ice cube that is already floating in a measuring cup partly full of water does not model how global warming causes sea levels to rise.
To this day, I have no idea whether he has ever availed himself of any of my explanations (which I've posted) of why this is a hoax.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-08-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: What was the coldest ?
COMPLETE TEXT
quote
Here's a statistic: On Earth, 18 of the last 19 years have been the warmest in recorded history.
And as both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced on Wednesday, the last five years have been the five hottest in history -- since quality record-keeping began in the 1880s. It's an unmistakable, accelerating warming trend.
The globe's 21st-century heating, however, becomes all the more stark when compared to the coldest years on record. As climate scientist Simon Donner, who researches human-induced climate change at The University of British Columbia, underscored via a list posted on Twitter, the planet's 20 coldest years all occurred nearly a century ago, between 1884 and 1929.
The coldest year on record occurred in 1904.
Earth's average temperature has risen by over 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) since the onset of the industrial revolution, making yearly cold records increasingly rare.
But it's not just annual cold records that are becoming rarer. In the last 10 years, twice as many daily heat records have been set as cold records.
The score is 21,461 record daily highs to 11,466 record lows.
"In fact, we are seeing an increase in daily heat records, and we are NOT seeing an increase in daily cold records," Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University told Mashable last week.
"The trend is in exactly the direction we would expect as a result of a warming planet," Mann said.
Although potent heat-trapping greenhouse gases -- notably carbon dioxide -- have been warming the planet for well over century, in the last 40 years the trend has accelerated, and grown notably pronounced.
"We've known since the 1980s that Earth has had a fever," Sarah Green, an environmental chemist, explained to Mashable earlier this year.
This is a consequence of simple physics, understood since the 19th century. Back in the late 1880s, there were simply far lower levels of carbon dioxide in the air. Now, carbon dioxide levels are likely the highest they've been in some 15 million years.
And the Earth is responding. Earth is warmer than it's been in some 120,000 years -- back when hippos roamed Europe.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Wind and Solar on track to provide 40 percent of the electricity used by Texans in 2023
Another green claim which has not been proven true.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The surfaces of the oceans are warmed by sunlight. That causes water to evaporate into the bottom of the atmosphere, rise to a high enough altitude where the air is cooler, and condense into water droplets or ice particles because it's reached a cooler temperature regime.
This is cloud formation.
So tell us Green Guru, do you mean that Global Warming creates more clouds (radiation shields) ? Or less ? Which ones ? High clouds or low ones ? Which type of clouds ?
Water evaporates into in the lower atmosphere. Explain to us why windows get condensation if evaporation rises ? More evaporation of air moisture in lower atmosphere's is humidity. Are the humidity levels more and more prevalent in larger and larger areas ?
You think you explained cloud formation. Explain hurricane formation and how the different categories come into realm.
My my rinselberg, you create quite the labyrinth. I am thinking more mysterious than an ant colony.
This is the purest condensation (pun intended) of my "take" on Clauser. It's in the QUOTE format because I already posted it previously in this thread.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
A central tenet of Clauser's thinking is that clouds are a natural thermostat that keeps temperatures around the world in a "Goldilocks" range...not too hot, not too cold.
To cut to the chase, Mother Nature herself has done a fine job of debunking this idea.
Have clouds prevented the average global temperature from rising by 0.9 Celsius, as CO2 levels have increased above the preindustrial baseline? No.
Did clouds prevent the devastating 2023 summer heat waves that struck so many areas across the Northern Hemisphere—heat waves that prominent climate researchers say are statistical evidence of climate change, brought on by greenhouse gases? No.
Mother Nature... smarter than Nobel laureate in physics John F. Clauser.
rinselberg, if you want to advance a theory it is better to use terminology that one would be familiar with. Don't make them have to research what you say. You like to use words that are hardly ever heard and use foreign measurements.
0.9 degrees celsius means nothing to me.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-10-2023).]
So Wichita's back with more photographs. This time, it's Plymouth Rock.
Anyone can scroll back through this thread a short ways to see the discussion about the other photographs that he posted, before he posted Plymouth Rock... when he posted this:
SCIENCE
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-10-2023).]
Now, what are the Vegas odds on a Global Nuke War ? Warming the planet one little bit at a time. Use your calculator to figure the number of years of life beneath the surface in subterranean habitats, limited to those who can purchase a bunk, lol. Do the math, 100MT X 20K = n MT of coal, or, gasoline, wood, whatever you can burn to keep warm in winter. We here in Ontario are likely to be spared a bomb, but, the lights will definitely go out, just as the polar vortex freezes us up. Blizzards, climate catastrophe in a negative way. See, the atomic dust will obscure the sunlight around the Earth, freezing it solid, like it was before, for thousands of years. They even made a movie about that. The Day After Tomorrow ! ' Oh ! The Humanity ! '
