30 Senate Dems plan all-nighter discussing climate change.

[Potatoe]

I watched it and it was mostly Booker, Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Schatz having a bro-off.

That sounds oddly sexual.

[Ban my account ffs!]

hey AggregateDemand

this is not a debate.

Hey butafly, thats not the way science works and there are plenty of dissenters, please don't cherry pick data.

“In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”
― Galileo Galilei

Hey CTRattlesnake, the 9136 sparks of reason from 9136 reasonable person outweighs the one tiny "authoritative opinion".

And yes, that is the way science works.

The point is:  Co2 emissions have risen since 2000 far beyond anything prior to that point.  The science that the 9136 'reasonable' people above believe in says that temperature rise should have accelerated dramatically after 2000.

Instead, just like in the 1940s and the 1880s before that, the planet stopped warming and has begun to cool.

They blame this on all sorts of things... but the fact is:  Prior to 1940 the planet warmed at the same rate as it did from 1970 to 2000.  And now it's cooling at the same rate it did after 2000, that it did from 1940-1970.

This seems to indicate that whatever impact CO2 is having is being counteracted and actually overwhelmed by other natural factors.

And no.. I don't give a f**k what those 9100 people said... they have no clue as to why this has happened.  And the skeptics are full of ideas and data.

Of course the politicians are the last to figure this out.. sot hey're still arguing as if we're in a 1990s world.

Yeah.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But it doesn't "trap" heat and it doesn't function like a blanket.  And there are a million different feedbacks that we're identifying that seem to pretty much negate nearly all of the temperature increase caused by CO2 build up in the atmosphere.

It's a self regulating system with strong negative feedbacks that don't allow runaway impacts without an overwhelming change in inputs.

The fact that despite massively increasing Co2 emissions after WWII did not actually mean a temperature trend that rose more quickly and more dramatically... should be enough to send a strong message to the scientific community that they have the basics right... but they've missed the forest for the trees.

[MalaspinaGold]

You seem to neglect two very strong positive feedback systems: the release of methane from previously frozen permafrost, and the decreased albedo effect caused by shrinking ice coverage.

By acting to trap energy, these molecules increase the average kinetic energy of the system, aka of the temperature of the atmosphere.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You seem to neglect two very strong positive feedback systems: the release of methane from previously frozen permafrost, and the decreased albedo effect caused by shrinking ice coverage.

By acting to trap energy, these molecules increase the average kinetic energy of the system, aka of the temperature of the atmosphere.

oh yes.  we've known about these possible positive feedback loops for a long time.

But it doesn't explain why Antarctic sea ice is growing or why methane increases slowed way down in the past 15 years.

We're discovering new negative feedbacks every day.

Like the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the mid-troposphere above the tropics causing an increase in the convection rate... which quickly shuffles any excess heat upwards and polewards where it then radiates into space before ever causing any surface warming.

There is also evidence that a stadium wave effect of several different atmospheric and oceanic cycles leads to 30 year periods of warming and cooling planetwide... but especially in the northern hemisphere, and especially even more in the nroth Atlantic.

This theory posits that we reached the peak of warmth around 2000 and will now see the cooling trend until 2030.

This means that the periods of planet warming.. 1910-1940 and 1970-2000... were exacerbated by this stadium wave effect.  So to get the underlying warming trend, one must subtract peak from peak and trough from trough... rather than cherry picking peak minus trough like the alarmists do... by choosing 1970 or 1850 for starting points... and then using models that only include data up to 2000 because data after 2000 reduces sensitivity and thus future warming predictions.

Once you do this, you find that the planet has been warming around 0.7C/century for quite some time now... having warmed just as rapidly prior to serious global industrialization (1910-1940) as after (1970-2000)... but most importantly... as emissions absolutely exploded after 2000 with China's epic growth... the planet didn't warm.

MalaspinaGold... I'm not forgetting anything with the climate debate.  I have an almost autistic obsession with this issue and you nor harry nor anybody on this website is going to change my mind.

I'm well aware of the posited positive feedback loops of reduced albedo due to ice and snow loss and the impact of thawing permafrost on atmospheric methane concentrations.

I'm also aware that despite the "fears" of scientists regarding these things... their worst fears simply aren't coming true.  Period.

That means there are negative feedbacks in play that we haven't yet discovered or we have but have underestimated their potency.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Of all the stupid reasons to pull an all-nighter. Do they at least have a final on the subject the next day?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Of all the stupid reasons to pull an all-nighter. Do they at least have a final on the subject the next day?

Considering that they've likened "climate change" to the story of the Lorax.. it shows you how far the green movement has fallen.

They are so singly focused on climate change now that they completely ignore environmental destruction. 

And if you highlight this destruction... you are poo pooed for not tying climate change to it.  Because it has become full of dogma and religion.

People like Harry don't actually talk science.  They talk belief and intimidation and they belittle... the way incredulous Christians treat self professed non-believers.

It has become an emotion-laden dogmatic belief system and has decoupled itself from the actual science.  That's why climate scientists are leaving the field to become full time activists.

[Marnetmar]

Fantastic waste of time for the greatest hoax in modern history

You do realize how batsh**t insane you sound right?

[MalaspinaGold]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet you accuse the other side of "religious zealotry"...

I'm pretty sure I have just as much obsession re: this topic as you.

Your explanation about the CO2 escaping is intriguing, but at the very least, incomplete. For example, any poleward movement would be met by a (relative) loss of heat, that would cause it to drop back down .

[Dave from Michigan]

They should have spent all night talking about income inequality. A real problem people care about, that greatly affects their lives.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet you accuse the other side of "religious zealotry"...

I'm pretty sure I have just as much obsession re: this topic as you.

Your explanation about the CO2 escaping is intriguing, but at the very least, incomplete. For example, any poleward movement would be met by a (relative) loss of heat, that would cause it to drop back down .

The CO2 is not escaping.  The increase in the convection rate of the atmosphere allows the atmosphere to store more heat at any given moment.  This means that the CO2 is causing the air to warm up by an unknown amount as it builds up... and perhaps half of that extra heat is being absorbed through an increase in the convection rate.  The other half results in surface warming.

But we didn't know about this until recently and it is not built into the climate models... so all the model projections don't think the convection rate will increase as much as it does... thus leading to extra surface warming that will never occur.

The problem is that solar activity overall has plummeted despite us being at solar maximum right now... and there are known connections to the same things and solar activity.  So there is actually a possibility that both the warming impact of CO2 and the cooling impact of lower solar activity are both increasing blocking and disruption of the polar vortex for different reasons... but to the same effect.

If that's the case... then expect things to get worse as we go into the next solar minimum... which is expected to be a very deep one.

[MalaspinaGold]

Regarding your convection theory- all that does is lead to a more efficient heating of the entire planet, such that cool, polar areas will get warmer summers. since glacial cover is closely dependent with summer temperature, this also predicates decline of glacial cover in the Arctic, worsening the albedo problem.

Do you have any evidence that the next solar maximum is expected to be deeper than, say, the Dalton Minimum?

I find your comment about environmentalists caring about climate change to the exclusion of everything else fairly ridiculous. I have not met an environmentalist who did not care about acid rain, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water pollution, coral reef destruction, and other issues not entwined with climate change.

Just curious, but have you heard of the Milankovitch Cycle?

[7,052,770]

I'm really flattered to have somehow become Snowguy's climate change boogeyman, when I'm merely one of dozens of non-Deniers on this forum.  But cool

Anyway, MalaspinaGold, Snowguy is what we call "pot committed" at this point.  He's been posting on this topic for years and it's far too late to turn back without having to eat major crow.  He even admits that nothing he reads on this forum is going to change his mind.  It's best to just recognize him as a pretty good liberal poster outside of this single issue and accept him for who he is.

[FDRfan1985]

I personally view climate change as inevitable and a good thing. I see as the Earth's way of correcting itself and balancing out. ex: Natural Population Control and Reduction in reaction to Overpopulation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I personally view climate change as inevitable and a good thing. I see as the Earth's way of correcting itself and balancing out. ex: Natural Population Control and Reduction in reaction to Overpopulation.

wat

[fivex]

I personally view climate change as inevitable and a good thing. I see as the Earth's way of correcting itself and balancing out. ex: Natural Population Control and Reduction in reaction to Overpopulation.

So you want a significant portion of humanity to die?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I personally view climate change as inevitable and a good thing. I see as the Earth's way of correcting itself and balancing out. ex: Natural Population Control and Reduction in reaction to Overpopulation.

So you want a significant portion of humanity to die?

I think it is fairly certain that 100% of humanity will die.  Just not at the same time.