Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Apparently the definition of "specific" is different in Australia.

 

New Reconstructions From Brazil, China, Europe Indicate No Net Warming In Recent Centuries
By Kenneth Richard on 26. October 2023

Paleoclimate studies continue to undermine claims of “unprecedented” global warming in the modern era.
A new temperature reconstruction (Oliveira Silva Muraja et al., 2023) for Brazil reveals there has been no net modern warming since the 1400s.



Image Source: Oliveira Silva Muraja et al., 2023
Another new temperature reconstruction (Yue et al., 2023) indicates there has been no net modern warming in Central China since the 1400s.



Image Source: Yue et al., 2023
The Romanian National Meteorological Administration indicates the Danube region cooled from 1961-2013 (Viorica et al., 2023). The driest intervals of the last 250 years include 1949-1960, 1986-1993, and 2015-present. Dry periods coincide with relatively cold North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.



Image Source: Viorica et al., 2023

 

Watch the video. Even your very own guy (Biden's expert) can't say if we spent 50 trillion dollars that it would reduce world temps. You are in denial.

 

Well, yeah.

You dind't even read the paper you cited, did you? You were told it said something, so you parroted what you were told.

Yes, it really is that obvious. I know that because I read the paper, and there's nothing in it that says past CO2 spikes happened faster than the current spike.

Multiples of examples in that chart that greater increase and at faster times.

No, no, no. Where do you come up with this stuff? That's basically a hand-drawn sketch. The time scale and the fuzziness of the lines allows one to conclude nothing about the speed of past rises, and it drasitically understates the speed of the current rise.

 

It does show a very big recent temperature spike, of course.

Do you even look at the stuff you post?

 

No, that's the totally wrong scenario. Climate had been cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, and would have kept cooling for at least another 20,000 years.

Since warming is the opposite of the natural cycle of cooling, we know the current fast warming is not part of a natural cycle.

Because you _feel_ that's the case?

Sorry, but your feelings are not relevant.

 

But we do, hence your argument crumbles.

Orbital factors kick off a little warming.

That warmed the oceans, so they release a little CO2.

The CO2 causes more warming, and a feedback loop starts. The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback prevents a runaway positive feedback loop. Eventually temps top out. Some tens of thousands of years later, orbital factors kick the loop off in the other direction.

"YOU CAN'T DISPROVE MY UNKNOWN FAIRY MAGIC, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!" is the opposite of science, and it's your core argument. You're a mystic, a superstitionist.

Let's use your "logic".

Can you ABSOLUTELY PROVE that it's not something other than smoking that causes most lung cancers in smokers? If you can't, then you have no basis to say that smoking is correlated with lung cancer.

You logic stinks.

 

Well, given the abundance of logical fallacies in your comments, that you would say that makes perfect sense to me.

 

Fires are only a small aspect of the overall complex issue. What about the other markers? More intense hurricanes, and in SoCal, last winter we had the longest, wettest winter in my 60 years of memory living here. It ended the drought. of course,. that was welcome, but the 'change' was interesting. Is SoCal becoming tropical? Is the earth shifting it's axis?

 

Also, fires are only a small aspect of the complex issue. What about all the other markers, more intense hurricanes, etc., etc. ?

 

Some do, some don't. No one disputes 20th century warming. The debate is about attribution.

 

Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy has in fact declined.


Figure: Last 50-years+ of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue
climatlas.com
https://climatlas.com › tropical


by RN Maue — Around the globe, 80-100 tropical storms are observed every year unevenly distributed across the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic oceans. About half go on to reach ...

 

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You literally just stated that a chart placed in a scientific journal was essentially a “hand-drawn” sketch. Lol

 

You stopped debating when you decided to call climate realists "science denialists."

 

So true...

 

Now you are getting the hang of it. Just short and to the point. I am proud of you.

 

Sometimes conspiracies are based on facts. There have been numerous threads on this issue - PhD's having to alter their papers to get published in Nature or Science - for instance; I think there may even be a thread or two on this site discussing this issue. If I thought there was even a minuscule chance you'd lather your stand, I'd spend a little time finding "proof" - but I don't.

 

Well, that is an assumption based on previous interglacial patterns, but by the same token, previous interglacials were sometimes warmer than current temperatures, so it is incorrect to say current temperatures are higher than nature could have produced. OTOH, if we did stop that predicted cooling by burning fossil fuels (we didn't), it's a damn good thing we did.

No, that is just another objectively false claim from you. Even if there were currently fast warming (there isn't), it would be occurring in a much shorter time frame than the millennial-scale interglacial cooling pattern in place since the Holocene Optimum. Natural cooling in a multi-millennial cycle does not in any way rule out natural warming in a decadal cycle.

Sorry, but your feelings are not relevant.

 

After an equally big but more gradual decline. So, please provide your evidence that natural variation in global surface temperature means that temperature can only go down, never up.

Do you even look at the stuff you post?

 

Yep, fires are just one example of anthropogenic problems that aren’t primarily caused by atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Just one example of a problem reducing emissions can’t solve. There are many more.

We are now learning that reducing emissions based particulate pollution in the US and Europe is leading to increased incidence of hurricanes in the Atlantic and that increased emissions in Asia are driving the reduction in frequency in the North Pacific.

Yes, physics dictates warming will influence intensity of hurricanes all else being equal. Thankfully there are less total global tropical cyclones to intensify.

Here are some studies on natural disasters in general (all the ones you’ve been told to fear).




https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

And:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

Natural disaster deaths have plummeted over time. Even as global populations have consolidated into riskier areas. Economic cost as percentage of GDP has plummeted.

There. Now we don’t have to go over every type of disaster and keep moving the goalposts.

 

There is no science for those who believe in the climate change myth. There is only faith.

 

It is propaganda and pure garbage.

 

Well, fortunately your opinion is not going to affect the outcomes as this coming generation become more and more convinced

 

So, still no reference to the big, important international agreement that America "must" abide by.

I'm starting to suspect it doesn't exist.

 

LOL! Nah, they will see thru the nonsense.