Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Sorry, but the two fit together quite well. The Sun explains most of the warming of recent decades, along with interspersed periods of cooling, as now.
For purposes of our debate the important point for public policy is not what has driven warming, but what has not, so the importance of any alternative explanation is not so much what it rules in, but what it rules out.
To deny multiple climate inputs for causation is to be simple-minded. To argue against the Sun's predominant influence demonstrates a nearly medieval level of ignorance.

 

If he wanted to show it was the increased solar activity he chose a strange way to do it.

 

Sorry where's the bit showing increased solar activity? All I saw was some stuff about less solar/infrared radiation escaping earth after it got here. I.E what the IPCC and everyone else is saying. It was wrapped up in some technical jargon about clouds, but we all know Co2 traps infrared which creates heating which allows higher atmospheric water content which increases the trapping of infrared radiation.
We often call big bunches of this water vapour 'clouds.'

Oh and there was a bit where they said less ultraviolet light was being bounced back into space, but offered no explanation as to why. So I guess its disappearing sea ice and glaciers.

 

Well no I couldn’t agree to that. Then we would have to agree the equivalent use of fossil fuels today has no significant effect on global warming. We would have to agree there is no reason to transition from diesel, coal, and natural gas powered pumping of the fens to renewable energy to pump the fens.

We would have to reject the peer reviewed research I presented on emissions 7000 years ago having a significant effect on global warming.

We could agree that your idea of what is significant is different than others. I guess there is a spectrum. Some think AGW from thousands of years ago is significant. Some think only AGW since 1960 is significant. And some think none has been significant and won’t be in the future.

Then there is the problem of if the “significance” is net positive or net negative….I’m certainly thankful we were kept from sliding into another ice age. That would have sucked. Neither of us would have likely existed.

Yeh I’ve heard that theory before.

Do you know what the cost is to achieve net zero or 1960 (I’m not sure at this point what you’re after) level emissions?

What is the cost of keeping up with change? How would you calculate that?

Well, I’m familiar with the argument. I’ve never found it to be particularly compelling.

Ok. That makes sense.

But you think CO2 emissions and rates of warming were acceptable around 1960?

Ok I understand you are comfortable with a certain amount of warming and increase in atmosphere CO2. You bring up net zero but don’t really think it’s necessary?

Do you think if there hadn’t been decades of doom and gloom demonization of CO2 we would be developing alternative energy sources? I’m skeptical of that knowing human nature. You can barely get enough support for alternatives now.

But not rate of change of AGW. Rate of change of subsidence.

I already pointed out percentage of power used to pump fens is trending to renewable and away from fossil fuels. That helps decrease the net emissions of fens.

I don’t believe I’ve ever made the argument emissions from fens exceed or equal emissions from transportation or home climate control. I simply made the point it’s ironic to complain climate change may make it slightly more difficult to maintain an unnatural ecosystem that is a net carbon and methane emitter. I said it’s like complaining that CO2 driven climate change makes it more difficult to drill for oil. It’s not logical.

Odd that all except one example I included are far less than 30 years apart.

Your opinion of farmer’s opinions noted. I’ll offer this.

https://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/national/23897455.farmers-shouldering-burden-flooding-says-cla/

It was also in my post. No worries. Our posts get into too many subjects at once.

I believe the fenmen were unscrupulous renegades from all accounts I’ve read. That’s all I can go on. But so were the Scott’s and Irish.

It’s a chicken and the egg paradox. Without fossil fuels we would not have anywhere near the population we have today. All our public health infrastructure that increased life expectancy is based on fossil fuel use. The vast majority of agricultural production is possible only through massive inputs of fossil fuels and simultaneous soil carbon emissions (like the fens). Even our “renewable” sources of energy require massive inputs of fossil fuels.

But without the population we have, current emissions would be much lower.

One could state emissions are high because of population and one could claim population is high because of high emissions and both statements would be correct.

Well, since I didn’t drive any Sioux from their lands, and my father didn’t, and my grandfather didn’t, I guess you and the Spanish are off the hook for that climate change.

The changes in deforestation Bangladesh made were not beneficial. It has led to desertification in the north and excess silting of waterways further south especially in the deltas. The water cycle is disrupted season long and erosion is severe. The building of polders was beneficial for a few decades (many were built by the Dutch in the 1970’s) until they ran into the same problem as the fens in the UK. The waterways silted in and the ag land in the polders experienced subsidence and lost accretion. Now, even though precipitation has decreased, flooding is still occurring and polders are waterlogged.

Depoldering (cutting dikes and allowing silt into polders) does raise the land level substantially but the farmers can’t afford lost growing season while the process is ongoing. Perhaps that would be a better place to spend money than doubling down on infrastructure that lowers ag land and raises the rivers.

Sea wall construction and mangrove destruction have worsened tidal flooding. I don’t see the actions taken by Bangladesh as being well suited. The attempts to cope with what was going on long before 1960 or any cutoff point we choose have resulted in negative unintended consequences.

Atmospheric CO2 did not destroy trees in Bangladesh. Atmospheric CO2 did not destroy mangrove ecosystems in Bangladesh. Atmospheric CO2 did not create polders. It didn’t build sea wall structures.

There is less precipitation for flood creation now than in 1900-1930 in Bangladesh. Is that because of atmospheric CO2? Who knows. It’s probably more related to disruption of the water cycle brought on by deforestation. But if you want to attribute it to atmospheric CO2 we can. But it completely blows up the theory more precipitation is causing Bangladesh’s problems with flooding.

Well, since competition for a resource increases demand that leads to higher prices, I suspect fossil fuels (especially diesel) used to pump fens would increase the price of diesel fuel people want for their diesel vehicle. Unless supply and demand doesn’t apply in this case.

Electric use (even renewable) to pump would raise the cost of ownership of an EV.

Net zero or pre-1960 emissions levels? Net zero solves very few of the problems we and others discuss.

Well, since I firmly believe we should do something and spend a lot of time actually doing things to slow accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere I don’t spend a lot of time hypothesizing about “what ifs”.

But it’s pretty simple really. People and geographical regions that benefit from warming would benefit more and those that see negative effects would see more negative effects.

I maintain carbon belongs in the soil as organic matter and living microbes/fungi. I maintain carbon belongs in living plants and animals. I maintain it doesn’t belong in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is only the transport mechanism to get the carbon that we lost to fossil fuels from those fuels back to where it can make life better for everyone—into productive biological systems.

I see the current paradigm on climate as analogous to someone pulling up to your house in a dump truck with 20,000 lbs of gold bars and coins in the back. He backs into your driveway The driver starts to activate the dump bed but you run out and stop him. You order him off your driveway and make him leave loaded. Your neighbor asks why on earth you wouldn’t let the driver lift the dump bed and you say you couldn’t risk cracking your cement driveway. And besides, some of that gold could have rolled over in the grass and dulled your mower blades. Have you seen the price of new mower blades lately? Outrageously expensive. There’s just too much to lose and too little to gain! Get that truck out of here!

There are a myriad of solutions to atmospheric CO2 that put carbon where it belongs. There is no interest in them. If they are needed they are here and will have been tested and perfected by people like myself who believe nature’s solutions are superior. But now the focus is on solutions that don’t address the big problems. When and if the “cost” of climate change outpaces the benefits (in productivity and political clout) the appropriate solution’s targeted to the specific actual causes are here for the taking.

 

The increasing sun explains the cooling?

How does that work?

I look at the little downticks in your graph of steadily rising solar input there, and they don't match up with the temp record at all.

 

Oh sorry I forgot about this.

I thought you read it.

 

LoL yeah China bringing on more and more coal plants to produce your solar panels should not be questioned. I mean why would that matter at all. Hilarious.

It's kind of like leftists wanting countries that could give a **** about your global warming nonsense drilling for oil and then shipping it halfway across the globe, instead of drilling it cleaner and safer here at home.

Germany was last country that had the bright idea of doing what you suggest, and it went so bad they ended up funding the Ukraine invasion by being forced to buy Russian oil.

Just like everything the left does, it's high on hopes and low on logic.

 

No not really. Debating leftists on anything even mildly complicated is like debating a chunk of concrete.

Keep the dream alive and stuff.

 

Case in point.

 

Yeah, it's that evil left that has your world all in tatters.

 

LoL yeah China is the world leader on clean energy. That's why they keep building more coal plants and Beijing is the pearl of environmentalism.

You probably think using a gas generator to charge your Prius is fighting global warming.

Oh yeah Germany did a great job. It did such a great job with clean energy that it became the number 1 customer of the very environmentally conscious Russia for it's energy. Way to go Germany. LoL.

The cognitive dissonance runs deep on the left.

 

Indeed.

That's why the conditions in CA, IL and NY are what they are. It's why OR is trying to re-criminalize drugs. It's why Seattle, after defunding it's police force, has it's highest crime ever. It's why Portland is a 3rd world **** hole. It's why Philadelphia looks like a clip from the Walking Dead. It's why NY is overran by illegal aliens.

It's why history is full of people like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro and all your other failed authoritarian leftist ideals.

I'm not worried though. Leftism has a way of eliminating itself by it's own actions. It eats itself.

There are no group of people on this planet more weak and unable to fend for themselves than Western leftists. If the left gets what it wants, it's pet projects will just make snacks of them. I mean it's already happening.

The left is welcome to continue emptying prisons, bringing in violent people from 3rd world countries, putting together more Queers for Palestine think-tanks. I'm sure it will be ok.

 

My third party two cents...

You are both correct. China is the world leader on clean energy. And China does need to move forward and start retiring coal burning plants.

This is an unwarranted attack,.

First of all, if you have to continuously use "LOL"s, as a means to ridicule people, your arguments must not have much credibility. Germany, the United States, and all the countries that have signed on to the Paris Accord are all doing their best. Nobody ever said that a transition from fossil fuels would be easy. Russia is doing the least worldwide for Climate initiatives. Their aggressive warmongering is taking the world backwards on climate initiatives, as all that infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, using extensive worldwide resources. I hope all of us can at least agree on that.

I have a number of friends who are Republican. One just built a NetZero passive solar home. Three others just installed solar panels on their rooftops. Climate disasters can happen to Republicans and Democrats, in Blue States and Red States.

 

You have pointed out no cognitive dissonance. China's consumption of coal fired electricity has been steadily declining as other sources grow.

And, you have to consider the progress being made.

China is also investing in power transmission technology, so energy can be efficiently transported across its country. They have super high voltage AC and DC power transmission, and are otherwise continuing to improve their grid performance - which can't seem to catch the interest of the US congress.

 

Good comments.

I would have thought Republicans would be even MORE interested in being free of the grid.

It sounds like you know some good conservatives!

 

I was never called the denier because I denied climate change I don't they climate has been changing for 25,000 years

I don't even deny that now there's a man-made cause that's exacerbating it.

What I deny is that the only solution is more government control. You don't go to the people that are absolutely responsible for every bit of this problem and ask them with solving it. They can't they're too stupid and broke. Stupid broke people are profoundly easy to manipulate, particularly by corporations with lots of money that's how we got to this situation.

 

Increased solar activity of the late 20th century:

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing
  Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
  
  Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

 

TOA irradiance has nothing to do with CO2 trapping infrared.
Reduced albedo causes less ultraviolet to be bounced back into space.

 

The Sun explains past warming. The point of the cooling thread is a recent change in solar activity. And you might remember the thread title is a question, not an assertion.

 

Denial has become the alarmists' standard reply.
Negligible future warming from: CO2 – CH4 – N2O
Ed Hoskins
As at its current concentration atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppmv is already more than 85% saturated, its Global warming potential is almost entirely exhausted. . . .

 

You are conflating total consumption of coal with percentage of power generated from coal again.

China is steadily INCREASING consumption of coal fired electricity. Hitting new records.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...declining,supply growth remains coal-oriented.

 

Well I could agree that an equivalent use of fossil fuels today has no significant effect on global warming. If we could get the level of Co2 being released back to 1840 levels I would be happy to watch the world gradually adjust to the changes in climate.
but I must admit I've not been peer reviewed

Well I think scientists would have a very hard job making politicians make unpopular decisions on the use of fossil fuels if the increases were in the region of those in 1840. But you can argue they would and we can disagree.

I don't think all the Co2 we could produce will stop the next ice age. Not sure which one you think we stopped.

That's the one those who don't want to do anything always throw, because they no its impossible to put a figure on it.
What I do know is the cost of stopping producing anymore Co2 than the planet can absorb is finite, while the cost of adjusting is infinite.
It is infinite because there is no upper limit for Co2 concentrations.

Try
What is the cost of finding a cure for cancer?
What is the cost of not finding a cure for cancer?
Neither can have an accurate figure attached to them, but no one would say stop researching a cure then.
Because we know the cost of treating cancer patients forever is always going to cost more than finding a cure.

Not really though I think if we had begun to take action then we would not be having this discussion now as the introduction of renewable energy could have been done in a less fraught/forced way.

Yes.
For the record, I don't expect us to ever actually reach net zero, I think its just an easy way to set a goal the public can understand.

Perhaps if your statement wasn't so weighted as "doom and gloom" which automatically implies unnecessary and over zealous.
Then yes I think if Western governments had said they were investing in clean technology for our future and to help us be less reliant on unstable states who hold the majority of those fossil fuels, then it would have happened without much trumpeting.
I also think a good argument could have been put forward for government assisted development of EV's and maybe even the ability to have choice between ICE and EV.
But here we are us humans, too little too late as ever. Give the problem to the grand kids.

Quite like this, not sure if it could ever be proven, but it sounds logical.

(Missed out your bit about Bangladesh. I did read it.. I think we have covered the salient details and the posts are getting to long for my tiny mind to keep up with

Sounds good, Is that even if America is on the losing side? I ask because if China gained mightily and America lost mightily, that power imbalance could have some costs to the human race not easily calculated in amount of Atmospheric Co2.

Well I never, I apologise, I have misunderstood your position until I read this. Can I just check, are you saying you would like to stop/balance increases in Co2, but you think we should do it using vegetation?
(Sorry for the crude description, I know its more complex than that)

Yes! I get you, the farmer complaining you have accidentally delivered too much fertiliser and his crops will get too big.

To my shame, I have never considered the idea. I have assumed that were it feasible then that would be the direction the scientists would have been calling for.
I shall do some reading, but would love to see any figures etc you have.
I have already proposed the idea that we don't need ever more land to grow crops, the we could stack them up like we currently do people in flats, but that was more about feeding our growing global population rather than reversing climate change.
Actually the above idea probably seems absurd to you looking at the miles of unused land around you, but I live in crowded England where there is hardly anywhere left to go walking with nature.

 

Can I just add. China also does a lot of manufacturing for the West, so really its our Co2 not theirs.
Plus China was rushing towards nuclear, but fears of the speed and risks lead them to slow down and temporarily fall back on coal, but their aims are just the same. They recognise global warming just as we do. (Well most of us)

 

Oh yes that reduce albedo from melting ice sheets, which has nothing to do with more infrared being trapped.
Sigh.

 

No ice sheets involved. From the abstract in Stephens et al 2022 (linked in #192):

Here, we show that the global changes observed appear largely from reductions in the amount of sunlight scattered by Earth's atmosphere. These reductions, in turn, are found to be almost equally split between reduced reflection from the cloudy and clear regions of the atmosphere, with the latter being suggestive of reduced scattering by aerosol particles over the observational period. Climate models, however, show an almost exclusive response from clouds, and a slightly exaggerated darkening of the surface. Thus, models that match the global shortwave change do so for the wrong reasons.