Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting paper on anthropogenic climate change
Date:	7/12/2019 3:23:50 PM

Interesting read that I suspect will generate some additional research.  Exec Summary:  If you properly take into account the impact of low-level cloud layer (i.e., relative humidity) on global climates it only leaves room for a small amount of impact from athropogenic (i.e., man-made) sources. They also nicely critique the use of modeled data, which is prevelant among Globaloney nuts, over actual collected data. 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165

Bear in mind, these guys have taken the concept of warming since 1900 at face value (i.e., that the data has not been manipulated which we know it has). They have very reasonably concluded that when you take into account all factors that contribute to climate change there is very little room for other causes.  They estimate CO2 at less than 10% which is in essence no impact.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting paper on anthropogenic climate change
Date:	7/13/2019 9:13:43 AM

The main problem with my golf swing is the preponderance of variables during the kinetic phase.  I usually focus… during the potential phase… on controlling the variables. Sometimes I get it right. But, my handicap leads me to believe… not often enough.

Messrs Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi have hit upon the crux of the AGW issue. The AGW crowd focuses on controlling and/or manipulating myriads of variables… on computers… while discounting the obvious. That is to say, they substitute clever computer modeling for true science... to achieve their required results.

In the late 90s, I conducted the control studies for a fellow geophysics grad student at Virginia Tech. During her thesis defense, she was asked if she could mathematically prove that earthquakes cause sunspots. She proceeded to do so! We… professors and students… laughed through the whole exercise.

I tell you… I can mathematically prove that flooding of the Mississippi River causes sunspots. All I need for you to do is suspend disbelief and allow yourself to be entertained.

…and that is what AGW… climate alarmism… is all about.  They depend on you suspending disbelief.

And... over 31K REAL scientists have certified that there is NO consensus… despite how many times the AGW folks will tell you that.

The truth of the matter is that it is not about science at all. It’s about money and power…’magine that!

LMF Curmudgeon

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting paper on anthropogenic climate change
Date:	7/13/2019 10:26:59 AM

ANOTHER TRUMP INSTIGATED HURRICANE ON THE WAY

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting paper on anthropogenic climate change
Date:	7/14/2019 9:12:29 AM

So let's simplify this for the global warming alarmists out there and Archie and Fish.

1.  Is there evidence of global warming?  According to this paper, yes.  About .1 degree Centigrade over the past 100 years

2.  Has atmospheric CO2 increased over the past 40 years or so?  Again, yes, by about 30 PPM

3.  Has low level cloud cover and humidity decreased over the time period 85-2005?  Yes.

4   Could man made CO2 emissions contribute to the elevation in global temperature, yes, BUT, decreases in low level cloud cover and           humidity (can you say weather changes) when factored into global warming graphs, minimize the effect of CO2 emissions.

5.  Should we strive to limit man made CO2 emissions?  In my opinion, why not?  It would seem to be a worthy goal post industrial revolution.  However, deforestation practices, especially in the tropics, contribute substantially to elevations in CO2 in our atmosphere. Moreso than the burning of fossil fuels or cow physiologic emission.   These forests also produce an abundance of oxygen.  So to me, that is where our focus should lie.  Limit CO2 production and consistently refresh oxygen in our atmosphere by addressing the deforestation issue.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting paper on anthropogenic climate change
Date:	7/15/2019 8:36:59 AM

One clarification on your deforestation comments.  The reality is that with higher CO2 levels, vegetation is thriving.  Read an article recently about the greening of the planet due to increased food supplies (CO2) for plants.  Deforestation is more an issue of poor forest management policies and approaches used in developing countries, especially South America.  So reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not be helpful to improved vegetative growth.  By far a change in policies and strategies in developing countries will do more to help deforestration than reduction of CO2.  Otherwise you are spot on.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	If Humans caused global warming
Date:	7/15/2019 2:33:23 PM

(if you are logged in you may not be able to see the graphic)

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	If Humans caused global warming
Date:	7/15/2019 2:34:57 PM

   You don't get to view graphics when viewing the entire thread.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	If Humans caused global warming
Date:	7/15/2019 3:33:18 PM

I also have to wonder how many ups and downs similar to what we are seeing today happened in the past but we simply don't have to data?  All we can see in the past is the bigger, longer terms swings that can be indirectly measured unlike today when every heat wave brings out the ACC nut jobs.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Measured and Proxy
Date:	7/15/2019 4:56:31 PM

The (mercury) thermometer did not come about until the early 18^th Century (Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit). Thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, barometers, and anemometers were not only the tools of scientists… but, also the hobby instruments of rich amateurs… who rigorously and wondrously recorded their observations (e.g. Gustav Spörer, 1672-1699 et al).

Prior to the development of the thermometer, where a reliable number could be observed and recorded, we have to rely on “proxy measurements.” Proxies are (paleo- and prehistoric) temperatures deduced from examination and/or analysis of ice cores, tree rings, soil and rock borings, and other substances. Proxy temperature deductions are compared to a control study and must be corroborated by other spatial, spectral, radiological, and chemical samples and standards. Proxies are subject to a somewhat wider degree of uncertainty, but not so much so that we cannot extrapolate proxies and other evidence to paleo- prehistoric climates.

Anthropologist can easily describe the environments of our descendents and construe the climates with which they dealt.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Measured and Proxy
Date:	7/15/2019 6:41:49 PM

Heard a newscaster on AM750 WSB today talk about the tragic case of an immunologically compromised individual succumbing to probable Staph "flesh eating bacteria".  She stated that climate change was responsible for more areas being inhabited with these bacteria.  Certainly climate change is not responsible for stagnant, warm water.  Nor is it responsible in this particular case.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Prince Charles gives us only 18 months
Date:	7/17/2019 3:07:53 PM

So in 2009 he gave us 8 years to live (2017 for the mathematically challenged).  In 2015 when our doom seemed to maybe not be in another two years, he moved that out for another 35 years.  Thought he must have wised up and realized that a deadline long past his expiration date would likely save him from being alive to witness more humiliation.  Not so fast.  Now here in 2019 he has pulled that back to 18 months. And I quote, "I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival."

So much for settled science......oh, and remember, this moron is one heartbeat away from the crown (not that it means all the much these days).  Say a prayer for Queen Elizabeth that she outlives this idiot.  As for restoring nature to the equilabrium that we need to survive, please do give that some thought.  I defy anyone to tell me what that equilibrium is.  What is the "correct" temperature for global climates and why?

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	"correct temperature" is a moving target
Date:	7/17/2019 4:39:24 PM (updated 7/17/2019 4:40:26 PM)

Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann… in an article and chart updated, March 10, 2018… set the mean global temperature, at 57.0^oF (13.9⁰C)… over the last 4,500 years.

“Approximately 56 million years ago, our planet was in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as global mean temperatures were estimated as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit, over 15 degrees above current levels. Ocean sediments and fossils indicate that massive amounts of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere.” (ibid)    73^oF = 22.8⁰C.

The current interglacial period is about 10K years old and the maximum temperature was 57.6^oF (14.2⁰C) 8K years ago.  Global temperature has been, on average, dropping since then. 

If this interglacial behaves as have all of the previous ones, we are approaching the downturn into the next ice age.  The Sangamon interglacial lasted approximately 11K years before dropping into the Wisconsin glacial period which lasted approx 83K years. The Younger Dryas (over a period of approximately 3K years) was the warming period... at the end of the Wisconsin... immediately prior to our current interglacial.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	"correct temperature" is a moving target
Date:	7/17/2019 4:56:49 PM

Thanks for that info. Just reading it makes me feel cooler.

Name:	Carlson -	Reply
Subject:	"correct temperature" is a moving target
Date:	7/17/2019 5:54:10 PM

Well now I’m praying for global warming.  I hate cold weather!