Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[MultiVerse]

I caught that too. Everything Ron writes is a version of the “nothing to see here!” moment in Naked Gun.

[SumJongGuy]

I caught that too. Everything Ron writes is a version of the “nothing to see here!” moment in Naked Gun.

LOL I just figured out who Ron Johnson is..

[old goat]

Yep, never been any wind in California before.

I've lived in CA for 43 years. I've never seen anything like the number and size of the fires the last few years. Keep in mind that last winter was exceptionally wet and that we've already had significant rainfall this fall, yet once again the state is engulfed in flames. People are losing everything and you sit in your mother's basement and post your charts and graphs and bullshit. The heartbreak that people are going through now is on you and all the other deniers, and if people die their blood is on your hands. It's time for you to get out of your bathrobe, go outside, and look at the world instead of living on the internet.

[ron johnson]

It's hard to believe there are people still denying the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

For present Earth conditions CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder middle latitudes; the remainder is mostly due to water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate. The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the presence of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor. Conversely, increasing CO2would warm the atmosphere and ultimately result in greater water-vapor content—a now well-understood situation known as water-vapor feedback.

So for the umpteenth time, nobody is saying CO2 is the only thing that effects global temperatures. In the ancient past the numbers varied but CO2's significance remained. On a geologic timescale atmospheric CO2 is number #1 for Earth⁠ just like CO2 is #1 for uninhabitable hot Venus and how the narrow emmisive spectra of CO2 on Mars makes it cold and uninhabitable.

More here: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

Now you are just moving the goalposts. I am not denying the impact of greenhouse gasses. I am denying your belief that CO2 has controlled the ice age cycles. This much is obvious from looking at the graph I've posted, and the lack of understanding of what causes ice ages among scientists. If your theory was right, we would see an actual correlation between temperature and CO2 throughout these cycles, and instead of my wikipedia quote reading:

"The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes."

It would read something like:

"The causes of ice ages are understood to be the result of changes in CO2 levels. There are several factors that cause CO2 levels to change such as...."

[ron johnson]

I'm not going to bother to check your source to see if you are telling the truth but I'm glad to see you agree that Exxon knew the science back in the 70's and that the scientific models have proven to be quite accurate.

Then WTF are you arguing about in this thread??? The science is clear.

And where this graph comes from is unimportant to the discussion that Exxon knew and then spent decades trying to cover up the truth.

Throw enough darts at the board and you are bound to get a couple to stick.

[ron johnson]

I've lived in CA for 43 years. I've never seen anything like the number and size of the fires the last few years. Keep in mind that last winter was exceptionally wet and that we've already had significant rainfall this fall, yet once again the state is engulfed in flames. People are losing everything and you sit in your mother's basement and post your charts and graphs and bullshit. The heartbreak that people are going through now is on you and all the other deniers, and if people die their blood is on your hands. It's time for you to get out of your bathrobe, go outside, and look at the world instead of living on the internet.

With you having lived in CA for 43 years I'm sure you are aware that there a number of factors related to these wildfires, and its absurd to blame them on climate alone.

[ron johnson]

I'm not going to bother to check your source to see if you are telling the truth but I'm glad to see you agree that Exxon knew the science back in the 70's and that the scientific models have proven to be quite accurate.

Then WTF are you arguing about in this thread??? The science is clear.

And where this graph comes from is unimportant to the discussion that Exxon knew and then spent decades trying to cover up the truth.

The didn't "know." The document is a summary of the implications and uncertainties of the CO2 theory at the time.

[WMD]

With you having lived in CA for 43 years I'm sure you are aware that there a number of factors related to these wildfires, and its absurd to blame them on climate alone.

NASA Earth Observatory: "Rising Global Temperatures Influence California’s Fire Season"

If it seems like California has been getting hit by more and larger fires lately, that's because it has. In 2017, California endured the Thomas Fire, the state’s largest fire (by area) at that time. One year later, the Mendocino Fire Complex took its place. In 2018, California also suffered its most destructive fire ever and set a new record for burned area in one year.

A study published in July 2019 shows these remarkable fire years are no longer freakish anomalies. They fit with a trend of more frequent and bigger fires. According to the researchers, the annual burned area across California has increased fivefold over the past five decades, and the main driver is higher temperatures.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...as-fire-season

[MultiVerse]

lol @ Ron citing random Wikipeda edits as the authoritative source when study after study, including those cited in his own source, show the connection between CO2 and ice ages.

Ron is arguing against a strawman because Wikipeda correctly states the scientific consensus is several factors are important. CO2 is not the only factor, but CO2 does set the threshold for glacial-interglacial cycles. The fact that there were also other events in the ancient past like volcanoes and meteors, and also other climate signals, does not change the fact that atmospheric composition is the most important.



As for moving the goalposts, that's not the case at all. Ron has no alternative theory other than a so called "cooling force." Ron even posted a Wikipedia article with a chart arguing for his "cooling force" theory, even though his article directly contradicted his "cooling force" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg

The chart from Ron's Wikipedia article shows the central role of CO2 as a controller of climate.

[ron johnson]

NASA Earth Observatory: "Rising Global Temperatures Influence California’s Fire Season"

Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...as-fire-season

Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!

[Bunion 2020]

[ron johnson]

lol @ Ron quoting Wikipeda as the authoritative source when study after study, including those cited in his own source, show the connection between CO2 and ice ages.

Ron is arguing against a strawman. CO2 is not the only factor, but CO2 does set the threshhold for glacial-interglacial cycles. The fact that there were also other events in the ancient past like volcanoes and meteors, and also other climate signals, does not change that.


Ron also has no alternative theory other than a so called "cooling force." Ron even posted a Wikipedia article with a chart arguing for his "cooling force" theory, even though his article directly contradicted his "cooling force" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg

To start off with, I can't believe you brought up your useless chart again!! You have to be trolling at this point right?

Obviously wikipedia isn't some authoritative source, but it does a pretty good job of summarizing subjects. You got another suggestion?

No strawman here. Your position has been that CO2 controls ice ages.

How exactly does my article contradict cooling forces? Earth's temperature is determined by the interplay between forces that cause warming and forces that cause cooling. When earth enters into a ice age, the cooling forces overwhelm the warming forces.

[MultiVerse]

- The issues isn't with Wikipedia making a list of climate signals. It's a series of edits after all. Sometimes those edits form a cohesive whole and other times they don't. There's nothing in the Ron's Wikipedia quote that hasn't been discussed already in this thread. An honest broker would acknowledge that, and make the connection.

In other words nobody is saying these things are fully understood, but the connections are better understood by scientists than is implied by a Wikipedia snippet. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


-- That's why Ron's chart matters because it's the basis for the difference between radiative forcing and feedbacks. Yes there are warming feedbacks and cooling feedbacks, warming forcings and cooling forcings, but key to all of it is radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases really are the largest contributor to the Earth’s climate outside the sun which is producing energy for the whole system.

[Bunion 2020]

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[WMD]

Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!

Yeah, NASA doesn't know shit about science. Maybe you could educate them as well as us.

[ron johnson]

- The issues isn't with Wikipedia making a list of climate signals. It's a series of edits after all. Sometimes those edits form a cohesive whole and other times they don't. There's nothing in the Ron's Wikipedia quote that hasn't been discussed already in this thread. An honest broker would acknowledge that, and make the connection.

In other words nobody is saying these things are fully understood, but the connections are better understood by scientists than is implied by a Wikipedia snippet. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

No, it's disingenuous for you to state unequivocally that CO2 controls ice ages when the data and scientific community don't support it, and it's disingenuous for you to say that ice ages are better understood by scientists than implied by the wikipedia article without offering any proof beyond a theory for the cooling over the past 55 million years and some vague YouTube video that has little to do with what we are talking about. And you continue to ignore my request for your explanation of what is happening 145mm years ago, 290mm years ago, and 439mm years ago because it's unexplainable with your theory.

-- That's why Ron's chart matters because it's the basis for the difference between radiative forcing and feedbacks. Yes there are warming feedbacks and cooling feedbacks, warming forcings and cooling forcings, but key to all of it is radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases really are the largest contributor to the Earth’s climate outside the sun which is producing energy for the whole system.

Your chart couldn't matter less. As I've said repeatedly, it is for the year 2005 alone, and even then, it's just a best guess. They do not know the exact radiative forces of the various components. It's going to look a lot different for year 145,090,012BC.

[ron johnson]

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

This is where MV gets his arguments from. It's about the alarmist equivalent of wattsupwiththat.com

[ron johnson]

Yeah, NASA doesn't know shit about science. Maybe you could educate them as well as us.

Ought to tell you something about the state of our climate institutions....

[WMD]

Ought to tell you something about the state of our climate institutions....

hubris noun
hu·​bris | \ ˈhyü-brəs \
Definition of hubris
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

[iceman]

https://www.morningstar.com/articles...eration-market

ron's gonna be out of a job

[k2skier112]

The didn't "know." The document is a summary of the implications and uncertainties of the CO2 theory at the time.

shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[k2skier112]

could everyone stop replying to the troll, it's getting fucking ridiculous

it's like listening to Dump talk, just says words, so many words...lots of beautiful words...

[k2skier112]

With you having lived in CA for 43 years I'm sure you are aware that there a number of factors related to these wildfires, and its absurd to blame them on climate alone.

Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1926-2018)
The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireIn...otalFires.html

[MultiVerse]

It’s beating a dead horse at this point but a summary of the research discussed in this thread with citations because our knowledge of past ice ages keeps growing. Paleoclimatologists have brought to light new information but many beliefs about ice ages and CO2 lagging temps formed decades ago and those prior beliefs haven’t been updated since.



India’s northward flight and collision with Asia was a major driver of global tectonics in the Cenozoic. About 68 million years ago the India-Asia continent-to-continent collisions marks the beginning of a macro scale highly effective CO2-sequestration process for changing the global carbon budget in the atmosphere. A chemical reaction takes place binding atmospheric CO2 with newly formed compounds sequestering CO2. CO2 over the Middle and Late Eocene reach sufficiently low levels to trigger the expansion of Antarctic ice sheets at around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. [1] [2]

The onset of Antarctic glaciation, rooted in environmental changes ~33.7 million years ago, is the beginning of Earth’s modern climate characterized by polar ice sheets and large equator-to-pole temperature gradients. Results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds.[3]

About 3 million years ago the Earth crosses a critical threshold in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere so that the relationship with the sun in the shape of Earth's orbit and its axis tilt, which has periodicity, emerges as climate signals. The 41,000 and 100,000 year glacial-interglacial Milankovitch cycle shows up as the growth and decay of ice sheets over time.

Milankovitch cycle cooling happens when: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial cooling. 2) As the planet cools the oceans cool and because cold water has a higher degree of CO2 solubility it soaks up carbon from the atmosphere. 3) Lower sea surface temperatures also changes ocean circulation. 4) Resulting in decreased of deep ocean ventilation. 5) And elevated carbonate weathering on exposed glacial shelves. 6) And enhanced CO2 utilization in the Southern Ocean. [4][5]

Milankovitch cycle warming happens when: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial warming. 2) Arctic ice melts flooding the oceans with fresh water which changes ocean circulation. 3) Over the course of millennia this leads to oscillation between the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. 4) Several millennia later as a result of the initial ocean warming large amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. 5) After the influx of CO2 the vast majority of warming, something like 90-93%, occurs. [6]



[1] Muttoni, et al. (2008). Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends
[2] Macdonald et al. (2016). Low-latitude arc–continent collision as a driver for global cooling.
[3] Pagani et. al. (2011). The role of carbon dioxide during the onset of Antarctic glaciation.
[4] Ganopolski, et al. (2019) Mid-Pleistocene transition in glacial cycles explained by declining CO2 and regolith removal
[5] Farmer et al (2019) Deep Atlantic Ocean carbon storage and the rise of 100,000-year glacial cycles
[6] Shakun et al. (2012 )Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

[dan_pdx]

Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!

Heck, it's so easy, you should be publishing your own study, amirite?