This post is intended to be a summary overview covering many of the key points I’ve learned since I joined the forum about 2 years ago. First a little history regarding what has brought me to this point in my life. Near the end of 2018 I was working at a heavy equipment manufacturer. I enjoyed the work but the owner of the company was an intense person who was quick to criticize but rarely spoke words of praise. I should have paid more attention to the signs of just how toxic the environment was, the biggest red flag was just how obvious it was for my heart rate and blood pressure to increase anytime I saw the owner’s name come up on caller ID. 9 times out of 10 he was in a fowl mood from trying to run 3 companies and even though I was almost never the issue, he was not good about suppressing his frustration.
Anyway, everything came to a head near the end of 2018 when I caught a headline on MSN news (we were forced to use Microsoft Edge browser on our work computers because the owner swore vehemently that it was the most secure browser available). The MS Edge browser by default comes up with an MSN news page every time you open a new tab. At the time 90% of the articles was crap about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry (I could care less), but as the article headlines scrolled by, one came up saying ominously “new climate change prediction”. So I figured “Ok, I’m familiar with ‘global warming’ because it was the hot topic in High school, let's see what this is about.” Turns out it was AOC’s infamous prediction that the world was going to burn up and end in 12 years (2030) if we didn’t do something RIGHT NOW. I didn’t read more than the first few sentences before something in my brain snapped and I felt sick to my stomach. What followed was several months of a nervous breakdown. I almost completely stopped eating, I lost 20 pounds in 2 months (weight that my body really couldn’t afford to lose), I also sought help from a counselor.
I also started combing the internet for anything that was a counter-argument to the climate change doom and gloom. I needed something I could believe/trust to discredit the doomsayers. 2018-2019 also ended up being one of the worst wildfire seasons in California in RECENT history (I’ll come back to this point later), so watching the sky turn dark brown everyday wish ash raining down during the peak of the fire season did not help my mental state.
I first found the website Watts up with that, which started to help pull me back. I also found the work of Tony Heller and a web blog by David Siegel on medium.com titled “What I learned about climate change”, this blog was actually really helpful (before I found the forum) because David went through the journey from climate scare believer to climate scare skeptic back in 2015. His blog (which he continues to update) is quite good and somehow flies under the radar of criticism. You can find his blog here: https://pullnews.medium.com/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
Next I found the site “No Tricks Zone,” and it was a member commenter there that actually posted a link to one of Mike’s posts about climate here on this forum. That’s how I found out about this forum and Mike.
Mike continues to be my primary source of actual science on this subject and I also follow Tony Heller’s work closely as he also regularly presents graphs and data and shows how data has been changed and manipulated over time by government agencies.
So, in summary, what have I learned? (Mike please review this and comment back on anything I get wrong or mis-represent).
First and foremost: The hijacking and use of the terms “Climate Change” as a scare tactic is incredibly deceitful. In the history of the world, the climate has ALWAYS changed and will continue to change. It would be more concerning if the climate STOPPED changing. We know from geologic records that the earth has gone through periods of life benefiting warmth but has also been a complete snow ball several times.
Second: Weather is NOT climate! And yet the mainstream media will never miss an opportunity to hijack an ‘extreme’ weather event (like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and wildfires) and claim that they are caused by climate change.
Third: Wildfire burn acreage has decreased SIGNIFICANTLY in the US since the early 1900s. The incidence of “extreme wildfire” or wildfires that damage a lot of buildings, burn a lot of land or kill a lot of people has seemingly increased but there are some very good NON-CLIMATE reasons for this.
At least in California, here are the non-climate reasons for why wildfires have been “so bad” in recent years.
> More people have started living in areas that are normally prone to wildfires (looking at you Paradise)
> California has implemented poor forest management policies in areas where people have decided to live (we don’t do anything to remove the ‘fuel load’)
> People living in fire prone areas fail to maintain a ‘defensible space’ around their home and structures
> People seem to forget or not be aware that the normal ecology of California IS wildfires. Many of our forests (pine trees) rely on wildfires for regeneration. Fires clear out brush and dead vegetation and in the process create a rich fertilizer in the form of ash. Certain species of pine tree NEED the heat from a wildfire to allow their cones to open and spread seeds. Fires also clear out older/dying trees which in turn makes room for new trees. Wildfires are a VITAL part of the natural ecology of our forests but people villainize these healthy fires because they “destroy the natural beauty of a forest” and they “destroy houses and structures”.
> To this I say “learn about the regeneration cycles of forests and you will learn that fire is necessary for a HEALTHY forest” and “People chose to live in the forested areas, they should accept the risk of whatever natural disasters that area is prone to.”
Fourth: This entire ‘Climate Change’ thing is HIGHLY politicized AND the politicians are the ones who keep pushing back the doomsday deadline. I see this just like the old fable of the boy who cried wolf. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop paying attention. The difference is that there are enough people in our society that keep believing these politicians who keep crying wolf!
Five: CO2 is NOT some global heater on/off switch. YES, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and YES it does contribute to heat trapping in the atmosphere. But let’s consider the composition of the atmosphere. In my college chemistry class, we were taught that the general composition of the atmosphere is ~79-80% nitrogen, ~19-20% Oxygen and ~1% trace gases (IE, everything else like CO2). CO2 right now is around 400 ppm, or to put that in more perspective, CO2 is ~.04% of our atmospheric composition. Also, CO2’s heat trapping capacity follows a curve wherein the greatest contribution happens within the first 100 ppm, and it takes a doubling of CO2 to gain more heat trapping capacity, but that curve also has an asymptote. Basically, there is a threshold that CO2 reaches where it almost doesn’t matter how much more CO2 you add to a system, it just isn’t going to make that much more difference in heat trapping.
Six: CO2 is the gas of life! I suspect a lot of people think Oxygen is the gas of life because oxygen is what humans and animals need in order to breathe. But animals would be NOWHERE without plants as a base food source and plants need CO2! High school biology taught at my high school taught us that sunlight + co2 + water = sugar (food for the plant) and oxygen as a ‘waste product’ for the plant.
Furthermore, in my internet searches I came across a VERY interesting university PhD thesis that discussed another method for determining historic CO2 levels but also does a VERY good job of explaining why plants have been doing a lot better (IE more drought resistant) at higher CO2 levels. It all comes down to a plant cellular structure called a stomata. Stomata are essentially holes or pores in a plant's leaves that allow the plant to ‘breathe in’ CO2 and ‘exhale’ oxygen. What the paper discusses is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the number of stomata present on plant leaves. What the paper found is that at higher CO2 levels, there are fewer stomata. This makes a lot of sense, when a food source is more abundant, the plant doesn’t need as many holes to capture the food (CO2). This also explains why plants become more drought resistant.
When a plant opens a stomata to ‘exhale’ oxygen, it will always end up losing some water vapor in the process. So if you have fewer stomata (holes), you will lose less water vapor during the process of photosynthesis.
It is also WELL established that greenhouse operators will artificially raise the CO2 concentrations in a greenhouse by literally pumping pure CO2 into a greenhouse to make the plants grow faster and healthier.
Seven: COLD KILLS. Cold is a bigger killer than heat is, especially in today’s modern world of air conditioning and refrigeration. But even before modern times cold was a bigger killer than heat was. Cold kills plants and when there are no plants to feed animals, the animals die. Human bodies also have a harder time dealing with cold, our bodies will start burning a lot of calories to maintain a normal body temperature. When a body runs out of ‘fuel’, it starts to shut down and will eventually die.
Eight: This maybe isn’t so climate related, but is certainly a peeve of mine. “Green” or “clean” energy. Right now in a lot of ‘western developed countries’ there is this massive push towards “clean, renewable energy” IE Wind and solar. Talk about two of the least reliable and quite possibly unclean energy sources.
Solar panels are manufactured using exotic “rare earth” metals and caustic chemicals. Never mind the mining processes involved in extracting those minerals and then the energy to refine the minerals into something usable. Wind power isn’t much better with the amount of copper and permanent magnets needed to construct one.
Neither wind or solar are “reliable.” Solar requires the sun to be out and little to no cloud cover. Wind turbines require...well...the wind to be blowing. Quite often NEITHER of these sources generate anything at night (certainly solar is doing nothing, but often wind drops off at night). Wind turbines also require the wind to be between certain “operating levels”. Not enough wind and the turbine doesn’t spin, too much wind and turbine operators will shut down turbines so that the turbine doesn’t spin too fast and destroy itself.
Lastly there is ecological impact. It is becoming increasingly more documented how wind turbines are impacting insect populations as well as bird populations. There has also been quite a bit of public backlash against wind turbines being built near towns because of the eyesore they tend to be.
If people really, truly wanted a clean and fairly renewable source of energy they need to be willing to build nuclear (this is my opinion of course). Technology across the world has come a long way since the days of Chernobyl (which was a horrific reactor design to begin with) and three mile island (which was contained). Right now Russia is leading the way with their nuclear energy program as their are really pioneering fast breeder reactor technology on a commercially viable scale.
As a closing point to this topic. If all of this wasn’t ludicrous enough, a lot of the western countries (Europe and USA) have social movements that are pushing hard to get coal power plants shut down, despite how clean they have become in recent decades. At the same time, NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON, not even the climate messiah herself Gretta Thunberg is criticizing China for the hundreds (I think it’s actually thousands) of coal fired power plants they are currently in the process of building. China is (as far as I know) the world's largest importer of coal, and ironically Australia is one of their largest suppliers. This brings up a major point of irony or hypocrisy in my eyes. Australia is just as “all in” on solar and wind and shutting down the evil coal power plants as the US and Europe, and yet they continue to export vast quantities of coal to China. Australia has to know that China is using that coal for power generation, so it seems to me that if Australia wanted to fully commit to this “coal free future” they are promoting, they would STOP mining and STOP exporting coal to China. But they don’t, and I suspect the reason why is the oldest reason in the history of civilization: Money. It would be pretty much economic suicide for Australia if they stopped exporting coal.
As I understand it, Australia has 2 major exports: coal (almost exclusively sold to China) and some of the purest iron ore in the world. If they stop coal exports, they are left with iron ore only.
Anyway, this pretty well concludes the major points I wanted to summarize. Mike, I would love for you to ‘peer review’ this and give your thoughts.
I’m sure I will think of more to add over the coming days but this seems like a very solid start.
"Anyway, this pretty well concludes the major points I wanted to summarize. Mike, I would love for you to ‘peer review’ this and give your thoughts. I’m sure I will think of more to add over the coming days but this seems like a very solid start."
Am I dead and in heaven????
Holy Cow madmechanic.
I get impressed by a lot of posts here, sometimes enough to make one of them the "post of the week"
This one just got "post of the year!!!!!"
You nailed many of the relevant points and hit the bullseye dead center!
Thanks from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to state all of that.
So you just had a big surgery madmechanic. Whatever they gave you afterwards, is what every person in the world should get (-:
Here's some of my work on this for the past 3 years or so madmechanic. Something like 40 threads.
Everything that you stated is in there, some of it stated in numerous different threads.
Climate Reality discussions-new discussion June 2021
Congrats on getting the first "post of the year" ever on MarketForum!!!
I'm surprised and honored to have the first "post of the year" award. Certainly wasn't expecting that from my post. Honestly I figured there would be at least 1 talking point that I got wrong.
Thought of a couple additional talking points I'd like to add.
1. As was already stated, CO2 is not some magical global temperature on/off switch. Nor is CO2 the most potent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. There are at least 2 other gases in our atmosphere that are more powerful greenhouse gases. The first is methane (the infamous cow farts) but methane comprises even less of our atmospheric composition than CO2 does (the last time I looked at the numbers). The second gas is water vapor which is far more abundant than CO2 and has a much larger heat trapping capacity. Yet NO ONE in the climate scare community ever talks about trying to control water vapor emissions.
2. Over the last couple years I've read in a few places where some of the younger victims of the climate scare are worried that with increasing levels of CO2 we won't be able to breathe. First, remember that CO2 at present is ~0.04% (~400 ppm) of our atmosphere. Oxygen is still 19-20% of our atmosphere and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Furthermore, consider the isolated system case of military submarines. As I understand it, CO2 concentrations onboard a submerged submarine can reach 2000-3000 ppm (0.3-0.4%) and the sailors onboard are fine. Modern nuclear submarines have the ability to remain submerged for months on end and the crews do not suffer detrimental effects of "elevated" CO2 levels. So we don't need to worry about losing our ability to breathe oxygen due to CO2 emissions anytime soon either.
No need to fix something that isn't broken.
You touched on many good points but as you noted there are many others.
1. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, so there are more heavy downpours/flooding events.
2. And also causes heat waves to be slightly hotter.
3. Also causes the oceans to increase slightly more than the rate of 1 inch/decade.
4. Possibly causes more hurricanes and strengthen some a bit more(with more rains).
For those that hang their hats on those 4 factors, how about we imagine going back to the OLD climate, BEFORE climate change 100 years ago.
When the global temperature was 1 deg. C cooler and the CO2 was less than 290 ppm, compared to todays 415 ppm.
Doing so, would likely result in 1 billion people starving to death within 3 years and food prices tripling to ration the plunge in world food production.
That's just the humans. The rest of the animal world would have MUCH less food to eat.......as every animal eats plants or something that ate plants.
For every 5 ppm that you increase the CO2 by, a plant will grow about 1% faster...crop yields following that too. So the 125 ppm increase in CO2 in the last century equates to a big fat 25% increase in plant growth/food production.
Add on the benefits of the warming and it's greater than that.
It was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 3,500 years ago and MUCH warmer than this 9,000 to 5,000 years ago in the higher latitudes during the Holocene climate OPTIMUM.
Not the Holocene climate CRISIS but and OPTIMUM by all scientific standards..........until they declared CO2 as pollution for the political agenda.
The warmer has been greatest, by far in the coldest places on the planet in the Northern Hemisphere, during the coldest times of year. Hard to make a strong case for that being a bad thing.
Because this decreased the meridional temperature gradient, some types of extreme weather has decreased. Violent tornadoes are 50% less BECAUSE of climate change.
Extreme weather has NOT increased. The reporting of extreme weather has gone up by a factor of 10 and much of the time, they tie it to human caused climate change............even when they same thing(s) happened before because of natural variations.
Extreme weather was, is and always will be an expected part of earths natural climate.
Deaths from extreme weather have plunged to just a tiny fraction of what they were a century ago. Of course most of this is because of better technology that allows us to alert people in timely fashion and prepare for it with life saving actions but actual extreme weather has NOT increased.
Droughts have NOT increased........only the reporting of them has.
The Dust Bowl Decades of the 1930's completely blows away any other period for heat and dryness in the US.
NOAA and others showed their corruption recently by adjusting the proven hotter 1930's downward to make today's heat look worse.
Scroll down from this link for a good discussion/proof of that:
What's interesting is that I just went to the link where they did it...........and they got busted and removed it!!!!
Instead, they added back the original graph but moved it from the front page to figure 3. While using a different graph on the front page that only starts with the global cooling decade of the 1960's.
What a bunch or dishonest scientists!!!!
Speaking of adjusted historic temperature data, I learned recently while researching the Death Valley maximum temperature record of 134 degrees that there is a group of 'scientists' that are trying to get this record erased on the grounds that "there is no way this can be accurate and must have been a clerical error by an inexperienced weather station recorder."
Regardless of whether that claim is correct (it's pure speculation at this point as no one can prove that statement), what we were taught in my chemistry, physics and engineering lab classes is that you NEVER throw out data, even if a data point doesn't seem to 'fit' a trend of other data points you never just omit that. It seems to me these 'scientists' are trying to do just that, they want to throw out the outlier data point because it doesn't fit the trend they want to see. Furthermore, if they can successfully redact the long standing 134 degree Death Valley record, it means they can claim any new high temperature in Death Valley to be "a new high temperature record" and perpetuate the scare mongering.
You are right madmechanic. I just have to show what the EPA did in the last 6 months vs just providing the link because its such blatant corruption of data abuse for a political agenda.
EPA BEFORE (Data source: Kunkel, 2016)
This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.
EPA AFTER Data source: NOAA, 2021Web update: April 2021
August 3, 2021: Holy Cow! They got busted and took down the graphic!!!!
Instead, they added back the original correct one from the front page and moved it to a different page, figure 3 so that it doesn't show up immediately like before.
Now on the front page, they only start with the 1960's, when there was global cooling so they don't have to show the 1930's anymore!!!
What a bunch of dishonest scientists!
Fortunately, I copied and saved the previous ones shown above.
This is what they have now on the front page. It starts with the 1960's.
Thanks to this discussion, madmechanic and me going back to show what they did earlier, I discovered their latest attempt to cover up of their original doctoring of the 1930's data.
The thing is that 99.999% of people going there would never have known what they did.
An atmospheric scientist armed with ALL the previous data is an exception that they can't fool.
The data is the data.
I'm not speculating what they did...........I just showed what they did.
The sad thing is that these are the gatekeepers of data and information that EVERYBODY will use. They can manipulate and fiddle with the data to make it show what they want it to show WITH IMPUNITY!
I'm not saying they all do this. Many to most data sources are honest and accurate.
However, the interpretations are often biased to, in some cases blatatantly exaggerated or distorted.
If I was in charge, the scientists at the EPA that are responsible for these misleading to fraudulent adjustments (without question because of the manner of which they were made) should be fired immediately.
Their objective is clearly not to accurately display data and science but to convince people that its hotter now than it was in the 1930's which is a big fat scientific lie...........entirely for their political agenda.
Anyone can show any trend they want if they pick their starting point. Just as you are showing, by starting in 1960, they can show a warming trend. This ignores everything that happened prior to 1960.
This also brings up another point that I find completely laughable. I read that it has been decided (I think by the IPCC) that a global climate is decided by a period of 30 years. Just 30 years?!
Following up on my point about wildfire burn acreage, here is a graph going back to the 1920s showing just how much of a decline in burn acreage there has been. So anytime someone or a media outlet wants to tell you that this year or last year was the worst wildfire season "on record", ask them where their record keeping started.
That's a good one!
Here's an example:
There are alot of complicated factors that go into this however. You, living in this region are probably bombarded with information on it.
Here were some good discussions last Summer related to this:
West Coast/Oregon fires
20 responses |
Started by metmike - Sept. 12, 2020, 2:48 a.m.
California governor blames wildfires on climate 'emergency'
33 responses |
Started by metmike - Sept. 14, 2020, 12:08 a.m.
Do you have a link for your wildfire source? The source is totally credible but I like to also read the entire article or study to get the most out of it.
I'll be adding this thread to the 3 dozen+ climate reality threads when I get a chance.
Source of wildfire burn acreage:
That’s actually extremely useful for me to see where tony got the data from and how he made the graph and I may use that at later dates.
It’s also helpful to learn about any changes in the way that they gather and report this type of data over the past century to see if that’s a potential factor.
Mike, this morning I thought I would treat you to another set of data graphs. This time it's from the PhD thesis paper I mentioned regarding the study of plant stomata as a method of reconstructing historic CO2 levels. The paper is Kouwenberg, 2004. I have a PDF copy of the original paper. I say original as there was a later 'official release' that truncated/cut off some of his historic data to show only a CO2 rise event. Either way, here are two very interesting graphs.
The first is an annotated version of the FULL historic CO2 graph from his findings.
This next graph is one I found in relation to Kouwenberg's work where someone compared his graph to ice core only data. This graph is NOT part of Kouwenberg's thesis paper, but is someone elses work building upon Kouwenberg. This second graph can be found here:
Mike, if you would like a copy of Kouwenberg's thesis paper, let me know and I'd be happy to send you the PDF.
This is a wonderful discussion using an aspect of authentic science rarely discussed.
Very much related to this is the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans AFTER they have been warmed by the sun or by geothermal heat.
This would explain why CO2 went up AFTER the warming in the past.
I discuss some of that here, along with an image that shows it happening.
As a side note, and this is something of a...contested point of view.
In my various readings and communications with individuals on the subject, the topic of ice age came up several times.
The contested point of view is this: technically, we are still in an ice age.
The rationale behind this is that there is still land ice (glaciers) (Greenland and Antarctica mainly). If we were truly out of an ice age, there wouldn't be any land ice.
Interesting point. Of course we would never want temps to get close to warm enough for all the ice to melt.
But it helps make these points.
The alarmists are basing their position on stating that the optimal temperature of the earth is/was 14 Deg. C (from around earth's temp. 40 years ago) and that 16 Deg. C is a climate crisis for most of life and the planet(even though 16 Deg C and even a couple degrees warmer, in the past was always called a Climate OPTIMUM).
They also suggest that 300 ppm CO2 was more optimal than the current 415 ppm......even though the measured (with thousands of experiments) optimal level for most plants is 900 ppm and we will never ever get even close to that.
Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level: See the proof with thousands of studies. Showing Scientific American.....and mainstream science sold to us........ to be wrong about plants and the affects from Climate Change. December 2020
The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today. At the Pleistocene Ice Age’s peak, massive ice sheets stretched over North America and Eurasia. We can thank these ice sheets and their associated melt events for the Great Lakes, Niagara Falls, and even the Channeled Scablands in Washington and Oregon.
The temperature of the earth has always fluctuated.
As a general rule, the colder it got, the worse it was for life. Look at what the previous graph showed for just 5 Deg. C colder than this. If that happened in the next century, half of the human population would die from starvation from crop failures and the cold.
So what if we did warm another 1 deg. C, what would that really mean for MOST life?
Deeper into the current climate OPTIMUM, still not a climate crisis for life.
Even at 2 deg warmer than this still NOT a climate crisis and still a climate optimum for life.......though there would likely be some potential issues for rising oceans FOR HUMANS living right along the coast lines.
We need to still get well above that to consider it a climate crisis and the chances of that happening in the next 100 years are extremely unlikely.
This is actually what is most likely to happen between now and 2100
"The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants."
metmike: Why isn't this paper, based on 250........let me repeat that number 250 published articles using the best technology known to science............getting much news coverage?
Because they don't want you to know this.
They want you to think that the planet will be dead in 2100 and we only have a few years to save it..........same thing they've been saying for over 3 decades.........as the planet just keeps getting greener.
I copied one of the images from your study to point something out related to the highest amount of CO2 measured in the atmosphere below.
The east to west band of highest CO2 along the same latitute (orange colors below) shifts with the seasons. It's very close to where the sun is straight up in the sky and most powerful, resulting in the warmest ocean temperatures.............which causes the greatest outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.
It ALWAYS shifts north during the Northern Hemisphere's Summer and south during our Winter. ALWAYS because it follows the sun and temperature of the water.
There are always year round "hot spots" too from human CO2 emissions.......regions of high industrial activity, like in China and the US.
Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes…
"AIRS can observe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere, with 15,000 daily observations, pole to pole, all over the globe, with an accuracy of 1 to 2 parts per million and a horizontal surface resolution of 1 by 1 degree. The monthly map at right allows researchers to better observe variations of carbon dioxide at different latitudes and during different seasons. Image credit: NASA" http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/agu/airs-images20091214.html
One of the best articles I've read on this topic!
A failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future.
Lots of comments here: