Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Parasites are real, fart induced global warming isn't.

Another definitive, but unsupported statement. Talk is cheap, data and analysis are expensive.

Apocalyptic wildfires in Southern California... in the middle of winter.

www.ctinsider.com/news/article/how-santa-ana-winds-fueled-the-deadly-fires-in-20023849.php

Top Californian fire expert says you can't blame global warming, other factors have more impact.
Gale force Santa Ana Wind ,expanding population and more electrical ignition sources.

Select to expand quote

Rango said..
www.ctinsider.com/news/article/how-santa-ana-winds-fueled-the-deadly-fires-in-20023849.php

Top Californian fire expert says you can't blame global warming, other factors have more impact.
Gale force Santa ana wind ,expanding population and more electrical ignition sources.

I think excessive burger sales in California is what's really the driving factor behind these gale force winds.

On a positive note they've done their winter fuel load burn off so it'll reduce the chance of a dangerous fire in summer.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Rango said..
www.ctinsider.com/news/article/how-santa-ana-winds-fueled-the-deadly-fires-in-20023849.php

Top Californian fire expert says you can't blame global warming, other factors have more impact.
Gale force Santa ana wind ,expanding population and more electrical ignition sources.

I think excessive burger sales in California is what's really the driving factor behind these gale force winds.

I'm sure you could plot a correlation causation chart from that hypothesis ,maybe even get a hockey stick result.

Select to expand quote

elmo said..
On a positive note they've done their winter fuel load burn off so it'll reduce the chance of a dangerous fire in summer.

"New research shows these abrupt wet-to-dry and dry-to-wet swings, which can worsen wildfires, flooding and other hazards, are growing more frequent and intense because of human-caused climate change."

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly

An interesting article. Did you read this part...
"Further, quantifying the relationship between GMST and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations can refine our understanding of Earth's climate sensitivity and improve future predictions under anthropogenic warming.
...
PhanDA GMST exhibits a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Fig. 4), demonstrating that CO2 has been the dominant forcing controlling global climate variations across the Phanerozoic."

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cammd said..
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly

An interesting article. Did you read this part...
"Further, quantifying the relationship between GMST and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations can refine our understanding of Earth's climate sensitivity and improve future predictions under anthropogenic warming.
...
PhanDA GMST exhibits a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Fig. 4), demonstrating that CO2 has been the dominant forcing controlling global climate variations across the Phanerozoic."

Yeah I read it, makes me believe in MAN MADE climate change less.

looks to me like the climate has never been static and has mostly been warmer than it is now. What are you thoughts

I can't help but think if it was proven beyond doubt that climate change was a natural process that humans had no influence over that remery et al would all be disappointed. It would be like choosing kamala as their guy all over again.

Rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 marked the end of the Late Palaeozoic Ice Age.

Nat. Geosci. (2025). doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01610-2

"It remains to be seen whether a future Large Igneous Province event will similarly end the currentLate Cenozoic Ice Age, or whether the emergence of an evolutionarily extremely successful organism (that is, humans) may lead to a geological-scale climate transition."

www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01610-2

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Yeah I read it, makes me believe in MAN MADE climate change less.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
"It remains to be seen ....
www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01610-2

Eh ?

...It remains to be seen ....
....Atmospheric CO2 is thought to play a fundamental role in Earth's climate regulation....

"remains to be seen" ? "thought to" ?

How dare you.

The science is in.

Which produces the biggest head ,a cold beer or pouring a warm one ?

Not being a scientist I doubt I understand but if we were to plot the Greta epoch on there would it look something like ?


Also, not much correlation between CO2 and temperature there during the Mesozoic era. Was that due to dinosaurs farting methane ? Maybe farting cows will actually be our saviour ?

Select to expand quote

Rango said..
Which produces the biggest head ,a cold beer or pouring a warm one ?

Nah, they don't get drunk enough on beer. You gotta give them spirits to get the best hea.... oh hang on, nope sorry, misunderstanding there, yep sorry, ignore that...

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly

I thought perhaps an explainer for the cycles in the plot above might be helpful.
Cambrian Explosion (~540 million years ago):Warm, greenhouse conditions with high CO? levels, likely due to volcanic activity and the absence of significant polar ice.
Late Ordovician (~450-440 million years ago):Glaciation caused by declining CO? levels due to silicate weathering and burial of organic carbon.
Permian-Triassic (~252 million years ago):The greatest warming in Earth's history due to Siberian Trap volcanism. GMST increased by ~8-10?C.
Cretaceous Thermal Maximum (~94 million years ago):Exceptionally warm period due to high CO? from volcanic activity and reduced carbon burial.
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago):A rapid spike in GMST (~5-8?C) caused by massive carbon release, possibly from methane hydrates or volcanic activity.
Pleistocene Glaciations (~2.5 million to ~11,700 years ago):Alternating glacial and interglacial periods driven by orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles).
Anthropocene (~Industrial Era to present):Modern warming due to anthropogenic CO? emissions is unprecedented in rate and scale compared to natural drivers. On the time scale above, this is just a couple of pixels at the far right. It has happened within a century, compared to previous events measured over millions of years.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Not being a scientist I doubt I understand but if we were to plot the Greta epoch on there would it look something like ?


Also, not much correlation between CO2 and temperature there during the Mesozoic era. Was that due to dinosaurs farting methane ? Maybe farting cows will actually be our saviour ?

With the help of the internet thingy I found these explanations:
1. Variations in Continental Configuration
Tectonic Shifts:
- The Mesozoic was marked by the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea into smaller landmasses. These shifts dramatically altered ocean currents and atmospheric circulation patterns.
- For example, the opening of the Tethys Sea and the formation of the Atlantic Ocean created new ocean circulation patterns, which redistributed heat differently across the globe.
Land-Sea Distribution
- The ratio of land to sea impacts heat absorption and reflection. Large continents tend to heat up more than oceans, while oceans moderate temperatures through heat storage and transport.

2. Changes in Ocean Circulation
- Ocean Heat Transport
- During periods when ocean circulation was strong, heat was more evenly distributed across the globe. In contrast, weaker circulation could lead to localized temperature extremes.
- For instance, the formation of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway in North America created unique regional climates by altering ocean currents.
-Sea Level Fluctuations
- High sea levels during much of the Mesozoic submerged significant portions of continents, creating shallow seas. These seas absorbed and redistributed heat differently than land, contributing to regional climate variability.

3. Volcanism and Tectonic Activity
- Long-Term Volcanism
- Although CO2 levels were relatively stable on average, periods of intense volcanism (e.g., the formation of Large Igneous Provinces like the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province and the Ontong Java Plateau caused short-term spikes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
- Volcanic aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, could temporarily cause cooling by reflecting sunlight, creating short-term fluctuations in temperature.
- Continental Uplift
- Tectonic activity also drove the uplift of mountain ranges, increasing silicate weathering rates. This process draws down CO2, leading to regional and temporal cooling despite overall high CO2 levels.

4. Solar Radiation
- Gradual Increase in Solar Output
- Over the Mesozoic, the Sun's output increased slightly due to stellar evolution, contributing to a gradual warming trend over millions of years.
- Orbital Variations
- Changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (Milankovitch cycles) led to variations in the distribution and intensity of solar radiation, causing periodic climate shifts.

5. Albedo (Surface Reflectivity) Changes
- Ice-Free Polar Regions
- The Mesozoic had periods of ice-free poles, which significantly reduced Earth's albedo and amplified warming. Conversely, during cooler phases, temporary ice cover could increase albedo, reflecting more sunlight and causing localized cooling.

- Vegetation and Land Cover
- Changes in vegetation cover, driven by the evolution of different plant species, influenced the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface. Dense forests absorb more heat, whereas barren or reflective surfaces (e.g., deserts) increase albedo.

6.Methane and Other Greenhouse Gases
- Methane Hydrates
- Episodic releases of methane from ocean sediments or wetlands could have caused transient warming events, amplifying temperatures independently of CO2 levels.

- Nitrous Oxide and Other Gases
- Biological activity, such as the decomposition of organic matter in warm, anoxic seas, released other greenhouse gases, contributing to temperature variability.

7. Biological Evolution and Feedbacks
- Marine Productivity
- Variations in ocean nutrient levels affected plankton blooms, which impacted the drawdown of CO2through the biological pump.
- For example, the rise of calcareous plankton in the Jurassic influenced carbon burial rates, affecting CO2 concentrations and climate.

8. Vegetation Evolution
- The emergence and spread of flowering plants during the Cretaceous altered carbon cycling and water vapour feedbacks, influencing climate variability.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cammd said..

Yeah I read it, makes me believe in MAN MADE climate change less.

Your just like Pete, if the questions to hard you deflect or ignore, your as wilfully blind as him as well.

Select to expand quote

cammd said.. >>>Your just like Pete, if the questions to hard you deflect or ignore, your as wilfully blind as him as well.

What was the question???

you just said you didn't believe.

Remery just commented on your belief.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Your just like Pete, if the questions to hard you deflect or ignore, your as wilfully blind as him as well.

You're a bit odd, you posted a link to reputable scientific publication that shows that CO2 and Earth temperatures are closely linked. I highlight this point and now you too are complaining.

Isn't saying 'science doesn't care about your beliefs' a bit of a nonsense thing to say ?

Science is process, but your beliefs are an outcome or a conclusion.

Its a bit like saying the recipe book dosn't care about your tastes, with the implication that if you don't like the cake it is simply because the receipe is correct but your tastes are wrong. The two aren't particularly related, unless I guess you want to somehow use emotion of the words to obfruscate a point that otherwise has little logic.


Besides, is the only way to regard science as more legitimate than doctrine to just believe it ? By its very nature science can't prove itself correct but doctrine, by its nature, does nothing but prove itself the most legitmate.

So for science to upsurp doctrine do you not have to ultimately "just believe that it does" ?

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

cammd said.. >>>Your just like Pete, if the questions to hard you deflect or ignore, your as wilfully blind as him as well.

What was the question???

you just said you didn't believe.

Remery just commented on your belief.

I noted the climate has never been static and mostly a lot warmer than it is now, I asked remery for his thoughts on those observations and he posted a dumb meme instead of attempting some original thought.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

cammd said..
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly

I thought perhaps an explainer for the cycles in the plot above might be helpful.
Cambrian Explosion (~540 million years ago):Warm, greenhouse conditions with high CO? levels, likely due to volcanic activity and the absence of significant polar ice.
Late Ordovician (~450-440 million years ago):Glaciation caused by declining CO? levels due to silicate weathering and burial of organic carbon.
Permian-Triassic (~252 million years ago):The greatest warming in Earth's history due to Siberian Trap volcanism. GMST increased by ~8-10?C.
Cretaceous Thermal Maximum (~94 million years ago):Exceptionally warm period due to high CO? from volcanic activity and reduced carbon burial.
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago):A rapid spike in GMST (~5-8?C) caused by massive carbon release, possibly from methane hydrates or volcanic activity.
Pleistocene Glaciations (~2.5 million to ~11,700 years ago):Alternating glacial and interglacial periods driven by orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles).
Anthropocene (~Industrial Era to present):Modern warming due to anthropogenic CO? emissions is unprecedented in rate and scale compared to natural drivers. On the time scale above, this is just a couple of pixels at the far right. It has happened within a century, compared to previous events measured over millions of years.

All those periods are measured in tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years. You mention Anthropocene has seen the emissions increase at unprecedented rates and scale.

A few of points.
The Anthropocene can only be what 150 or 200 years of emissions. Why does temperature begin to increase at the "unprecedented" rate from the moment the industrial revolution starts. Surely emissions at the beginning had zero effect as they had no time to build.

How do you compare emissions over 100s of millions of years to emissions over decades and state they are unprecedented, it's BS. No one knows what happened 450 and 350 million years ago. It's an educated guess at best.

Which brings me to the last point, we know a big volcanic eruption releases more emissions in 1 hour than china does in a year. If periods like the Cambrian, Permian and Cretaceous were highly volcanic I find it difficult to believe the start of Industrial revolution instantly reached unprecedented rates of emissions compared to a highly volcanic period.

So I call BS on 99 percent of claims about anthropogenic climate change. It's a sale pitch.

The "Anthropocene" is not a geological epoch and a term that was rejected by geologists but supported by activists.Still in the good old holocene consisting of several mild glacial and interglacial cycles .Currently in the interglacial Modern Warm Period thawing out from the Little Ice Age which lasted 500 yrs.Not a good time by all accounts.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Isn't saying 'science doesn't care about your beliefs' a bit of a nonsense thing to say ?

Science is process, but your beliefs are an outcome or a conclusion.

Its a bit like saying the recipe book dosn't care about your tastes, with the implication that if you don't like the cake it is simply because the receipe is correct but your tastes are wrong. The two aren't particularly related, unless I guess you want to somehow use emotion of the words to obfruscate a point that otherwise has little logic.


Besides, is the only way to regard science as more legitimate than doctrine to just believe it ? By its very nature science can't prove itself correct but doctrine, by its nature, does nothing but prove itself the most legitmate.

So for science to upsurp doctrine do you not have to ultimately "just believe that it does" ?

Go back to the first post in the Skepticism and Critical thinking thread. The answers you seek are (probably not) there.

Select to expand quote

Rango said..
The "Anthropocene" is not a geological epoch and a term that was rejected by geologists but supported by activists.Still in the good old holocene consisting of several mild glacial and interglacial cycles .Currently in the interglacial Modern Warm Period thawing out from the Little Ice Age which lasted 500 yrs.Not a good time by all accounts.

That sounds far more reasonable than the claimed unprecedented rate of emissions that can be solved by driving an ev car and buying fart free steaks.

That's around 100 times longer than indigenous Australian history.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Isn't saying 'science doesn't care about your beliefs' a bit of a nonsense thing to say ?

Science is process, but your beliefs are an outcome or a conclusion.

Its a bit like saying the recipe book dosn't care about your tastes, with the implication that if you don't like the cake it is simply because the receipe is correct but your tastes are wrong. The two aren't particularly related, unless I guess you want to somehow use emotion of the words to obfruscate a point that otherwise has little logic.


Besides, is the only way to regard science as more legitimate than doctrine to just believe it ? By its very nature science can't prove itself correct but doctrine, by its nature, does nothing but prove itself the most legitmate.

So for science to upsurp doctrine do you not have to ultimately "just believe that it does" ?

As I commented earlier, see the first post in the Skepticism and Critical Thinking thread. You might learn something (probably not).