Monday, July 17, 2017

What do you get when it's the "Hottest Year Ever"?

Skiing in the middle of summer:
Summer Shredding
With over 600″ of snowfall this winter the 2016/2017 ski season is still going strong and we’ll be skiing and riding into August.
That's some righteous Global Warming, right there.  Skiing until August in California.

So: when it's hot, that's a sign of Global Warming.  When there are record snowfalls, what is that a sign of?  And if there's no possibility of an incorrect prediction, can we even call it "science"?


Rick C said...

"When there are record snowfalls, what is that a sign of?"

Still Global Warming. You know this. Oh, now it's "climate change," but the change is still "getting catastrophically hotter."

CenterPuke88 said...

I'll just mention that the earth is a heat engine, and hotter in places can easily result in colder too. The baseline trend in CO2 is upward, and that is undeniable. It is settled science that sea levels were higher, as were temperatures, in the past with slightly to much higher CO2 levels. To suggest that this time is different smacks of wishful thinking, and it is interesting that no debunker of climate change will tackle the CO2 issue.

Emperically, with average CO2 climbing from 320 to 405 between 1960 and 2015 on Maura Loa, consider what happens if you reload some .45 brass with 26-27% more powder? If your load is 7 gr,, but you overload to 8.9 gr., you might have an issue, eh? You'll probably get away with it, but the overload keeps getting bigger, at some point it don't work so good.

EF G said...

It's "settled science" that sometimes in the past there was a much higher CO2-concentration than today - but it's also "settled", that such levels more often than not appeared AFTER the temperatures were high.
It's also "settled" that the the CO2-dogma is a massive weak spot and got debunked so many times over the years, that one still wonders how on earth some can still call ist "science".
It's also "settled science" that nitro powder is in fact not CO2 so comparisons between these two are not scientific but quite the opposite as a higher powder load behaves much differently than a higher CO2 concentration.

Divemedic said...

It's also settled science that there is a giant fucking nuclear explosion a short distance away, and the heat that is being generated by that explosion is cyclical. I would also point out that the ice caps on Mars are melting, and the storm on Jupiter called the "Great Red Spot" is shrinking, both signs that Solar Weather is changing. Since there are NO humans on Jupiter, and Mars has only a handful of (all electric, zero emissions) automobiles on it, this is unlikely to be anything man made.
You gun powder analogy is wrong, as CO2 is measured in parts per million. To put this in perspective, if I had a 60 gallon drum of water than contained 320 ppm of salt, increasing the amount of salt to 405 ppm would require that I add one grain (25 thousandths of an ounce) to the 60 gallon drum. This is a large difference from your example

CenterPuke88 said...

EF G, CO2 increases atmospheric temperatures, fact. CO2 concentration is increasing, fact. CO2 behavior in an atmosphere rising above a certain point, has been associated with higher temperatures, fact.

Divemedic, the analogy is valid. A ~26.6% increase in atmospheric CO2 was compared to a ~27.3% increase in powder. The amounts are comparable. The question is will the CO2 rise prove to be as deadly as an in erase in powder can?

EF G said...

Er, no. It's not a fact.
CO2 *may* help increase temperatures BUT only in a small range - the theoretical effect of a rising CO2 concentration on the temperature is also not linear (in layman's terms: the more you put in, the less you get out). It's also just one of many, many possibly factors and not even one with that much impact.
But it's easy to dismiss CO2 as pure evil and it's also easy to tax AND it's also an easy concept to grasp for people who confuse science with some sort of religion.

So as Devemidic and I pointed out: your analogy is more than flawed and as Divemdic pointed out there are tons of more important factors for a potential temperature rise.

Remember when the proposed temperature rise caused by the rising CO2 levels came true? Yeah, me neither. Because they forget about the sun. Or the clouds. Or the oceans. Or the sun again. Or they messed with the data.

Borepatch said...

Dang, mockery is getting harder and harder ...


Goober said...

The co2 ppm during the last ice age was ten times what it is today.

Therefore, while a driver of climate, it is certainly not *the* driver of climate.

The mild temperature increases seem to have leveled off for now. Fluctuations within the range of what we've seen recently have been shown to happen all the time. What were we worried about again?

Should we minimize the amount to which we shit in our own well?

Yes. We are doing a good job of that now, getting more efficient by the day.

Is this the literal existential crisis that requires the destruction of the world economy and centralization and consolidation of power that people are claiming it is?

There is zero evidence to suggest so.