Hi John,

You have enough ammo using threads here to obliterate the fake climate crisis crowd.

OK, I just realized this may not be a debate but instead like minded people.

But here's the thing. They will never hear a word you say. Their brains have already decided there's a climate crisis. Things that contradict that, even rock solid authentic data and proof don't compute in their brains and it gets rejected because their brains define anything that doesn't line up with their assumption as false. 

It's called a BRAINWASH. 

There HAS been just over 1 Deg. C of warming and there is a 7% increase in water vapor on average from that warmer air holding more moisture which for sure has caused more high end rain events.  Heat waves are a tiny bit hotter because we've basically superimposed almost 2 deg. F of warming on the planet.

So 100 is more like 102 now in a heat wave.

The warming has especially  been amplified in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemiphere.  The coldest places, during the coldest times of year, mostly.

So extreme cold has been modified by MUCH MORE in the Winter. Up to 6 degrees warmer in some of the coldest places.

A few places have not experienced much warming. The US Midwest/Cornbelt has had slight cooling in the Summer during the last 40 years.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99132/#99134

Also, the oceans are rising at just over an inch/decade.

Most of the other stuff is benefits to life on this planet and we are having an indisputable  scientific climate OPTIMUM!

The climate crisis is junk science invented for politics. 

If you want to search for a topic or item like this, use the search engine in the right hand corner. In this case, type in IPCC.

Here's some helpful  posts/threads from just the last year for you that I was able to pick out by scrolling down after starting the search for IPCC.

Actually, I just did the work for you below. Not all of them are IPCC. I have a rock bottom, very low opinion on the IPCC. They are a political group that used junk science to hijack climate science and even REWRITE climate history to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period.

The UN created them for this purpose over 3 decades ago.  Established as the climate authority for every country's government. Their regular reports are the climate bible for climate scientists, most of whom work for their government. 

Read about it with the proof below:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/99521/#99577

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98304/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98354/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98354/#98476

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98263/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98263/#98264

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97818/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97818/#98201

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97581/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95151/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95312/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95527/#95529

+++++++++++

You'll love this one. In this thread, I obliterate the IPCC's junk science and alarmism on their last report.

                Science corruption            

                            20 responses |              

                Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/

++++++++

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94542/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93502/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/92646/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/92155/

++++++++++++++

Here's most of my older stuff:

I haven't updated this page for 2 years buts its loaded with great data/discussions that are still rock solid in 2024.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/

+++++++++

Here's a couple more recent ones:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/101882/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

+++++++++

Lots of stuff but you can scroll thru and pick out what you want.

I would cut/paste it and send it to yourself via email.

Very helpful Mike,thanks.

The book/auther I may be discussing this topic with is Robert DeSaro " A Crisis Like No Other ".

A family friend who I like and respect but I want to point out that he is the worst offender with regards to items he warns his readers about. You know the story. just need some ammo cause I'll be the only "denier" at the conversation.

This whole gathering may not happen but just the same....

   John

edit - Im going to try to post a graph he uses to illustrate the dire circumstances we face. It simply proves that climate change has been in a range for the last 80,000 years but he has manipulated his readers so much  they will be blind to what that chart really shows us.

Here's that chart.

Seems cyclical to me and man survived and thrived all those other peaks of high CO2 and temperature.

CO2 contents represented in the chart were from ice core samples  As you have stressed previously,this is empirical data -not projections.

Thanks much, John.

You will note that of the data I've posted, some of it has been repeated many times but I never show that graph.

I understand the case of natural cycles and that graph is legit but we have potential explanations for those changes in the past that ARE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN NOW.

In the past, changes in the earths eccentric orbit and axis tilt caused changes in how much total solar energy the planet received(we believe).

Over many years in 1 direction, it warmed the oceans FIRST. The oceans have a reservoir of suspended CO2 that is 60 times the amount in the atmosphere.

Just like your favorite soft drink, if you leave it out in the warm air, it will lose the carbonation much faster than if you left it open in the fridge........the warming oceans OUT GASSED more and more CO2 and that's what is strongly suspected to have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past that came AFTER the warming.

This likely took thousands of years.

The dynamic is completely different this time.

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/june/oceans-absorb-emissions

While warming oceans today can't hold as much CO2 as oceans 100 years ago did that were 1 deg. C cooler if nothing else changed, there's a ratio/balance between the ocean temp and CObased on the amount of CO2 in the air.

100 years ago, that ratio was balanced with that cooler ocean and the atmosphere at 290 parts per million.

If all we did was warm the ocean and nothing else, it would have released enough CO2, as in the past to maintain that balance. Let's guess that this would have got us to, maybe 330 ppm from the warmer water by itself to maintain the natural equilibrium between the CO2 in the warmer ocean and the CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil fuels almost exclusively increased the CO2 in the atmosphere to 420 ppm. This is much higher than the 330 ppm equilibrium so we know with certainty that the oceans are ABSORBING CO2 NOT releasing it like they did in the past AFTER they warmed naturally from changes in the amount of sunshine reaching the planet.

Added to our understanding of that is the physics of CO2 which proves indisputably that  it absorbs short wave radiation and keeps it from escaping to space which warms the planet. Just like H2O does As our main  greenhouse gas(95%).

An interesting part of that is that the impact of CO2 to do this as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic.........its ability to warm, decreases with increasing CO2.

The  increased CO2 greenhouse gas effect for every added molecule at 420 ppm is half of what it was at 290 ppm.

If we doubled the current amount of CO2(which never happen as fossil fuels will run out before then) to approach the optimal level for life, the greenhouse warming impact for each additional molecule would be less than half of what the added impact is at the current level for each molecule.

The bands in the CO2  energy absorption spectrum are becoming saturated and no longer able to absorb energy from increasing CO2 concentrations.

Here's a technical discussion of that:

Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration                

 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml

Note on the graphs below that the Y/vertical axis of the left is the amount of increased energy that gets trapped is only going up by an increment of 10's. The bottom is the CO2 concentration that is quadrupling each time.

On that graph going from 256 ppm to 512 ppm.......a doubling of the CO2 concentration would cause the forcing(increase in greenhouse gas power) to go from around 30 W/M2 to 35 W/M2. 

To get the same amount of forcing, we would need to go from 512 ppm to 1024, another doubling to hit 40 W/M2.  

So the first increase in forcing of +5 W/M2 required an increase of 256 ppm CO2.

To get the same increase again, we needed to increase the CO2 by 512 ppm.

This indisputable/proven  law of physics means that the higher the CO2 concentration is, the less impact each additional molecule has. You keep needing to add more and more for the same impact.

+++++

Here's an article about that from 10 years ago from a fellow skeptic that makes  It easier to see.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

The scale below on the X axis makes this much easier to see because its not quadrupling/going up exponentially as is the one above:

This graph below REALLY makes it clear.

************

However, you will like this, look at what the IPCC models use for their warming from CO2 below.

This is exactly why their models have been TOO WARM.  How do they get this much warming when CO2 doesn't have the physics by itself to warm us like the IPCC global climate models?

They introduce mathematical equations that amplify the warming with increasing H2O feedback,  a much more powerful greenhouse gas. 

For every +1 Deg of warming there will be an increase in the POTENTIAL for a saturated atmosphere to hold 7% more moisture. Their equations MISrepresent that in order to intentionally amplify the future warming in global climate models to generate scary outcomes with almost no chance of verifying.

This is not science. It's dishonest junk science and we know what they did to doctor the equations and why they did it............POLITICS.

Below, is the proof that the IPCC models are using bad equations with too muc CO2 forcing, with the accurate measurement of the actual CO2 forcing with instrumentation.  We know this with certainty.

Profound:  Smoking Guns!!  Proof with accurate 2 decade long measurement of the actual amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 of 1 irrefutable reason for WHY global climate models continue to be too warm. Climate emergency is really about social justice and brainwashing people. Even MORE confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming. Models clearly too warm yet incredibly programmed to get even HOTTER!   August 2020 https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/57636/

++++++++

So John, please don't use the past graphs of CO2 vs temperature in your last post because they represent a different dynamic than this one from human emissions of CO2. Temperatures DID go up first then..........but for a different reason.

And they actually prove the correlation between CO2 and temperature with either one capable of changing first, depending on the unique dynamics.

There is always going to be an equilibrium balance between the amount of CO2 in the air and the amount in the ocean and the temperature of the ocean. If 1 goes up, the other follows, regardless of which 1 went up first or what the reason is.

To be honest, when a skeptic uses that argument of temperatures going up first, I cringe. It's all over the internet and sometimes used by smart people. Using that wrecks the persons credibility in the eyes of somebody that understands the authentic science.

If they can obliterate one element of the argument as being bogus, you lose the entire argument......no matter how good everything else is.

If that’s not clear, let me know since it’s obviously confusing a great deal of skeptics that use it Inappropriately.

Related to the points at the top of the last post:

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

The Milankovitch cycles include:

1. The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
2. The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane, known as obliquity; and
3. The direction Earth’s axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession

 Climate Time Machine

The small changes set in motion by Milankovitch cycles operate separately and together to influence Earth’s climate over very long timespans, leading to larger changes in our climate over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch combined the cycles to create a comprehensive mathematical model for calculating differences in solar radiation at various Earth latitudes along with corresponding surface temperatures. The model is sort of like a climate time machine: it can be run backward and forward to examine past and future climate conditions.

Milankovitch assumed changes in radiation at some latitudes and in some seasons are more important than others to the growth and retreat of ice sheets. In addition, it was his belief that obliquity was the most important of the three cycles for climate, because it affects the amount of insolation in Earth’s northern high-latitude regions during summer (the relative role of precession versus obliquity is still a matter of scientific study).

He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer.

Well Mike ,that was certainly the proverbial "mouthful" but i got most of it at first glance.

Trying to convey what youve just written requires a person willing to listen -I agree and I doubt any conversation I might have with anyone would reach those heights. but thanks for explaining that graph I sent. I suspected my interpretation there might have been erred.

Whew this is involved sh<t!!

  John

Thanks, John!

Sorry to confuse you)-:

That's exactly why they hijacked climate science. Exactly why!

The average person doesn't understand a dang thing about it and nobody looks up weather records or climate records to fact check.

So they can sensationalize and use junk science and exaggerations with impunity.

Then, when people like me that understand it, call them out..........they call us deniers.

A huge part of this ruse strategy is knowing that people can't possibly understand it and then, manufacturing dishonest studies that claim 95% of climate scientists agree with them

In other words..........trust them and the scientists, using the fake study results they manufactured.

 Riiiiiight. We should always trust what politicians/the government and media tell us, which are the sources for most of this. Especially when they make up results from extraordinarily biased studies. 

What does the IPCC stand for.

InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

It's actually a political entity that was created by the UN to find the human fingerprint of global warming and recommend solutions. 

Almost all their solutions focus on taking money from the developed countries and giving it to the undeveloped countries. Either  to pay reparations because we supposedly wrecked their climate or for them to adapt to the climate that we wrecked.

But the indisputable scientific fact is that we are having a climate optimum. Increasing CO2 has been the biggest gift that humans have ever bestowed on the planet AND the poor countries.

Global food production is +25% just from the agricultural benefits od CO2. This is feeding over 1 billion extra people and keeping food prices low for the poor countries. Allowing those country's agricultural production to soar higher from free CO2 fertilizer in the air, gifted to them by the rich countries burning fossil fuels.

In addition, the vast majority of fertilizer applied to crops by farmers is make using fossil fuels.

Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/

The main reason for such tremendous technological  development and wonderful necessaties and luxuries in the world is.............fossil fuels.

Life without petroleum based products: 6,000 products made with petroleum.  Killing Coal. Fossil fuels and fertilizer. Biden praises high gasoline prices.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/ 

You're obviously a bright guy but don't try to out science the IPCC or others.  Just keep it simple and stick to some obvious facts mentioned at those links.

Ask yourself where the crisis is when reading the posts from this thread?

Oceans rising at slightly more than 1 inch/decade?

+7%  more rain in some heavy rain events?

+2 degrees hotter in some heat waves?(our normal temperature swing from coldest to hottest every year is usually 100 degrees but we're to believe that life can't adjust to +2 degrees warmer?

10 times more people still die from cold, global warming has helped reduce that.

200 times more life dies from cold.

Longer growing seasons are also good.

Most life on this planet would still prefer temperatures another couple of degrees warmer. 

Violent tornadoes have DECREASED because the warming is greatest in the coldest places and reduced the temp contrast.

It also reduced the energy to cause mid latitude low pressure storms that form from the temp contrast and strong jet streams.

It has strengthened the intensification of some hurricanes. 

+++++++++++

So where's the crisis when the benefits outweigh the negatives by almost 10 to 1.

When it was warmer than this, especially in the higher latitudes with less Arctic  ice between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago..............look at the name that scientists called it:

Holocene climate OPTIMUM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Now we call conditions moving in that direction a CRISIS. That because it's pure politics and NOT SCIENCE.

+++++++++++++++

It's important to also identify as somebody that really cares about the environment. Alarmists like to assign us with an anti environmental label and them with the "save the planet" moral high ground.

It's the complete opposite!!!

The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources-REAL pollution in the air/soil/water-WIND TURBINES (metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/

These people are either FAKE environmentalists that are in it to enrich themselves thru crony capitalism or for a political ideology or part of the corrupted science that rewards bad/dishonest scientists. In collution with the ratings seeking, activist type media that's ignorant of authentic science as are the extremely misled but sincere environmentalists. 

Let's put on our common sense/thinking caps. What is the real green energy?

 Massive wind/solar farms and batteries that require tearing up the earth, last 25 years, then pile up in landfills after they get replaced. Kill millions of birds/bats and hundreds of whales? This is EXTREME ANTI green in reality. Have you ever driven by a massive wind farm and thought that its a product of nature and making the environment green or enhancing the wildlife? Of course not, its completely the opposite. 

The solutions to replace the fossil fuels which are causing a booming biospere and wonderful greening planet..........are all KILLING the planet and making it LESS GREEN. 

 Death by GREENING!            

                            37 responses |               

                Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.   

         https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

CO2 is indisputably, the building block for all life and still only 50% of the optimal level and is MASSIVELY GREENING UP THE PLANET based on every iota of authentic scientific data?

I seriously would try to  keep it simple in your case and limit it to this common sense law of photosynthesis that's been brainwashed out of peoples heads. 

+++++++++

They tell us that the climate crisis is killing off all the good life: polar bears, penguins, tree frogs, bees, crops, endangered species, coral reefs, for instance. While at the exact same time, the same exact conditions are causing all the bad life to flourish: ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, weeds, bacteria, rats, roaches. And the increasing bad life from the climate crisis is attacking the good life.

This is absurd. ALL life prefers these warming temperatures and increasing, beneficial CO2!

They want you to believe that good life prefers to have it colder and only bad life prefers more warmth. And that the perfect temperature for good life was exactly the temperature of the planet when we started burning fossil fuels ~150 years ago.........even though temperatures then, just after the Little Ice Age had ended, were crystal clearly too cold for most life, especially humans and crops.

CO2 then was also dangerously low and plants/crops were CO2 STARVED. It has been a big limiting factor for plant growth and still is even with the wonderful boost for plants. 

Patrick Moore@EcoSenseNow

4h

Just in case you think we could go to Net-Zero oil any time soon:

Life without petroleum based products: 6,000 products made with petroleum.  Killing Coal. Fossil fuels and fertilizer. Biden praises high gasoline prices.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/     2022

Tony Heller@TonyClimate

20h

Illinois has recorded 1,444 days over 100F since 1890. Eighty percent (1,147) of those days occurred before 1970.  Only 6% of those days have occurred this century. The US used to be much hotter.#ClimateScam