Thanks much tallpine.
Smart guy that says a bunch of things that are true but is bs-ing about many other things that almost nobody would know.........unless they are actual atmospheric scientists.
He briefly shows a graph with the solar mins in yellow on top a graph of El Nino/La Nina and says that theres a strongly correlation between the solar mins and La Nina's..........not true.
Later on, he clumbsily tries to say that our oceans store heat, which is coming out, with an incorrect description of your house staying warm after you turn the heat off(he says because of the radiation inside the house from warmed objects-when its more from the heat just being trapped inside by insulated walls and ceilings.
He says that this is being caused by the LONG TERM change in the solar cycle that takes many decades for the response in the oceans.......this might be true.
But this just contradicted what he said earlier.........which, according to him, the oceans change immediately to changes in the 11 year solar cycle(which is false)This stored heat, which takes place over many, many decades and is true......totally contradicts what he said about a change in the solar La Nina's causing the ocean response to be immediate.
He also stated that the warming planet causes more storminess because of the erratic wavy pattern but then contradicted himself later by saying its going to be more stormy with erratic weather when we have global cooling.
The fact is that global warming is greatly amplified at the highest latitudes by a huge amount. This has weakened the temperature gradient from north to south and has decreased many form of extreme weather......like violent tornadoes that peaked in the global cooling years of the 1970's.
However, an increase of 1 deg. C in the atmosphere, allows it to hold 7% more moisture...which would be more so in the mid/high latitudes which has seen an increase in rains, including extreme rains and flooding events.
25% of the massive increase in crop yields/food production has been from the increase in the beneficial gas CO2 and its key role in photosynthesis.
He is correct that global cooling and La Nina's cause more droughts and adverse weather for crop growing by a wide margin and global warming/El Ninos greatly add to beneficial weather for crop growing/food production.
I discuss this at length at these threads for those that want more information:
Global January Temp +0.03 vs 30 year average
Started by metmike - Feb. 5, 2022, 12:41 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81383/
Previous discussion:
Fake Climate Crisis
Started by metmike - Jan. 18, 2022, 1:07 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80552/
ClimateReality discussions
15 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!
11 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
I thought if you saw this video you would be able to let people know if it had any merit or was mostly bs. You know if its on the internet it must be true right? ha ha. Thanks for your analysis of the video and have a great Valentines Day.
PS. don't forget flowers and a gift for your wife.
Thanks tallpine!
Great advice. Smartest thing I ever did was get married to Debbie in 1985!!
My wife has a colonoscopy tomorrow at 6am and is taking the prep now.
She was up past midnight, so I told her Happy Valentines Day and gave her the stuffed bear and card then.
On climate change..........and other things in fact.
People who know 10 times more than most people about something can say whatever they want in convincing fashion and it will be believed by almost everyone.......especially if 90% of it is correct, which is probably the case here.......ok, maybe 80%.
But if 10% or even 5% of what somebody is insisting on is dead wrong, even if they have 95% right........I absolutely do NOT want them on my team.
I'm not talking about uncertainty area's that have conflicting data.
The amount of warming caused by CO2 is uncertain, for instance.
But in areas with indisputable empirical data based on authentic observations, FOR ME, (not many other people) if you make claims that totally contradict that data..........I question why and the answer usually relates to bias, mainly political bias.
Here is how a I read this guy.
He knows a heck of alot/is really smart but lacks actual scientific understanding that explains principles for why things happen...........so he embellishes based on his made up belief system. Some of his observations are also wrong..........and every one of them is wrong in the same direction.
In this field that's what you often get.
People on one side or the other and they interpret everything that way and ignore anything that doesn't favor their side.
This guy would make a wonderful politician and I feel bad to scrutinize him this way because he is right on the money about the type of weather that La Nina's and global cooling cause.
But honest science means going after people.........ON YOUR SIDE when they are wrong and the reality is that honest science should never even have sides.
Having a side means having assumptions and preconceived notions about what you want to happen that causes you to interpret information so that it lines up with what you think or want to happen.
Honest science doesn't care what the data shows. The data/observations get all the entire weighting and the theories that define expectations are either confirmed or debunked AFTER the data.
Science in today's world is often political science. Theories to support the political cause or agenda are formulated, then data is interpreted, sometimes twisted like a pretzel in a way so that it supports the theory/preconceived notion.
Scientists are not little Mother Theresa's in white coats trying to save the world. Most of them really are good/honest people but 80% are democrats that vote believe it or not and are human beings that are affected by many of the same things as non scientists........money, politics, reputation, power.
And some of the elite scientists can be the most arrogant and have mentalities that DO NOT practice the scientific method sincerely which requires absolute humility in looking for all the reasons that you might be wrong even harder than trying to prove that you are right.
I do agree with this guy, that if we continue with more La Nina's and any sort of global cooling, the food supplies will not be able to keep up.
La Nina Conditions Continue
Started by metmike - Feb. 11, 2022, 1:58 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81653/
Fake Climate Crisis
Started by metmike - Jan. 18, 2022, 1:07 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80552/
This one here is a real good one!
LaNina caused the drought and wildfires.......LaNina's are a cold water anomaly in the East/Central Tropical Pacific..........the opposite of El Nino/global warming
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73659/#73720
If we turned the atmospheric clock back to 100 years ago and it was suddenly 1 deg.C cooler and the atmospheric CO2 was 120 parts per million lower like it was in 1922...........over a billion people would starve to death within 3 years.
Storage/stocks would run out quickly and rationing would cause food prices to at least triple during that period for many foods.
my knowledge on this topic is limited, but i have seen 2 different authors talk about climate and food supply. of course one is armstrong, and the other is i think from the mcclelland ocsilator site.
the experts who have spent lots of time studying this say that crop yield goes up when temp goes up. and crop yield goes down when temp goes down. that seems to be a well established corelation.
so you should not be too concerned about the idea of global warming (regardless of what causes the warming),
and you should be very worried about the possibility of global cooling.
a more plentiful food supply means more people are better off in general.
hard data is sketchy, but back in the early 1800's, when we had a year with no summer, there were crop failures in new england, and lots of people starving.
of course back then, you could not just drive down to walmart, and buy cans of beans using food stamps.
Thanks bear!
Never get science from YouTube. Most of it is, like this one, pure Gish Gallop, tossing out nonsense, irrelevance, and flat out disinformation in bulk to people who have no way to review it. (The comments are bughouse) In the first minutes, he claims that greenhouse gases don't matter due to saturation, that stored ocean heat can be released with no big effects, and then shows a graph of a couple cold weeks in the Arctic as though that means something.
In any event, there will, as always, be famines. We haven't had any major ones in a while, but the tightened food supply of the last 2 years is real. There are a lot of ways famines can happen, and you probably know them : War, drought, crop disease, erosion, other input shortages, other bad weather, misguided policy. Afghanistan and Madagascar are currently in the worst shape.
I've tried to find estimates of chances for what can go wrong in the next 30 or so years. It isn't easy. Population pressure has led to soil depletion and monoculture could fall to disease, but how urgent is that? Nobody seems to want to say. I will note that US population increase seems to have stalled. 25 states had more deaths than births in 2020.
"Repopulation" is a problem in quite a few countries. Didn't France give major tax breaks or even incentives for families that had multiple children?
With that being said, a few less people on the planet would not be a bad thing. People are dirty and use a LOT of resources. I would rather there was a smaller population and eat steak, than keep ballooning population and eat crickets.
Great comments patrick and Jim.
If we could put that atmosphere in a time machine and take it back to 100 years ago.......drop the CO2 from around 418 ppm to 300 ppm and with it, drop the temperature by `1deg. C(at least half the warming has been from the increase in CO2) the result would be a decrease in world food production of 25%+.
This would likely result in close to 1 billion people starving within 3 years and rationing of most crops causing prices to triple.
The magnitude of that powerful affect on the world population number is a guesstimate by me.....maybe less or more people would die? However, the affect on food production is based on rock solid agronomy, plant science, biology, meteorology and all objective science.
Doesn't anybody remember the key role that CO2 plays in photosynthesis and plant growth?
It's the building block for all or life and a beneficial gas not pollution and we're having a climate optimum as defined by all objective scientists............until suddenly just over 30 years ago they hijacked climate science and redefined CO2 and climate.
The slightly warmer temperatures have been much more beneficial to life and plants too. We are having a climate optimum NOT a climate crisis for life.
They decided to define the perfect temperature of the planet and perfect CO2 level of the planet and perfect weather of the planet being exactly what they were.................when we started burning fossil fuels.
It's almost comical. We are killing the planet from CO2......as it greens up more each year.
We are actually killing the planet from an environmental and natural resource standpoint though.
But usually, its not acceptable for scientists like me to be environmentalists and not also believe that we are killing the planet from climate change. They go hand and hand. It's like a belief system that brainwashes and you have to accept the entire dogma.
The climate crisis is considered an environmental crisis!
Increasing CO2 is about the only gift that humans have ever bestowed to the planet that involves INCREASING something.
Things like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and catalytic convertors/smoke stack scrubbers involved removing things that humans were emitting to destroy the planet not enriching it with something beneficial.
The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources(metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/
Relavent to the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks) to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.
metmike: Climate change and the increase in CO2, along with improved technology/hybrids has allowed us to avoid this outcome.
This has also been a massive contributor:
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/
However, as you guys and the top post suggested, we could be maxing out on these benefits..especially if the next decade featured more La Nina's, less warming and CO2 not increasing as fast.
Food production would struggle to keep up with the population increase. Malthus would finally be proven right but it just took over a century longer than what he speculated.
Humans really do consume massive amounts of natural resources, some that are NOT renewable.
Even if we didn't have a fake climate crisis..........fossil fuels will eventually run out in the not too distant future.