The Trend is your Friend–Global Cooling

Jerry at 72, I find it hard to trust experts about any of this since so much money is involved. I sincerely doubt that those diverting say corn into ethanol production were too stupid to not notice. The ONLY reason was to create scarcity and drive up corn prices. As far as oil, there are oil derricks sitting in storage right now. And the White House reported that oil companies are sitting on domestic oil leases and not producing. Why? Profits - just profits. Wall Street knows how much money is sitting in private bank accounts right now and they want to suck it out of our wallets. Sadly - for them - they are dealing with people who will do without. Nuclear power is advertised as such a good alternative but it produces radioactive waste. And there is no urgency about finding a safe, permanent (around 100,000 years) storage site. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/deep-isolation-aims-to-bury-nuclear-waste-using-boreholes.html relatd

Going through old comments and here is one from 13 years ago on climate change.

Wheeler said that wind power now accounts for about 1% of energy in the country and if a lot of investment was put into it, it could get up to maybe 2-3 % in 20 years. One problem with wind is that the high wind areas are not where the people are and the loss of energy in transmission is about 50% He said that solar accounts for about 1/4 of 1% of our energy currently and with large investment may bake up to 2% in 20 years. So these renewable energy sources account for a little more than 1% of our energy and with massive investment may reach 5% in 20 years. The implications of this is that there is only one place to go in the future and that is fossil fuels and the best hope for a relatively short term change is coal that is clean or sequestered. That will take about 10 years. Nuclear power is an obvious answer but he had the caveat that we must solve the terrorism problem first before going full speed on nuclear. We now have much safer and more efficient nuclear technology. The other short term solution is natural gas and he said mass amounts are stored untaped in the shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain area. He also said that the use of ethanol from food products is a big mistake as it is inefficient and displaces food production. It may be possible to get a significant amount of energy from non food carbon waste. So global warming or not the near term future for energy has to be carbon based and it is time someone talked sense about it.

https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/oopsie-daisy-nsidc-misplaces-500000-sq-kilometers-of-arctic-ice/#comment-305868 jerry

Lying for your own good - if it’s true, why lie?

Climate exaggeration just won't end The Atlantic now tells us that "heat waves hot enough to cook human flesh are already happening this month" No Made-up (which is why there is no link)

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1546093133859115008 jerry

It’s all well and good to discuss actual climate as the OP does but what is/was happening with the climate was never the issue. The ability to exercise power through fear, guilt, shame or actual bribes is the issue. Here is the latest by VDH on the ‘Great Reset” and its objectives. Till we understand who is pulling the strings we as usual talk past one another with sometimes interesting but irrelevant ideas. https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-great-regression/ We can all say that something is misleading or an actual lie, but what will everyone do when the powers we elect, say do this or else? Aside: a huge irony is that the internet has picked up on either myself or the other commenters here and posted an ad to support Greenpeace on my webpage. jerry

Vb at 67, A propaganda article for nuclear power. First, in the United States, billions of dollars have already been spent in finding the best place and the best material to use to store nuclear waste. Then there is the control of technology which can only be released when it can make the most money. Tesla announced a million mile battery that was ready for production in June 2020. https://electrek.co/2020/06/08/tesla-new-million-mile-battery-ready-production-catl/ January 2022. Germany shuts down half of its nuclear power plants. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-germany-nuclear-shutdown-story-82051054 June 2022. Solid-state batteries are being tested now for use in cars later this year. https://electrek.co/2022/06/06/solid-power-begins-solid-state-battery-pilot-before-testing-with-ford-and-bmw-in-late-2022/ Salt can be liquefied on-site at solar farms and the heat stored so power can be available 24 hours a day. https://www.man-es.com/energy-storage/campaigns/mosas relatd

0 for 41!! We are swimming in a sea of lies. https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/ Vivid vividbleau

The disastrous effect of green policies on the environment https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ Vivid vividbleau

Vb at 65, What a scam. 'Brown warned that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000," as a contemporary Associated Press report put it.' relatd

The climate change advocates follow one false prediction after another. It’s a scam and about money and power one could say it’s a religious cult. But hey these people believe a man can be a woman, if you believe that you will believe anything. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/new-yorks-global-warming-doomsday-clock-underscores-decades-shifting Vivid vividbleau

From one of the reports of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts. Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved. And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity. Professor Humlum said: “A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.” GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said: “It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”

This is a detailed report. It should be an obvious target for climate change activists to debunk. jerry

Here is a website I just found. It’s called

The Global Warming Policy Foundation A non-partisan think tank and a registered educational charity that focuses on climate and energy policy

https://www.thegwpf.org/ Some topics on home page

Ten things everyone should know about climate models UK weather has become, if anything, less extreme, annual review shows Empirical observations show no sign of ‘climate crisis Sir Iain Duncan Smith calls for honest and open debate on Net Zero Polar bears continued to thrive in 2021

Obviously counter to the perceived wisdom. The OP is presented as also counter to the prevailing narrative. But there are several other issues besides the truth of what the current climate is doing. Some are what will changes do to help and others are how much if at all are these changes desirable. jerry

Relatd: That was social commentary, son. A direct condemnation of The Mass Media and its recent psychotic behavior. I do not do podcasts. Okay. Just checking. I would have given it a listen. JVL

JVL at 60, That was social commentary, son. A direct condemnation of The Mass Media and its recent psychotic behavior. I do not do podcasts. relatd

Relatd: You should listen to episode 105 of my podcast. I will listen to it if you provide a link. I tried a search and couldn't quite get there for some reason. JVL

Marfin at 57, You should listen to episode 105 of my podcast. It's titled Mass Psychosis in the Media. Previous episodes include, The Death of Actual Journalism (ep. 98) and Death! The Latest Media Product (ep. 95). relatd

ET at 55, What? Over-tilling? Do you know the government of the United States has paid farmers Billions of dollars in "farm subsidies"? That means farmers are paid to grow nothing. Nothing. That way, if there's a drought in one part of the country, there is more land available elsewhere to grow crops. Animal agriculture? What's that? Oxen pulling plows? People need meat not "plant based" anything. Overuse of pesticides? According to who? Look up what farmers are supposed to do every year. If they don't crops will be lost to insects. Trash? If human beings would pick up their garbage when they go to the beach, that would help. relatd

Its worth listening to Ep 150 Ivor Cummins interview with Mattias Desmet on the psychology of mass psychosis of groups. Marfin

All you Climate change doom mongers read Bjorn Lomborg`s 7 global warming myth`s or his work on how to spend billions to improve the planet , medicine, education , water, health , these are the things we need to invest in to save lives and improve the lives of the poorest billion people on the planet not solar panels and electric cars. But I suppose Al Gore would not become mega rich and the IPCC guys would be out of a job if we actually spent our money wisely in really helping people. Marfin

Global Climate Change Warming isn't an issue. Fossil fuels are still a solution, and not a problem. Over-tilling, animal agriculture, the overuse of pesticides and trash, are the big 4 that need to change if we are to give any hope to the future generations. ET

I have yet to see any convincing data that shows exactly how climate 'change' is caused by human C02 increases..... Since we all know that humans are only the cause of just under .04% of all atmospheric C02 then why is the huge clamor about human caused climate change enraging to the ill-informed of actual science? Why to the ill-informed pray before the continued debunked IPCC climate models? Is it due to agenda...and not real science? seems that way. Trumper

The latest news from We're All Going to Die !!! I don't buy it. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/eu-decision-natural-gas-threaten-climate-progress-86381175 relatd

Chuckdarwin--@27: The authors are saying: "It was worse in the past, so, watch out, it can get that bad again." Apparently they haven't looked at their own chart/graph. We're cooling off. CO2 levels are low. Henry Gee wrote, In Search of Deep Time. He said that evolutionary biologists, really paleontologists, go out on digs and they find "what they're looking for." The authors "found what they were looking for." The "deep ocean," not the sea floor, was once as hot as the Mediterranean. Yet there is nothing in the chart that gives any indication whatsoever that we're heading in that direction. Instead, their fear comes from what "man-made global warming," i.e., CO2 levels, might do. From my memory, the CO2 levels have gone up by around 60 ppm in 60 years. The "deep ocean" was as hot as the Mediterranean 50 million years ago when the CO2 levels were over 2,000. That means that if CO2 keeps going up for the next 2,000 years at the same rate, then we might be in trouble. I'm not alarmed, though. PaV

JHolo -- #48: You've quoted from the National Ocean Service website. Is this the gospel? And, even if it is, are we understanding it correctly? That is, are they explaining it correctly? First of all, as in all of science, there are question marks. Information is either incomplete or in contradiction with expectations. For example, this from a Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems research article:

To understand both Arctic Ocean temperature change and geologic evolution, we collected temperature measurements at 103 sites. These measurements tell us how temperature increases with depth below the seafloor and can be used to understand both ocean temperature change and regional geology. Analysis of our data shows that at depths of 300–900 m below sea level, the Arctic Ocean has been warming steadily for perhaps several decades—nearly twice as deep as previous studies suggest. At ocean depths greater than 1,000 m, our analysis also reveals surprisingly high temperature increases with depth in the seafloor. The cause of these significant increases is unclear.

In the same paper, discussing the same problem:

Analysis of ocean bottom temperatures from 40 years of CTD and XBT measurements on the U.S. Beaufort Margin suggests that bottom waters have been warming as much as 0.005–0.02°C/year at shallow and intermediate water depths (300–500 mbsl) and that warming of 0.003°C/year might occur at greater depths (e.g., Phrampus et al., 2014). Constant warming over the past 40 years will extend to a depth of ~25 m in the subbottom. The magnitude of these BWT warming rates, 0.005–0.02°C/year, can result in significant (>17–66%) underestimation of basal heat flow if rates are sustained for >40 years as previous studies suggests (Figure 2c) (Phrampus et al., 2014).

That which follows below throws into question the last part of your quote above: (From a NASA website):

The oceans are mostly composed of warm salty water near the surface over cold, less salty water in the ocean depths. These two regions don't mix except in certain special areas. The ocean currents, the movement of the ocean in the surface layer, are driven mostly by the wind. In certain areas near the polar oceans, the colder surface water also gets saltier due to evaporation or sea ice formation. In these regions, the surface water becomes dense enough to sink to the ocean depths. This pumping of surface water into the deep ocean forces the deep water ["deep water," NOT seafloor] to move horizontally until it can find an area on the world where it can rise back to the surface and close the current loop. This usually occurs in the equatorial ocean, mostly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This very large, slow current is called the thermohaline circulation because it is caused by temperature and salinity (haline) variations.

The convection current in discussion here is not connected to ocean bottom--sea floor. It's one layer of water moving on top of another: a convection current. Lastly, from aStanford lecture:

Although the general abyssal circulation patterns are fairly well known, it is difficult to quantify the rates of the various flows. Abyssal circulation is generally quite slow and variable on short time scales. The calculation of the rate of formation of abyssal water is also fraught with uncertainty. Probably the most promising means of assigning the time dimension to oceanic processes is through the study of the distribution of radioactive chemical tracers. Using 14C distribution in deep water indicated that the replacement times for Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean deep waters (depths >1500 m) are 275, 250, and 510 years respectively.

Is what's happening in our atmosphere having any effect at all on the ocean below? There are apparently centuries of lag time in this surface water convection current. Now, for the third time: JHolo, do you see the downward trend in bottom ocean bottom temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels? Is there really cause for alarm? Should we starve poor countries and keep them in poverty while tax dollars go to incredibly rich individuals? Are things really that bad? There are all these questions, unknowns, and conflicts between expectations and actual measurements. The chart above gives us a look at these results. I draw straight-forward conclusions. PaV

Andrew at 49, The Mass Media needs to constantly promote The Daily Disaster, with more disasters waiting in line behind it. relatd

"So saying that over and over does not increase comprehension." It increases belief. If mass media switched to perpetually hyping potential catastrophes associated with Slinky accidents, guess what would happen. Andrew asauber

PaV, you keep barking up the wrong tree. The temperature of the earth’s core has an immeasurably small relative impact on ocean temperature.

In contrast, the Earth gets hotter and hotter at depth primarily because the energy of radioactive decay is leaking outwards from the core of the planet. While this geothermal energy is transferred to ocean water along the seafloor, the effect is so small that it's immeasurable by direct means. Why? The actual amount of heat generated per square meter of Earth is quite small, especially compared to the amount of heat necessary to warm the ocean. Geothermal energy emanating from the Earth averages only about one tenth of a watt per square meter. At that rate of heat flow (without taking ocean currents into account), it would take well over a year just to heat the bottom meter of the ocean by one degree Centigrade. However, the ocean is not standing still. Complex deep ocean currents driven by density variations in temperature and salinity are constantly replacing the bottom layer of ocean water with colder water.

JHolo

FH at 44, "make money" not "make sense." So go right out and buy that electric car - before climate whatever kills you. Buy it now even though there are few charging stations much less a lot of installed solar panels. Buy it! Now! Give us your money. (You would not believe how much I lost with Bitcoin.) And keep buying! Nuclear with Thorium. There's a book referring to World War II. No, not nuclear. relatd

PaV at 45, The average person has no idea what scientists are saying. NO idea. Saying "the CO2 cycle is 4%" means absolutely nothing. Or, here are some wind tunnel measurements for a wing with a 45 degree sweep. Does ANYONE expect ANYONE to actually comprehend any of that? So saying that over and over does not increase comprehension. But it does help to confuse people so you can scare them into buying things. It definitely works for that. relatd

Once again, I remind readers and commentators that the title of the thread is about "trends." Distinct correlation between temperatures at the bottom of the ocean and CO2 levels. And both are "trending" downward. So, what exactly are we afraid of? Man-made proportion of the CO2 cycle is 4%. PaV

Relatd A lot of things make sense anyway. Renewable energy rather than burning fossil fuel, electric cars and trucks, especially if that electricity is from renewable sources. Even reintroducing nuclear, especially looking to thorium. KF agrees, I know. Fred Hickson

Jerry, 34: someone forgets urban heat island effects. KF kairosfocus

JHolo#17: You've included a quote that describes a convection current. Is this all we need to know? Certainly this tells us that warm water rises and cold water sinks; but, is this enough information? Well, the surface temperature of the sun is around 10,000 degrees F. So, too, is the temperature of the earth's core, also around 10,000 degrees F. Now, ocean water is caught between two sources of temperature. However, 30 miles above the surface of the oceans, the temperature of the "air" is at least -100 degrees F. The temperature of the mantle 30 miles beneath the ocean bottom is around 400 degrees F. Now, heat rises. This means that the heat in the oceans depth has to find its way to the outer atmosphere. This means that the convection current being described must take the heat emanating from the core and deliver it to the surface of the oceans and then, ultimately, the true heat sink in all of this, outer space. Now, in particular, 3 million years ago was the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, of which the last ice age is part. Look at the graph above. The temperature of the ocean waters was 2 degrees warmer than now. So, now we're NOT in an Ice Age, yet the water at ocean's depth is colder than when the last glaciation period began. If the premise is that surface temperatures warm up ocean depths, then this does not compute. (If you invoke some kind of delay, well, firstly, this must be some kind of delay, and secondly, this renders what happens on the surface as moot--including fossil fuel emissions.) And, again, please tell me if you see a direct correlation between CO2 and ocean temperature and if you see the overall trend in both as decidedly down. Do you see this? What does this then mean? PaV

FH at 39, I grew up in a house where the only air conditioning was a small metal fan by my bed, open windows with screens and a side door with a screen. Opening doors at night and a stove in the basement where it was cooler. Things have not gotten modern. The guy at the local corner store would get out a tool to lower a shade on the sunny side of his store. relatd

FH at 38, It's already an unbalanced idea. First, you tell everyone 'we're going to die unless we do XYZ' and then you add Confusion to the mix: "This scientist said this, this scientist said that." Then, someone claiming the Final Say tells us that XYZ must get done or else - we ALL die. Nonsense. By the way, could I interest you in some carbon credits? This is a patently obvious scheme where I sell my carbon to you in exchange for keeping my foreign factories open so they can belch reactive gases and I can make a profit. Of course, once you buy those gases from me, they will only circulate in your general area :) relatd

Evidence we are doomed? My wife deciding this year, after twenty years saying aircon is wasteful and destructive and passive methods (shades, shutters, overnight airing, high levels of insulation) are enough, demanding I install aircon in our home. Fred Hickson

@ Relatd For balance Restoring kelp beds not silver bullet Fred Hickson

FH at 33, Why tell anybody then? Why bother? I was reading that it was 'too late' years ago. Years ago... Scam, hoax. 'reseeding kelp forests'? ??? Not on my to-do list... relatd

CD at 27, "It’s all just an atheist, Marxist, materialist, evo-devo hoax, right?" Exactly right. Man, that's TWO things I have to write down and archive today. Or to put it another way - YES !!! Trillions of dollars are involved! Trillions! Whew - that was tiring... relatd

Fred h & J holo - Apart from the IPCC and the climate activists constantly telling us we are all doomed how do you guys actually know we are all doomed, please show me the evidence , not just so and so says so. Supposedly the planet has warmed by 1.5 deg C , but we are better off and safer then we ever were. Look up real climate science .com - Tony Heller. you just may get an education. And by the way in case you were not aware its a SCAM a money making SCAM. Marfin

Repeated but relevant. https://img.99memes.co/images/34b353094a965ce38e06d3de98f8984f51a4b89a8b20b9a05f60ae7442237369_1.jpg

All you have to do is go to any large city in the world to see the effects of CO2 buildup

Still batting almost zero. Air quality has nothing to do with CO2. You cannot see CO2 in the air. Chuckdarwin, How much is Barry paying you to comment? Nobody could be as consistently wrong unless on purpose. Seversky also could not be as wrong as he is unless it was also on purpose. Both of you are the best promoters of ID here. Aside: the CO2 levels inside the masks you wear are much higher than what is in the air in Beijing. jerry

At my most pessimistic, I fear this discussion is about as effective as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It's too late now, whatever we do. At my most optimistic, I hope that projects such as one my daughter is heavily involved in (reseeding kelp forests) can still have enough of an effect to reduce the current trend. Fred Hickson

ET at 31, GHG contributor. I see. So we'll all be dead soon OR some people will make over a trillion dollars and live to spend it. It's a SCAM. relatd

Only fools think that CO2 can cause global warming. Physics says there isn't any way that CO2 can do that. CO2 is an insignificant GHG contributor ET

JHOLO , According to our climate scientist friends the average global temp has risen by 1.5deg c in the last 150 years , so in your opinion would you prefer to live now or 150 years ago. All this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere , and now we live longer, are better fed , healthier, richer better educated and deaths by climate disasters have fallen by 95% so please tell me whats the problem. Marfin

"super-hot greenhouse climates" What did I tell you about hype? Right on cue. Andrew asauber

"Climate Change is a product. It’s being marketed as a product." Relatd, Yes, 97% percent of scientists who believe in Global Warming think it's an issue. ;) Andrew asauber

This from the actual article:

Scientists say the new data, spanning the last 60 million years, show the huge impact of higher CO2 levels in the geological past, and stress the urgent need to avoid continued CO2 rise in the future.... Dr. Rae said: "These ancient greenhouse climates may seem a long way removed from today, but they are critical in helping us understand the impact of CO2 on climate change... Although these super-hot greenhouse climates occurred a long time ago, they are critical in helping us understand the impact of CO2 on climate change in the future... CO2 has transformed the face of our planet before, and unless we limit emissions as soon as possible, it will do it again."

Sounds consistent with predictions re CO2 emissions that we've known for decades. All you have to do is go to any large city in the world to see the effects of CO2 buildup. Thank my lucky stars that I live out in the sticks where the sky is still blue. But, hey--It's all just an atheist, Marxist, materialist, evo-devo hoax, right? chuckdarwin

Andrew at 25, Climate Change is a product. It's being marketed as a product. It represents trillions of dollars in revenue. Meanwhile, could you buy some carbon credits from me? That way I can keep my factories in foreign countries belching smoke while the rest of the world suffers - allegedly. S-C-A-M relatd

"isn’t it extremely embarrassing" Martin_r, It should be, but Climate Change Fanatics aren't known for their ability to assess reality. They love the hype, though. Weird. Andrew asauber

Asauber, anyway, isn't it extremely embarrassing, when a Princeton University's team infests all pop-sci media with their 'conclusions', and then AN AMATEUR scientist finds serious flaws in statistical methodology ? A whole team of Princeton scientists and nobody noticed (not to mention NATURE's peer-reviewer ... not to mention it took almost 1 year to retract this paper) ? martin_r

Martin_r @ 22 This is what happens when you assume your conclusion. Andrew asauber

Major Climate Paper Withdrawn By Nature Retraction exposes lack of statistical expertise in climate science A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, has been withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology. The paper, from a team led by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, had received widespread uncritical publicity in the mainstream media when it was published because of its apparently alarming implications for the planet. However, within days of its publication in October 2018, independent scientist Nic Lewis found several serious flaws. Yesterday, after nearly a year’s delay, the paper was officially withdrawn. Nic Lewis said

This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved up front if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said

Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond. Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed

https://www.netzerowatch.com/major-climate-paper-withdrawn-by-nature/ or here at RetractionWatch.com https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/25/nature-paper-on-ocean-warming-retracted/

martin_r

The focus should be shifted away from such nebulous terms such as climate change and global warming to facts. There are a bunch of facts that are relevant besides CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. One is energy usage. Another is energy availability. Another is results from energy use in the last 200 years. Epstein’s book does a fantastic job on the last, documenting what energy availability has done for human flourishing. The results are not debatable. So the argument should be on what can provide the energy? Not arbitrarily getting rid of it. There’s nothing wrong with wind and solar per se except they don’t work very well and have extreme adverse effects which are conveniently hidden from any discussion. Currently the only reliable source for energy is fossil fuels, essentially dead trees and animals from long ago. The energy from the sun was transferred to these entities and then left encapsulated in their remains. Two reliable alternatives are nuclear and falling water levels. At the moment people are scared of nuclear and using water is limited by environmentalists. So the thinking has to change or else the future will indeed be bleak for all or billions will have to go so a few can live in luxury. It’s this latter that is behind the climate change scare. Essentially the climate change scare is an anti human philosophy that will favor the few over the many. Epstein lays it all out but the left’s useful idiots all dutifully line up with their anti human attitudes and flawed reasons. Not knowing that they too will be expendable. Besides Epstein, I highly recommend Francis Menton who is a retired lawyer who reads a lot and has an extremely logical mind. Here are two recent analysis of energy issues. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-29-and-the-winner-is-germany https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-5-more-on-energy-fantasy-versus-reality-in-woke-land There are several other articles by Menton. For some here, being smart, reading a lot, logical and honest are not enough. In that way the origins of life and the universe are remarkably similar to discussions on energy and climate. (And the virus, race, gender, economics, history etc.) jerry

"Global warming causes climate change." Excuse me, JH, but wouldn't Global Warming be a type of Climate Change? Yes or No. Andrew asauber

Any time I want information on highly technical scientific subjects, I always search out people with a Bachelor of Arts degree

An endorsement of Epstein. When the so called climate experts are consistently wrong, what is one to do? Find someone who has studied the topic for years and has correct/verified information. Epstein’s an expert on logic. He also has the facts. His book is all facts and logic. Someone here said facts are important. Aside: if one wants to learn about the energy issues, read Epstein. The discussion will change dramatically. He has to be right since he has been so demonized by the left. The Washington Post tried to suppress his book by calling him a racist. Ironic since he is an advocate for poor African people getting the same material advantages as white liberals in Western nations. jerry

90 million years ago there was no ice. That is why there are dinosaur fossils that are found in Antarctica. Earth was between ice ages. The last Great Ice Age is still occurring, which is why there is ice in places that did not have ice 90 million years ago. Ice ages come and go. CO2 is not a green house gas on Earth, but it is on Venus due to a denser atmosphere. There are only trace elements in the atmosphere due to the weight of CO2 compared to the other elements. Being heavy is a good thing, since it is plant food. Remove CO2 and plants do not do very well. There is no such thing as fossil fuels. Fossils are, in essence, dead rock that contain no energy. You cannot get energy from something that has no energy. Energy must exist to get energy from it, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be transferred from already existing energy. BobRyan

PaV: Does that mean you’re over 50

I’m 74.

Seems to me that just as temperatures in the ocean depths have nothing to do with surface temperatures, but are directly related to the earth’s core

Actually, the temperatures in the ocean depths are directly the result of surface temperatures. The following is a simple explanation:

In the North Atlantic, water heated near the equator travels north at the surface of the ocean into cold, high latitudes where it becomes cooler. As it cools, it becomes more dense and, because cold water is more dense than warm water, it sinks to the deep ocean where it travels south again. More warm surface water flows in to take its place, cools, sinks, and the pattern continues.

It all has to do with the fact that the maximum density of water occurs at 4C. JHolo

Yes, CO2 increases are real and necessary. Greenhouse gasses delay the onset of equilibrium. And as such influence the low daily temperature average. As of the end of June 2022, the global temperature was just 0.06C above the arbitrary zero line. All warming is gone. It's only in El Nino years do we see any rise is global temperature. It's our misuse of the land that is the problem. ET

At Relatd #7 Yes there is in fact some minor relationship to CO2's massive increase in the last 85 years and humans. However, the failure is associating the two to actual cause and effect. It appears that most the climate alarmists (IPCC included) tend to lean that 100% of the CO2 spike is due to humans.... most of the more rational science disagrees with this. Yes there is indeed a massive spike in C02 and yes humans have been a part of that ... clearly. but so have natural causes too. C02 is not a poison ..it is a natural item that actually helps plants grow (which is why they pump so much C02 into greenhouses to help growth). C02 levels have been massively higher in our atmosphere many many times in the earths history and the spikes have had nothing to do with humans what so ever. What folks don't agree on is just what amount of C02 (the climate alarmists boogieman under the bed) is actually caused by humans - hence they can then point blame and tax and dictate.....can't really do those things to naturally thawing tundra...or naturally warming oceans....eh? Trumper

JHolo: Does that mean you're over 50 and were in your late teens when global warming was the newest scare? If so, I've got you by twenty years. The Title of this Thread is, "The Trend is your Friend." Do you not see the downward trends in both deep ocean temperature AND CO2? Do you see how both track in parallel? That is, as Deep Ocean temperatures go up, so does atmospheric CO2; and when they go down, they go down in tandem. Seems to me that just as temperatures in the ocean depths have nothing to do with surface temperatures, but are directly related to the earth's core, so, too, does CO2 correlated with what is happening in the earth's core. There's a lesson here. These results are not in accordance with previous ones using other methods. These new results require a new view of how both climate models and climate scientists see the temperature history of the ocean depths. The authors were surprised to find out that the temperature of the deep ocean was once as hot as the depths of the Mediterranean Sea. So, what caused the cooling off? And is it still cooling? Well, yes, according to the graph, it's still trending in the cooling direction. PaV

Jerry: Everyone should read Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future’ for a take on the fake rhetoric used to scare people.

Any time I want information on highly technical scientific subjects, I always search out people with a Bachelor of Arts degree. JHolo

Everyone should read Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future’ for a take on the fake rhetoric used to scare people about the climate. More importantly is the morality all or mostly on the side of using fossil fuels? I would have to say yes after listening to/reading this book. Though pushing for more nuclear power seems worthwhile. CO2 increases are real. The question is how dangerous it is. Also, what are the real objectives of those pushing climate change as dangerous? jerry

PaV: Again, JHolo, I wonder how old you are.

Senior citizen. You?

I’d be interested in how you interpret the chart up above. What does it tell you?

It tells me that deep sea temperatures track well with CO2 levels. It tells me that there were times in the past when there wasn’t much ocean stratification. It tells me absolutely nothing about times since the use of fossil fuels. Isn’t that what you see? JHolo

JHolo: "Global warming" doesn't 'cause' climate change. It's simply a period of climate. Climate has always changed (see the chart) and always will. Thus, "climate change" is really uninformative. It's like saying, "Long-term weather patterns that change over time and are changing over time." It's a redundant phrase. I'd be interested in how you interpret the chart up above. What does it tell you? PaV

JHolo: I wonder how old you are. I'm old enough to remember when they first started talking about "global warming." It was an idea back then, maybe the late 80's. It had not yet become a religion. Well, more and more was said about "global warming." The sky, we were assured, was going to fall down. (Now, how long ago was this? Hmmm.....35 years ago) Then it all went from "science" to "investment." The government would underwrite your investment in solar and especially in wind turbines. Guaranteed income. All you had to do was convince people--and pay off politicians, and you'd have a wonderful return on your investment dollars. And "global warming" was born. And the cultural elites cashed in. And the poor nations around to world were, and are, forced to suffer. So, now, what about the transition from "global warming" to climate change. Well, after one conference after another, year after year, had to be cancelled because of snow storms, lo and behold, it was no longer "global warming." No, it was not to be called "climate change." Again, JHolo, I wonder how old you are. Climate change is likely going to prove to be one of the greatest and most costly hoaxes of all time. Just look at the chart above. I remember the LA Times with a story about "global warming" on the front page. There, smack dab in the middle of the upper cut of the paper was a graph showing just how horrible things had become. I noticed two things when I looked closer (of course, the LA Times writers were hoping I wouldn't do that). First, the overall in change in temperature from the middle 1800's to the then current mid 1990's, really didn't amount to too much. Second, the slope of the graph from the 1800's to about 1938 was greater than the slope from 1940 to the mid 1990's. That is, after the car and factories became ubiquitous around the US and the world, things started to "cool off." You might remember, of course, two things. First, the hottest years of the 20th Century occurred in the 1930's and let to the 'Dustbowl.' Second, in the mid 1970's, they were talking about "global cooling." As our chart shows, we're headed towards "global cooling." Ah, how refreshing! :) PaV

Andrew: And I’m asking what difference does the name make?

Global warming causes climate change. Phosphorus pollution causes eutrophication. Alcohol causes liver damage. Smoking causes lung cancer. But nobody claims that scientists are changing the name of phosphorus pollution to eutrophication, or alcohol to liver damage or smoking to cancer, in order to discredit the scientists. JHolo

Is there any evidence to support the idea that climate change is driven by human activity? Is there any evidence that global temperatures are rising due to human activity as opposed to historical temperature deviations? And if so, why is there still beachfront property for sale in Florida? relatd

Global Warming label shifted in most circles to Climate 'Change' after documented temp readings from many of the Northern Hemisphere sites detected a cooling of atmospheric temps. Oh, and of course the ice caps did not melt (in several instances in the last 3-4 years many areas showed growth)...oh and the polar bears did not die off and who can forget professor Alvin Gore's failed predictions along with all the failed IPCC models. (all while CO2 measurements were still climbing) Trumper

"scientist changed the name to climate change" JH, And I'm asking what difference does the name make? Andrew asauber

Andrew: As long as you mix in all the buzzwords, does it really make any difference?

I have repeatedly heard people arguing against global warming by falsely claiming that scientist changed the name to climate change. Which is either an outright lie, or a statement based on ignorance. JHolo

"Global warming is not now known as climate change. Climate change is the consequence of global warming." JH, As long as you mix in all the buzzwords, does it really make any difference? Andrew asauber

Just look at it and then you’ll know just how hysterical global warming–now known as “climate change,” really is.

Global warming is not now known as climate change. Climate change is the consequence of global warming. JHolo

"they were able to obtain the most accurate temperature estimates to date" When I read stuff like this, I just shake my head again. This gives a false impression of accuracy. Because estimates always get better. You'd think with this type of trajectory, it'd be difficult to improve after awhile. But are they anywhere close to the truth? Andrew asauber