Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 19:07:17 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 219
Message-ID: <vcq7v6$2cr7r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net>
 <cicbejl8f1hppk447ao6jq1n295sj386f1@4ax.com>
 <pcgeejhh5j013bn1iqo15i5cod7267j15j@4ax.com> <20240915a@crcomp.net>
 <vc8hcj$2m25s$1@dont-email.me> <20240916a@crcomp.net>
 <92767bb42bc741f813f2a5a131e0ce5e@www.novabbs.com>
 <vcd5e0$3ognu$3@dont-email.me>
 <8b0e72a9-cf0c-dd8f-0b07-cdd1136854f3@example.net>
 <vcfkj6$7u9m$2@dont-email.me>
 <44ba55b0-9667-f511-e884-e91e2078a4e0@example.net>
 <vci73c$o1qv$1@dont-email.me>
 <747b854a-2622-4162-68ac-159a85d14140@example.net>
 <vcku7i$19c9j$1@dont-email.me>
 <3da82988-b240-b700-4ec9-f5378d3480af@example.net>
 <vcnc8b$1o122$1@dont-email.me>
 <4da12558-d945-69e4-f83a-66d1414d4cfa@example.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 01:07:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb84c7e2b52b3880773aa21097e77879";
	logging-data="2518267"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+trWe8/7B+ab/lNEbV9yI0"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D6lsBGULsjmPKkFHjM1NwhXiZMc=
In-Reply-To: <4da12558-d945-69e4-f83a-66d1414d4cfa@example.net>
Bytes: 10280

D wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
> 

>>
>> I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
>>
>> They have no evidence.
>>
>> I invite you to supply some.  Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother 
>> cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.
> 
> I will give you 5.


General comment.

You should read the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers", a non-technical 
description of the work done.  It would save you much embarrassment.

And you would know what your "opponents" are actually doing.  At the 
moment it's like you're playing Kriegspiel, and they're playing chess.
> 
> Natural Climate Variability One of the primary arguments against 
> man-made climate change is that
> Earth’s climate has always experienced fluctuations due to natural
> processes. Rationalists have explained that the warming observed in recent
> decades could be part of a natural cycle rather than a result of human
> activity. They point to historical climate data showing periods of
> warming and cooling over thousands of years, suggesting that current
> changes may not be unprecedented.


This was, of course, one of the first things proposed as an alternative 
by the actual scientific community.  It was rejected for several reasons:

(1) There is no analog to this in the record of natural climate 
variability.  The speed of this warming is unprecedented in moderate 
climates.  By orders of magnitude.  Note that above you say "thousands 
of years".  We're seeing changes of the same magnitude over decades.

(2) Natural variability is not without cause.  No such cause is 
apparent. Variations in clouds, solar output, current, albedo, and other 
causes have been examined.  Even changes in sea-salt aerosols. Nothing 
accounts for the current change.


> 
> Solar Activity Influence Another argument is that variations in solar 
> activity are responsible
> for the observed changes in global temperatures. Increased solar
> irradiance correlates with rising temperatures and natural
> solar cycles have a more significant impact on climate than
> human-generated greenhouse gases.

Wrong on several counts.

Variations in solar constant are not nearly large enough to account for 
the current warming, as the excerpt you posted a few days ago in 
response to Paul showed.  And the warming has continued even when the 
sun was growing cooler.

The current warming would imply an increase of average solar radiation 
at the surface of the earth of several watts per square meter, much 
larger than the solar variability you cite, but in line with the forcing 
due to greenhouse gases.

An increase in solar output will produce more warming in areas that 
receive more sunlight.  More warming at low latitudes than high, more in 
summer  than winter.  The opposite pattern, predicted by climate models 
as early as 1980, prevails.

An increase of solar output would warm the stratosphere. Instead the 
stratosphere is cooling, in line with the physics of global warming and 
as predicted as long ago as 1965.

The solar argument is refuted.

> Questionable Climate Models The climate models are often flawed or 
> overly reliant on assumptions
> about human impact. These models have failed to accurately replicate
> past climate conditions and therefore cannot be trusted to forecast
> future scenarios reliably.

These models have done a good job of simulating past climates, from the 
ice ages to Eocene warmth, to Pangean Monsoons and Holocene lake levels 
in east Africa.  Your source here is simply incorrect.

They have also made the above correct predictions (do I have to repeat 
them for the tenth time?).  Neither of the ideas you propose above have 
made any correct predictions.

"Flawed" has become a word which means nothing more than "I disagree".
It is meaningless without being able to point to an actual flaw.


> Oceanic and Atmospheric Absorption Earth’s natural systems, such as 
> oceans and forests, can absorb
> significant amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities, mitigating
> potential warming effects. 

So what?

This is accounted for in the simulations.  If we didn't include  these 
effects the models would be calling for a 10C warming by 2100, rather 
than 2 (or so).

Do you actually think we're stupid enough not to account for CO2 
absorbed by the oceans even though this has been known for well over a 
century?  Or both stupid and dishonest?

If the oceans absorbed no CO2 they wouldn't be acidifying.  Can I really 
be stupid enough to think  that all CO2 stays in the atmosphere, and yet 
that a dangerous amount goes into the ocean?

Really, if I was running a conspiracy to fool the public I'd be much 
more clever than that.


  This perspective suggests that the capacity
> of these “carbon sinks” could offset any potential anthropogenic
> emissions, reducing their overall impact on global temperatures.


Except that we've gone from 280 to over 410 ppm. So the offset, while 
welcome, is clearly not sufficient.  Are you reading that which you are 
posting?


> 
> Historical CO2 Levels and Temperature Correlation Studies indicate that 
> increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have
> historically followed temperature rises rather than preceding them. This
> correlation suggests that CO2 may not be a primary driver of climate
> change but rather a response to other climatic factors.


It is well known that CO2 can function as both a forcing and a feedback. 
  A climate which warms for other reasons will result in a different 
biosphere, which may produce more warming and hence C02 will increase 
the original signal. This happened in the ice ages, which were magnified 
but not caused by C02 variations.

But in our time the C02 began to increase before the warming, not after. 
  C02 (and other ghgs we produce) is the forcing.

As C02 and CH4 leach from Arctic soils it will also become a feedback, 
with very bad consequences for us.

Zero for five.


> 
>>>> You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is 
>>>> disturbing.
>>>
>>> Likewise. See above.
>>
>> Not likewise.
>>
>> I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more 
>> warming in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========