re: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy

quote:

---

So far every question asked has been asked by someone who either has a particular answer they wanna hear or who has demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in trying to figure out the answer on their own.

---

Again, apparent ignorance regarding natural climate change causation combined with intimated thorough understanding of CO2 forcing impacts on the environment is a nonsensical position. It just is.

Your refusal to speak to the former has nothing to do with others' "lack of initiative." It has to do with your own.

You seem to believe CO2 is an overarching planetary temperature driver. As such you fall in with what is described as "settled science" and "scientific consensus." That is fine. But with that as your premise, how do you explain Quaternary cyclical CO2 patterns?

quote:

---

Then why did you throw out the term as if there was something I might be missing?

---

You we’re the one that asked what a model perturbance was. You’ll have to explain why you asked that question.

quote:

---

Wow that's insightful.

---

Was it? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to demonstrate you asked a generic question with no real answer. Kinda like asking if stock prices are too high. It’s depends on the stock. There is no singular “criticism” for a generic term.

quote:

---

You used the term as if it pertained to some particular criticism of AGW you might have, but I guess not. What was the point then? Just to show us you know some jargon?

---

See above.

quote:

---

But you don't. So again, what was the point of your statement?

---

Agan, you were the one asking about basic concepts.

quote:

---

That's OK they have these things called "links"

---

Indeed. Is your google broke? I build models every day. I don’t need “links”. If you want me to teach… i can send you over a rate sheet.

quote:

---

In 1971, global cooling was the climate threat du jour. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that the planet’s temperature had decreased by “one-half a degree Fahrenheit” since World War II in the 1971 article, titled “New Ice Age?” Claims of longer and harsher winters in Europe since 1940 were also cited. German meteorologist Dr. Martin Rodewald predicted that if this weather pattern continued, Europe “would be covered with the glaciers of a new ice age by the turn of the century.” In 1971, this was the science.

“American and Danish weather researchers in North Greenland, drilling down through 1400 meters of ice to read the weather record of 800 years, found that cold and warm cycles run for an average of 78 to 180 years,” the article stated. “On this basis, Dr. Rodewald does not foresee another warming trend before the year 2015.”

Scientists have a horrible record when it comes to making climate change predictions. Whether it was global cooling in the 1970s or the current cultlike behavior warning of global warming, the only consistency about climate science is its inconsistency. It’s time to stop treating it like it is an absolute truth. If they were wrong before, there’s nothing to suggest they will not be wrong again. LINK

---

It was the results of the cycles found in ice core histories that scared them. Twelve thousand years ago, NYC was under an estimated 4,000 feet of ice. Looking at the chart, we seem to be lucky that the interglacial has been going on for this long.

Maybe global warming got here just in time to stop the new ice age.

No wonder you cranked up your alter.

quote:

---

It was the results of the cycles found in ice core histories that scared them.

---

Actually it was man made aerosols they were most worried about. They didn't know whether those would be the dominate effect or if greenhouses gases would win. What you are saying doesn't really make sense as ice core samples had been around since the late 50's and science had known about the existence of ice ages for several decades already.

quote:

---

Actually it was man made aerosols they were most worried about. They didn't know whether those would be the dominate effect or if greenhouses gases would win. What you are saying doesn't really make sense as ice core samples had been around since the late 50's and science had known about the existence of ice ages for several decades already.

---

Again, why the dismissiveness and attitude?

You're both right ... which d/t your ice core retort, renders you equally right, and unnecessarily wrong.

quote:

---

In Schneider’s early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which “if sustained over a period of several years… is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age”.

---

quote:

---

The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze.

---

The ice age that never was



A little less of the snarky BS, and you still might actually learn something here.

The new ice age threat was quite the thing in my early college days. However, unlike today, not everything was at the fingertips of anyone curious. It took hours to dig stuff out of serious libraries with access to scientific journals, not 5 minutes on an internet search engine.

However, the ice core studies filtered down and kept coming. They still stand as a serious warning and should we enter a new ice age due to the sun's output, celestial mechanics or other cyclical processes, a very large part of this old world's population will die.

Of note in this hard science chart, CO2 follows temperature change typically by a lot. That's the tail wagging the dog.

Simple question for your so called intelligence

Does smoking cause cancer?

quote:

---

Does he understand that CO2 is finite ? It will never increase or decrease

---

Carbon is finite. CO2 is variable. Plants break down CO2 as plant food and release oxygen, but not all of that plant reverts to CO2 even after the plant dies.