The planet saw its hottest day ever this week.

[1SimpleMan]

What do you think about whit this has to say?

Carbon dioxide does not cause climate change

The green movement’s climate-change scheme is based upon the false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not.

www.washingtontimes.com

It appears that CO2 can't and doesn't cause global warming. It sounds like water and the oceans are the culprit. And it has nothing to do with CO2.

ClimateCite

Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

climatecite.com

I think its a straw man argument. That is, it takes someone's position and boils it down to something simple that you can point to that is provably wrong or easily dismissible but isn't the full picture of the opposing side. I have seen others on this forum and in this debate at large do this and it doesn't help us get the sides any closer.
I don't find that the individual atoms of CO2 or any other chemical are what is in debate. It really is there interaction with many factors in the atmosphere and the earth's environment.
Others on this forum might just object because its from the opinion column of The Washington Times, so it looses points with them before they have even engaged their brain.
I'd love to say something more positive but that is just how I see it.

 

[1SimpleMan]

What do you think about whit this has to say?

Carbon dioxide does not cause climate change

The green movement’s climate-change scheme is based upon the false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not.

www.washingtontimes.com

It appears that CO2 can't and doesn't cause global warming. It sounds like water and the oceans are the culprit. And it has nothing to do with CO2.

ClimateCite

Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

climatecite.com

RJS330 - If you want to read an interesting article that does NOT refute climate change but demonstrates a small portion of the vast information we don't fully understand about our complex environment, you should read this one. The end of the article is particularly fascinating with regard to some space weather observations. The earlier portion about the weakening field is interesting but there is not enough data to show what to model.
This is a good and brief summation article of a couple of aspects of our planets environment. I could have linked to about a handful of academic studies and government agency that say this in much heavier academic language but this article pulled good info from all those with a little heavier reliance on the EU research.

Risks of weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field - RISK FRONTIERS

Looking at the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field protects life from cosmic rays and understanding the impact.

riskfrontiers.com

Again, humility in science is our best path forward to understanding. We don't know what we don't know. Keep pursuing answers.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't find that the individual atoms of CO2 or any other chemical are what is in debate. It really is there interaction with many factors in the atmosphere and the earth's environment.
Others on this forum might just object because its from the opinion column of The Washington Times, so it looses points with them before they have even engaged their brain.
....

Of course I saw the basic wrong approach of the opinion piece - I'm embarrassed to say.

Embarrassed because I just admitted I even read that garbage from a source I already knew would stoop to publish it. There was a time maybe 15 years ago when I thought it appropriate to put out each little fire, like this one, wherever it popped up, applying my interested laypersons grasp of science to the content - if I could. But Ive realized the problem isnt each published instance of absurdly wrong facts or reasoning. Its how people generally approach building a model of the world and how they apply (or fail to apply) discernment re who is reliable and who isnt.

People dont know everything and so each of us has to have a good sense generally of how knowledge (or lies) is produced,

 

[essentialsaltes]

Weeks-long streaks of 100-plus-degree days break records across U.S.​

As of Wednesday, residents in El Paso, had experienced a record-breaking 27 consecutive days of 100-plus-degree heat, surpassing the 21-day streak in 1980, according to the Southeast Regional Climate Center.

The southern United States has seen some locations with more than two weeks of 100-plus-degree maximum temperatures, with record-breaking streaks in Roswell, N.M., and Midland, Tex. The median duration of a record-breaking streak in 2023 — 14 days — is [tied for] the longest in almost 90 years.

[And the summer ain't over yet, and some of those streaks are still alive.]

 

[1SimpleMan]

Of course I saw the basic wrong approach of the opinion piece - I'm embarrassed to say.

Embarrassed because I just admitted I even read that garbage from a source I already knew would stoop to publish it. There was a time maybe 15 years ago when I thought it appropriate to put out each little fire, like this one, wherever it popped up, applying my interested laypersons grasp of science to the content - if I could. But Ive realized the problem isnt each published instance of absurdly wrong facts or reasoning. Its how people generally approach building a model of the world and how they apply (or fail to apply) discernment re who is reliable and who isnt.

People dont know everything and so each of us has to have a good sense generally of how knowledge (or lies) is produced,

You seem hostile and if I offended please forgive the offense. I did not intend to do so. I thought I had written a rather gracious retort and your response bothered me enough that I had to reread my post. The only thing I noticed that might have been offensive is that while I was saying that some folks might prejudge the article based on the source, my word choice was a little poor. I probably should have said something like..."so it looses points with them before they have even engaged their brain in a critique of the article.

 

[durangodawood]

You seem hostile and if I offended please forgive the offense. I did not intend to do so. I thought I had written a rather gracious retort and your response bothered me enough that I had to reread my post. The only thing I noticed that might have been offensive is that while I was saying that some folks might prejudge the article based on the source, my word choice was a little poor. I probably should have said something like..."so it looses points with them before they have even engaged their brain in a critique of the article.

No problem at all. Your critique of me not applying my brain was pretty reasonable as I really did sidestep the actual content of the piece.

I just wanted to explain why Ive stopped applying my brain to explaining the content of this sort of nonsense and prefer now to apply it to the bigger question of how we each choose to acquire knowledge or beliefs. The way people are hoodwinked these days scares me a bit.

 

[rjs330]

Yes El Nino is proposed as one of the drivers of the current North American heat problem. Thats cyclical.

The other part is global heating, which is projected to carry on increasing as we change the chemical proportions of the atmosphere. Does something in the article say otherwise?

CO2 doesn't hold heat. We've already learned that. Water does. Our CO2 isn't warming the oceans. It can't because it doesn't retain heat. Something else is. Water vapor retains the heat. The whole CO2 thing is just a theory. The thing is we don't really understand this at all. We just think we do. I don't really want to debate this with you or anyone else. There have been some really good scientists and scientific groups who aren't buying it. But no one is listening. It's because it's much easier and more convenient to just blame man. It's also more spectacular and attention grabbing. It makes us feel responsible and makes us believe we can do something about it. People love to believe we can fix things. I mean how would it go over if they said "we don't really know or understand how this is happening and don't know how to fix it". People would lose faith. But as long as we can say we caused it and we can fix it it gives us hope.

I've read enough stuff to form my belief that we don't really know or understand. And people are taking advantage of this naturally occurring strong El Nino to push the man made climate change agenda. You won't convince me otherwise so don't bother. I just posted on this thread to present the idea that we don't really know. Some may claim it's the best theory we have. Well it may be but that doesn't mean it's correct. If you want to believe it, be my guest. I don't.

 

[essentialsaltes]

CO2 doesn't hold heat.

You're equivocating on what the science is actually saying about 'holding' heat. We're not talking about the heat capacity of various compounds.

We've known for more than a century that CO2 in the atmosphere can have effects on global temperature.

It's all about the energy balance of the earth system.

Energy comes in in the form of light from the sun.

Energy that goes out has to pass through the atmosphere. CO2 blocks some infrared radiation from escaping. Much like a greenhouse 'holds' heat in. Increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere allows less and less IR radiation to escape. Warming the earth system.

The whole CO2 thing is just a theory.

No, it is a simple fact of absorption spectra.

We understand radiative balance quite well; look again to the textbook from the 60s.

Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere pushes the radiative balance out of equilibrium. Due to spectroscopic facts from the 19th century, we know CO2 blocks infrared radiation.

Increasing carbon dioxide means more energy comes into the earth than leaves it. This raises the temperature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Increasing carbon dioxide means more energy comes into the earth than leaves it. This raises the temperature.

So it's our fault for breathing?

8 billion people exhaling every 3 seconds is tough on the weather, isn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

So it's our fault for breathing?

8 billion people exhaling every 3 seconds is tough on the weather, isn't it?

Youre joking, right?

 

[1SimpleMan]

No problem at all. Your critique of me not applying my brain was pretty reasonable as I really did sidestep the actual content of the piece.

I just wanted to explain why Ive stopped applying my brain to explaining the content of this sort of nonsense and prefer now to apply it to the bigger question of how we each choose to acquire knowledge or beliefs. The way people are hoodwinked these days scares me a bit.

I understand. Thank you for those thoughts and sharing a little of the fruit from your walk!
In reference to your very last comment. I find that many folks on both sides of the discussion have a tendency to get all or a great deal of the information from the media and not from the actual studies produced.
As we all know by simply watching our society, what the media has done to our politics and social issues is that it tends to hyperbolize and radicalize on both sides from conservative media to liberal media. So if that is where you get all your info, its fruit will look similar.
Thanks again.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're joking, right?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find that many folks on both sides of the discussion have a tendency to get all or a great deal of the information from the media and not from the actual studies produced.

But where does the media get its information?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.

Ok good.

I do have to ask tho. Its just proper procedure (around here).

 

[wing2000]

Yes El Nino is proposed as one of the drivers of the current North American heat problem. Thats cyclical.

The other part is global heating, which is projected to carry on increasing as we change the chemical proportions of the atmosphere. Does something in the article say otherwise?

Noting that we saw higher temperatures during La Nina period as well.

It appeara there are those that really understand what's going on. It's not CO2 that's causing warming, but the oceans. The water. CO2 doesn't hold heat but vapor does. We have a string El Nino tight now in the ocean which is creating the warming issue. The two articles I posted go hand in hand with this. Scientists at the Antarctic are noting this as well. That the oceans and the El Nino are to blame for the issues.

Yes, the oceans are warmer. And El Nino and CO2 can both contribute to the warmer temperatures as we are seeing this year. I'm not sure why you think it has to be one or the other.

btw, The surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico by Key West are in the 90's. Biologist expect we'll see large losses of Coral Reef if these temperatures are sustained.

 

[1SimpleMan]

But where does the media get its information?

I imagine from the same people who can't figure out what a y chromosome is or what it means. (Sorry for the little tongue and cheek answer - I couldn't resist.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I imagine from the same people who can't figure out what a y chromosome is or what it means. (Sorry for the little tongue and cheek answer - I couldn't resist.)

Do try to resist dragging irrelevant off-topic subjects in. Biology and climatology are very different sciences.

As to where the media gets its information -- the read the same public press releases, government reports, and scientific papers (if they dare) that any of us could.

 

[durangodawood]

I remember back in quainter times the fake controversy was whether warming is even happening - not whats causing it.

Oh the thermometers are in the wrong place! Oh those dumb scientists dont understand urban heat islands! Oh oh oh. And people would painstakingly correct them until the reality was inescapable, and then the denial shifted to some other aspect of the situation. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm not interested in debating with people anymore whos political commitments are preeminent over empirical reality. (I'll probly catch myself doing it tho. Old habits.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I remember back in quainter times the fake controversy was whether warming is even happening - not whats causing it.

As this thread attests to. That notion *still* hasn't gone away. (nor has the notion that the increased CO2 isn't from human activity.) This is just straight-up denial of facts.

Oh the thermometers are in the wrong place! Oh those dumb scientists dont understand urban heat islands! Oh oh oh. And people would painstakingly correct them until the reality was inescapable, and then the denial shifted to some other aspect of the situation. Rinse. Repeat.

And if they try to remove the false signals from old data where they know it exists, they get accused of a conspiracy to fake data for their own personal agendas. Sigh.

I'm not interested in debating with people anymore whos political commitments are preeminent over empirical reality.

Agreed. I'm willing to debate policy choices, but not facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok good.

I do have to ask tho. Its just proper procedure (around here).

I'm glad you asked.

I wouldn't want anyone around here to think I'm a goofball.