[clif]

How are geniuses created anyway?

By properly educating them and allowing them to grow into what they are capable of.

Case in point, if Einstein had been born in the 1920's-30's Germany before his "genius" was exposed, what probably would have been his fate?

How many geniuses did Jim Crow and slavery deny the US? Genocide and marginalization of the native Americans whose land we stole and currently live on?

What about the various religions which attack science at it's core, how many geniuses do they stifle in dogmatic obedience to ancient fallacies.

Want very smart people who can help solve very hard problems, put the growth of them ahead of profits, and it will happen here. Instead we monetize/politicize education and lose how many people who have the capability but were denied the opportunity by either out right bigoted prejudice (whether religious or racist) or just greed over intelligence in education.

[jedrider]

The DNC certainly is devoid of geniuses!

Why the Democratic National Committee Must Change the Rules and Hold a Climate Debate
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/21/why-democratic-national-committee-must-change-rules-and-hold-climate-debate

[Newfie]

Jedridder - thanks for that link.

[Newfie]

Another problem is that some of the most left-leaning countries are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Norway has the most EVs but is drunk on oil-wealth. Iceland's economy relies on tourism (most from air travel) and yet moans the loss of glaciers. Sustainability requires powerdown and that has an unacceptable economic cost even to those who are ideologically sympathetic to the cause.

That simple fact I bolded above seems lost on the vast majority of folks who claim to be concerned about climate change.

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES POWERDOWN.

[Newfie]

Here’s a different way of looking at the run away climate. Although even this author seems unable to accept, or mouth, the unassailable outcome, our population will crash.

The planet’s land absorbs carbon pollution today only because of a great “natural subsidy,” said Louis Verchot, the report co-author. The 70 percent of ice-free land surface managed by people actually produces five gigatons of greenhouse gases a year. The remaining land surface—the 30 percent in nature’s control—sucks up 11 gigatons. So while the land surface absorbs about six gigatons of carbon on net, this has nothing to do with people.

“The land is out of balance in areas that we are managing,” Verchot said. “The biosphere is offsetting the carbon emissions, but that’s not a reason to call the land in balance.” He called this absorption an “additional gift of nature,” but it may be more apt to call it the final gift of nature. And at some point in the coming century—as more forests are felled and as demand for beef grows—this gift could become a curse, and the land will spew greenhouse gases into the air as ferociously as humanity does today.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... rt/595705/

[asg70]

And so it goes.

Keep voting R, folks. It's the only way to tackle climate-change.

[onlooker]

Here’s a different way of looking at the run away climate. Although even this author seems unable to accept, or mouth, the unassailable outcome, our population will crash.

The planet’s land absorbs carbon pollution today only because of a great “natural subsidy,” said Louis Verchot, the report co-author. The 70 percent of ice-free land surface managed by people actually produces five gigatons of greenhouse gases a year. The remaining land surface—the 30 percent in nature’s control—sucks up 11 gigatons. So while the land surface absorbs about six gigatons of carbon on net, this has nothing to do with people.

“The land is out of balance in areas that we are managing,” Verchot said. “The biosphere is offsetting the carbon emissions, but that’s not a reason to call the land in balance.” He called this absorption an “additional gift of nature,” but it may be more apt to call it the final gift of nature. And at some point in the coming century—as more forests are felled and as demand for beef grows—this gift could become a curse, and the land will spew greenhouse gases into the air as ferociously as humanity does today.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... rt/595705/

Yes and in past epochs this runaway feedback cycle has resulted in a hothouse Earth. Basically, we have triggerered a geologic climatic event that could lead to disappearance of much of life currently existing on Earth. Welcome to the Anthropocene

[rockdoc123]

Yes and in past epochs this runaway feedback cycle has resulted in a hothouse Earth. Basically, we have triggerered a geologic climatic event that could lead to disappearance of much of life currently existing on Earth. Welcome to the Anthropocene

what a complete load of horse manure. Who pray tell was around back then to document this "hothouse Earth" that was created by feedbacks? You do realize how paleontologists put together ancient history dont' you? Basically there is no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what caused anything....which is why there are a host of theories out there. And the "Anthropocene" does not exist according to the authority...International Commission on Stratigraphy.

But lets not let facts get in the way of a good hand-wringing exercise.

[GHung]

....... Basically there is no way whatsoever of knowing precisely what caused anything....which is why there are a host of theories out there.

Yes. Manure, from one who claims to be educated. I don't know "precisely" why my back hurts today (as in the "precise" physiological processes involved), but I can be pretty damn sure it is related to, and a consequence of, the fact that I moved 20 sheets of plywood yesterday.
And there is plenty of evidence that if a shitload of CO2 gets dumped into the atmosphere, especially in a geologically short period of time, temperatures are likely to rise faster than many lifeforms can adapt.
I kept aquariums for many years and, when I was a kid, I discovered that when a fish died, if I didn't remove it pretty quickly, the filter system would get overwhelmed from the byproducts of decay and the increasing imbalance would cause more fish to die, which would increase that imbalance, causing the whole system to crash into another state. Poof! In a few days my nice aquarium full of happy fish became a stinky swamp full of happy, mostly anaerobic, slime.
In the case of AGW, not only are we adding "decay products" (CO2, methane, etc.) at an accelerating rate, we are adding more "fish" (humans producing waste) to the tank, all-the-while, reducing our filter size via deforestation, reef bleaching, development, on and on. I don't need a PhD to understand where that's going.

I'm surely not going to foment denial because my livelihood depends on it; because my life's work has contributed to some serious consequences for the planet.

[rockdoc123]

Yes. Manure, from one who claims to be educated. I don't know "precisely" why my back hurts today (as in the "precise" physiological processes involved), but I can be pretty damn sure it is related to, and a consequence of, the fact that I moved 20 sheets of plywood yesterday.

here we go again....ignore the actual science and go with your "gut feeling". Yeah that will make the world advance.

I kept aquariums for many years and, when I was a kid, I discovered that when a fish died, if I didn't remove it pretty quickly, the filter system would get overwhelmed from the byproducts of decay and the increasing imbalance would cause more fish to die, which would increase that imbalance, causing the whole system to crash into another state. Poof! In a few days my nice aquarium full of happy fish became a stinky swamp full of happy, mostly anaerobic, slime.

which has absolutely F&^% all to do with paleoclimatology. But convince yourself your personal day to day observations apply directly to climate variation that are only observable over periods of thousands if not tens of thousands of year intervals. Hey, who needs science when you have handyman intuition.
In the case of AGW, not only are we adding "decay products" (CO2, methane, etc.) at an accelerating rate, we are adding more "fish" (humans producing waste) to the tank, all-the-while, reducing our filter size via deforestation, reef bleaching, development, on and on. I don't need a PhD to understand where that's going

[dissident]

The tobacco industry propaganda template applied to climate change. Smoking has no ill effects, trust us. And any study that we did not pay for is not credible since the studies we paid for point to all sorts of uncertainty. The famous propaganda phrase "the science is not settled" is being spammed to this forum and any forum where climate change is discussed.

The global warming deniers are leveraging the pathetic state of education in the USA and Canada to pimp their ridiculous, endlessly debunked claims. Most people simply do not know that 99.99% (N2 + O2 + argon) of the atmosphere is transparent to IR. And the only reason we have life on this planet is because of trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 and essentially trace water vapour. They also do not know that water vapour cannot act as a dry gas and is thermodynamically controlled. Without a dry greenhouse gas such as CO2, all the water vapour would precipitate out together with a massive increase of surface albedo. There is a runaway freezing regime where even the salty oceans freeze solid. So at the end of the day it is the trace dry greenhouse gases that control the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans (and land surface).

Deniers always invoke variability as if that is some primary physical process. It is not and these liars know it. Given the critical control aspect of CO2 on the global temperature, current variability means precisely f*ck all since if the CO2 was removed the Earth would become an Ice Hell. Yeah there would be some vapourization on the sunny side. But basically 100% of the solar radiation would be reflected back into space.

The flip side of the Ice Hell is the Furnace Hell. Increasing the CO2 by several times (which we are doing by liberating cryospheric and other carbon reservoirs) is not some "variability", it dominates and controls any variability and drives the system to a regime were mammals cannot survive.

[rockdoc123]

The tobacco industry propaganda template applied to climate change. Smoking has no ill effects, trust us. And any study that we did not pay for is not credible since the studies we paid for point to all sorts of uncertainty. The famous propaganda phrase "the science is not settled" is being spammed to this forum and any forum where climate change is discussed

as is always the case you turn every discussion into one that focuses on the fact (that hardly anyone in the world disagrees with) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is not what the discussion is about. From the paleo studies it is about how much change could be related to greenhouse gases and how much is related to natural variation including direct and indirect impacts of solar. There is literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in the paleo literature regarding studies in this vein but you try to imply it is all somehow a "denier" claim with no basis in science. And before you go on this tirade that there is no such thing as natural variation I suggest you do a search in any number of climate journals in that regard. If you want I can list scores of papers published in the last few years that deal directly with that subject matter.

Deniers always invoke variability as if that is some primary physical process. It is not and these liars know it. Given the critical control aspect of CO2 on the global temperature, current variability means precisely f*ck all since if the CO2 was removed the Earth would become an Ice Hell. Yeah there would be some vapourization on the sunny side. But basically 100% of the solar radiation would be reflected back into space

and if the sun suddenly stopped emitting any radiation at all the earth would become an ice ball regardless of how much CO2 was there. So what?

There is a reason that studies into what equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity ranges actually continue to be published. IF the answer was known it would not be a subject of ongoing debate. There is also a reason that CO2 is not the only forcing in climate models, your rant implies it is.

Once again you demonstrate a very unscientific approach to subject matter that, contrary to what you want everyone to think, is being actively debated in the published literature. But then again anyone who disagrees with you is apparently a denier....just like Judith Curry who I am sure you consider a denier regardless of the extensive publications and awards.

[Newfie]

Roc,

How do you explain that the majority of researchers have come to a different conclusion?

[Tanada]

as is always the case you turn every discussion into one that focuses on the fact (that hardly anyone in the world disagrees with) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is not what the discussion is about. From the paleo studies it is about how much change could be related to greenhouse gases and how much is related to natural variation including direct and indirect impacts of solar.

Yes, it has been a big question, how much change is due to greenhouse gas. The answer is a lot, by a fatal amount. There are two primary inputs to consider: How much greenhouse gas? How much warming? Then, you calculate the sensitivity of the system (which varies I suspect according to feedback mechanisms as well). There are clouds and there is ice.

Just to consider, the Earth's ability to sustain life like ours is related to the chemical properties of primarily CO2, O2 and H2O.

It's quite a beautiful theory, actually.

Taking this concept a little further, the elements H, O and C have respectively valences of 1, 2 and 4, sort of like a computerized binary, octal system of numbering! So, we're not a computer simulation or are we?

[onlooker]

The flip side of the Ice Hell is the Furnace Hell. Increasing the CO2 by several times (which we are doing by liberating cryospheric and other carbon reservoirs) is not some "variability", it dominates and controls any variability and drives the system to a regime were mammals cannot survive.

Exactly. And given that we can detect certain geologic events in the past, know roughly the amount of CO2 at certain intervals in the past and have established the scientific basis for certain climate change processes any variability simply amounts to inconsequential in relation to the degree and speed of forcing we have introduced into the system. . But, we are used to Rockdoc, just ignoring certain facts when it comes to his denial affinity.

[rockdoc123]

Roc,

How do you explain that the majority of researchers have come to a different conclusion?

what conclusion would that be? If you are referring to the supposed census (the BS 99% story) that has been debunked numerous times as being statistically invalid (poor sampling, leading questions and incorrect data analysis). And where do you get the information that tells you this view...the press (which is generally where the public gets their information). Not a good way to formulate scientific opinion (i.e. getting it from someone who studied journalism in school and likely never took any science courses). If there was some sort of consensus it would not really matter...science doesn't work by consensus, never has. As I've pointed out numerous times there are numerous examples of famous science theories that were at the time "bandwagon" and eventually proven wrong and there are a considerable number of examples of scientists who published theories that were completely out of line with mainstream thinking that eventually proved to be a better explanation of the natural world (case in point would be J. Tuzo Wilson's plate tectonics theory, Wegners theory on continental drift etc).

when Albert Einstein was confronted with a 100 authors who were stated as being completely at odds with his theory of relatively his reply was " why 100? If I was wrong one would be enough."

there is a good article that speaks to why people in general ignore factual information that proves their "belief system" wrong, worth reading:

https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

Exactly. And given that we can detect certain geologic events in the past, know roughly the amount of CO2 at certain intervals in the past and have established the scientific basis for certain climate change processes any variability simply amounts to inconsequential in relation to the degree and speed of forcing we have introduced into the system. . But, we are used to Rockdoc, just ignoring certain facts when it comes to his denial affinity.

complete and utter BS. Do you actually think it is that simple? Have you actually ever looked at a climate model, even a "simple" one? I suspect not. Do you have any idea how paleo CO2 is measured or for that matter paleo temperature? Do you have a clue as to what the precision is with regards to measurement or what the narrowest time interval is that can be measured? OF course you don't or you won't be spouting this nonsense. If you think that it is just CO2 that matters or even just greenhouse gas you are seriously misled. But continue on with your fantasy.

[jedrider]

Actually, a good summary of the significance of this excess CO2 in our current context:

The Amazon Is Not Earth's Lungs
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/

Basically, we're just suffering from Miner's Lung Disease of the atmosphere.

[onlooker]

Roc,

How do you explain that the majority of researchers have come to a different conclusion?

what conclusion would that be? If you are referring to the supposed census (the BS 99% story) that has been debunked numerous times as being statistically invalid (poor sampling, leading questions and incorrect data analysis). And where do you get the information that tells you this view...the press (which is generally where the public gets their information). Not a good way to formulate scientific opinion (i.e. getting it from someone who studied journalism in school and likely never took any science courses). If there was some sort of consensus it would not really matter...science doesn't work by consensus, never has. As I've pointed out numerous times there are numerous examples of famous science theories that were at the time "bandwagon" and eventually proven wrong and there are a considerable number of examples of scientists who published theories that were completely out of line with mainstream thinking that eventually proved to be a better explanation of the natural world (case in point would be J. Tuzo Wilson's plate tectonics theory, Wegners theory on continental drift etc).

when Albert Einstein was confronted with a 100 authors who were stated as being completely at odds with his theory of relatively his reply was " why 100? If I was wrong one would be enough."

there is a good article that speaks to why people in general ignore factual information that proves their "belief system" wrong, worth reading:

https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

Exactly. And given that we can detect certain geologic events in the past, know roughly the amount of CO2 at certain intervals in the past and have established the scientific basis for certain climate change processes any variability simply amounts to inconsequential in relation to the degree and speed of forcing we have introduced into the system. . But, we are used to Rockdoc, just ignoring certain facts when it comes to his denial affinity.

complete and utter BS. Do you actually think it is that simple? Have you actually ever looked at a climate model, even a "simple" one? I suspect not. Do you have any idea how paleo CO2 is measured or for that matter paleo temperature? Do you have a clue as to what the precision is with regards to measurement or what the narrowest time interval is that can be measured? OF course you don't or you won't be spouting this nonsense. If you think that it is just CO2 that matters or even just greenhouse gas you are seriously misled. But continue on with your fantasy.

What rubbush.

Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.

This is established science you know like gravity. Then the Paleo record is about events and processes that have occurred in the past. Combine the two and you get a very very sound basis for sounding the alarm about levels of CO2 not seen for milliins of years. You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist yourself. But keep pretending that is not settled science. As for variability, well the biggest one that could offset this runaway train unfortunately is not doing it. The radiance of the Sun is at a low level, we should not be having the Arctic ice disappearing and glaciers melting etc.

[rockdoc123]

This is established science you know like gravity. Then the Paleo record is about events and processes that have occurred in the past. Combine the two and you get a very very sound basis for sounding the alarm about levels of CO2 not seen for milliins of years

complete uneducated blather.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas....that is a fact nobody argues with. What is continually argued is how much effect it has.

The level of ECS based on scores of papers published in the past number of years ranges from around 1.5C to around 4C when the unsupported outliers are excluded. That is a fact that is based on publications. Projecting forward to 2100 that would mean a difference between nothing to write home about and some regional likely serious regional impacts. Publications point to a range simply because they do not know. But apparently you do.

Temperature rise and fall in geologic history has at times between completely unlinked from CO2...that is a fact. Correlation doesn't mean causation but lack of correlation does indeed mean a delink in causation entirely.

We have no means of determining changes in T or CO2 or other greenhouse gases over periods under thousands of years in the geologic past with any confidence simply because our methods of dating do not allow for that kind of accuracy. Comparisons with what has happened over a couple of decades in current times with changes that occurred over thousands of years in the past are meaningless.

[Newfie]

Roc,

So do. Oh dent the Arctic is warming? If not then by what process?