Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'll reiterate, I find this woman's comment to be thought provoking, and I pretty much agree with her.  I think her stuff is well worth reading for anyone interested in the topic.

Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

She is not a "denier", she is skeptical about certain things like the models, she does believe our climate is warming because of human behaviors.  She views this as far more complex than just reducing CO2 emissions (which isn't happening).  

you did not change me at all

I said prior and am saying now Im skeptical that 141 ppm will cause the earth the get hotter

I dont deny warming is taking place just what is causing it

but hey theres always tomorrow and I might come to my senses or maybe climate scientists might instead

Ahh. Perhaps with the diversion talking about guns you didn't see or take the time to read this:

https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064

It lays it all out pretty well. 

The sun bombards the Earth with radiation. The Earth reflects it as infrared radiation. Without an atmosphere, that would just escape into space. With it, we trap that infrared in a "greenhouse effect". But what's responsible for trapping that?

The long and short of it is that 99% of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). These molecules do NOT absorb infrared radiation, and do not contribute in any way to the greenhouse effect. Therefore all of the greenhouse effect is driven by the 1% leftover.

That greenhouse effect was studied in large part because back in the 1800s, scientists estimated that the Earth was 59 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it "should be" and were trying to figure out why. We "should" have been a lifeless ice ball, but something was warming us up. It was the greenhouse effect from that 1% of the atmosphere absorbing and retaining infrared radiation from the sun, reflected off the Earth, and not allowing it to escape back into space. 

Of that 1%, water vapor dominates the biggest proportion. But it's mostly low and around the Earth, and it is not increasing. CO2 in the upper atmosphere IS increasing, and it is effectively that "last line of defense" to stop that infrared radiation from escaping into space, and that's what's trapping the heat. That's why even though it's only 4% of the 1% that matters, and only 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, it has a VERY important effect. 

In the last million years of history, during warm periods we've been at 280 ppm. During ice ages we've been at 180 ppm. Those periods saw global temps 7-15F cooler than now. The last time global CO2 levels were around 400 ppm was 4 million years ago, and global average temps were about 6F warmer than now. 

So I highly recommend you give it a read, and come to your senses. 

I have read it and remain skeptical that 141 ppm increase in co2 is having the affect climate change folks  are saying it does

I believe man is causing co2 increase but by 141 ppm and Im not sold that this is causing warming to the degree that climate change folks are saying it is

Do you have another explanation for the correlation? 

• 180 ppm: Ice age. Temps 7-15F lower than now.
• 280 ppm: Typical warm period between ice ages, and similar to pre-industrial man. Temps about 2F lower than current, but Earth temp has risen from pre-induatrial levels and is currently continuing to rise.
• 400 ppm (4 million years ago): Temps about 6F higher than observed in the 280 ppm "warm periods". 

Or is your skepticism "well it just certainly can't be 141 ppm CO2 increase, despite what reams of climate science literature since 1950 says"?

There are a lot of things to be skeptical about.

That said, there are some things that are basically well-founded:

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• The Earth's temperature is warming [at least partly] due to the increase from 280->400+ ppm of CO2.
• Man is responsible for [most of if not all of] the increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels.
• Ergo, man is responsible for [at least some of] that warming.

This is all basic stuff, and in my mind, has been more than well enough demonstrated as to be beyond skepticism by anyone who actually looks at the evidence.

That said, I think there are three different groups when it comes to climate change: deniers, skeptics, and alarmists:

• Deniers: These are the people who claim CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, claim it can't be a problem because it's a small amount, claim it's rising due to anything but man, that the Earth isn't actually warming, or anything else that essentially says "it's not happening and it's all a left-wing conspiracy". I personally find this group to have absolutely zero credibility on the issue. Most I find don't know shit about the issue and spew whatever "their tribe" comes up with to deny it. 
• Alarmists: These are the people that claim we're obviously warming the planet due to CO2 and that we absolutely must do everything in our power to stop it. Within this group, there are several contingents. First is the left-wing greenie wacko who just believes that if humans are doing something, and it changes the environment, it MUST be bad. Second is some of the scientists and policy types who think that we should do something to reduce based on the precautionary principle that we're in relatively uncharted territory here and it "could" get really bad based on models/etc. And the third are people who don't know shit about the issue but "their tribe" finds it important, they should be on board. What I often find in this group is that the first and third groups generally know nothing about economics, or actual feasibility of green alternative energy, and overestimate how easily we could transition away from fossil fuels. Group one can be ignored for the same reason I ignore the deniers. Group three is generally ignorant and boring to argue with because they don't know enough. I do think there can be a LOT of constructive dialogue between the skeptics and group two, though. 
• Skeptics: This is the group that accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we're burning a shit-ton of it and warming the planet, but isn't quite sure whether that's bad enough to worry about, or if it's bad enough that it's worth spending a shit-ton of money [and creating a huge economic drag in doing so] trying to stop it. This is the group that looks at the question of is "warmer" bad, or might even be beneficial? If it's bad, how warm is "too" warm? What will be the cost in 2100 to mitigate the economic effects/dislocations that might occur due to that warming? What will be the natural transition away from fossil fuels due to new technologies over that time frame, and is it worth trying to force technology before its time to slightly accelerate that transition? How much will it freakin' cost, and is it worth it? Generally this group is the one that says as long as warming isn't going to lead to catastrophe, we as a world society and economy can probably just ride it out and be fine.

As you might imagine, I consider myself in the skeptic group. Global warming is happening, it's real, and we're responsible for it. But the question of if it's actually a "problem" and what we should do--if anything--about it is where there is a lot of room for debate.

Call me what you want, but CO2 is an essential gas in our atmosphere. Without it, plants would not grow and I am pretty sure other bad things would happen making life on Earth impossible.

That said, I also believe that we really don't know the level's of CO2 over the course of our history. All we really know is what it is now and was for the past, maybe, 100 years. Everything else is speculation.

I also believe that the climate is changing, just as it has done since the Earth had a climate. For example, in the place I am currently sitting, 10,000 years ago was covered by a mile thick sheet of ice. Why is it 71 deg right now with no ice? The climate changed and did so without mankind driving SUV's. The Earth goes through periodic climate shifts both warming and cooling. Again, it has done this since the Earth had a climate and nothing we do will change that fact. In fact, from the things I have read, the Sun has more impact on the Earths climate that mankind could ever hope to have and is most likely responsible for the climate changes that the Earth goes through.

Now, this does not mean that I am in favor of pumping particles into atmosphere if we can at all prevent it. I believe that we should do what we can, WITHIN REASON, to keep from polluting the Earth and do what we can to clean up already polluted areas. 

Do you have another explanation for the correlation?

• 180 ppm: Ice age. Temps 7-15F lower than now.
• 280 ppm: Typical warm period between ice ages, and similar to pre-industrial man. Temps about 2F lower than current, but Earth temp has risen from pre-induatrial levels and is currently continuing to rise.
• 400 ppm (4 million years ago): Temps about 6F higher than observed in the 280 ppm "warm periods".

Or is your skepticism "well it just certainly can't be 141 ppm CO2 increase, despite what reams of climate science literature since 1950 says"?

reminds me of

there is more ice cream consumed in the summer
crime is higher in the summer
ice cream must cause crime

The Superbloom: "California’s historically wet winter has led to an explosion of blooming wildflowers across many of its hills and valleys this spring. Visitors have been traveling to state parks and reserves to take in the views of this latest “superbloom.” Gathered below are recent colorful images from several locations across Southern California."


https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1646252743051431939

Very much appears like Gustave Caillebotte's painting The Yellow Fields at Gennevilliers - La plaine de Gennevilliers, champs jaunes:

In 1974 a group of scientists published research suggesting that chemicals used in everyday products like aerosols, packaging and refrigerators could deplete the ozone layer – vastly increasing the incidence of skin cancer, cataracts and other harms to humans and wildlife on earth. In 1985, the ozone depletion theory was clearly proven, when a hole in the ozone layer was discovered over Antarctica.

The discovery of the hole was evidence that the magnitude of the problem was far greater than scientists had originally predicted. International alarm at the ozone layer’s thinning led to unprecedented multilateral action to ban the dangerous chemicals that were responsible for its deterioration – chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). By 1987, just two years after the hole was discovered, an international treaty was in place that cut the use of CFCs in half. Three years later in 1990, the Montreal Protocol was strengthened to ban the use of CFCs altogether in industrialised countries by the year 2000 and by the year 2010 in developing countries.  Today, the use of CFCs is outlawed by 197 countries around the world and scientists concur that the ozone layer is slowly recovering as a result. Overall, the success in addressing the ozone problem can give us hope that global environmental problems can and have been solved by humanity’s timely collective action.


_________________________________________________ _____________________

Makes me wonder about the PPM of chlorofluorocarbons back in the late 70s