web analytics

Real Climate Change on this Day in 1815

By Patrick Van Roy On April 10th, 2019

Heard for thousands of miles, the Dutch East Indies’ Mount Tambora erupts with cataclysmic force, devastating everything around it with pyroclastic flows and ash falls. The eruption will significantly change the climate, spawning the “year without a summer” and causing global famine.

And even with that shock to the Earth’s ecosystem it recovered….. but cow farts are going to kill us….

55 Responses to “Real Climate Change on this Day in 1815”

  1. LOL. Yet another willfully pig-ignorant comment on this subject.

  2. why?

  3. Because the effects from the volcano lasted two years at most. The effects of our still rising CO2 emissions will last for centuries or millenia, depending on when / if we start reducing them:

    “Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth’s atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

    Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the “Anthropocene”, one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew. If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. ”

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

  4. roflmao……

    yes yes I’ve read the arguments of your side I’ve also read the arguments that you refuse to.

    Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth’s surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation.

    http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

  5. If 99% of scientists say that man made climate change is happening Patrick, because he doesn’t want to deal with it, and doesn’t want to take the necessary policy choices to deal with it, decides to believe the 1%.

  6. Seamus

    Don’t waste your time, no evidence will ever convince those whose politics will always come first. And those politics are fossil fuel politics. Most of the GOP is bought and paid for by the Kochs and Exxon just like it is bought and paid for by the NRA.

    The fossil fuel lobby war on AGM is a replica of the tobacco lobby in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s (yes, their lies lasted four decades) arguing against the link between smoking and lung cancer. And wealthy vested interests will always be able to buy politicains, even whole parties.

  7. It’s not a matter of politics it’s science…… Man made Climate change is a religion NOT science.

    2 things and 2 things only control the Earths climate. The Sun and the Earths orbit around it.

    When the cult of climate change can get their models to give the same answers twice I’ll give it consideration.

    They never have and they never will. Humans can’t even figure out all the variables, let alone predict what will occur 100yrs from now.

  8. It’s not a matter of politics it’s science

    No, it’s politics, or more accurately political corruption. Your guys are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby. So you reject all science in favour of AGW because you have been paid to.

  9. Agreed, Patrick. “MMGW” is politically motivated BS.
    Just who funds these “scientists” anyway? Are they totally independent; no, they’re largely funded by the State, and he who pays the piper… The biggest single indicator is that any of these “scientists” who dare to disagree with the globalist agenda find themselves ostracised, all funding cut off, shunned from the main statist media networks. Now that’s not very “scientific” is it? Tells you all you need to know.

  10. 2 things and 2 things only control the Earths climate. The Sun and the Earths orbit around it.

    Sez you. The science says otherwise, but your party is paid to spout those lies.

  11. Agreed, Patrick. “MMGW” is politically motivated BS.

    Another fossil fuel headbanger joins the debate. How much have you read on this? Not a lot as I recall.

  12. Just who funds these “scientists” anyway? Are they totally independent; no, they’re largely funded by the State, and he who pays the piper…

    Yawn

  13. All the scientists are in on a grand conspiracy.

    Patrick and Allan know this.

  14. I’ve read all I need to know by reading between the lines, thanks.

  15. LOL

  16. Gentleman all the climate change scenarios are based on computer models. The computer models have never given the same answers twice…. that’s not science.

    In science everytime you run the data if the theory is sound (meaning correct) you get the same answers every time.

    So far they have NEVER gotten the same results. What you believe is a matter of Faith.

    That makes it a religion. not science.

  17. I remember very well all the UK newspapers’ weather headlines in the final week of March 2012: “Bone-dry Britain set for water shortages, no end in sight”. What happened first week of April all the way until late June 2012? The heavens opened like never before, floods everywhere, record rainfall. They can’t even predict two weeks in advance.

  18. There is a distinction between climate and weather. Climate change is about long term trends. Weather is about what is happening outside right now. Weather changes dramatically, meaning that a weather system that isn’t meant to hit the UK suddenly hits the UK, causing unexpected rainfall.

    Climate change models, despite Patrick wailing to the contrary, have been pretty good at predicting long term climate change. Patrick is peddling disproved myths (rather than actual real science).

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

  19. The tobacco industry bought politicians who helped it avoid restrictions for decades. The fossil fuel industries have studied that example and copied i. And there are so many politicians for sale, so they have done well so far. They now have a fossil fuel shill in the White House, bought and paid for, and the GOP bought and paid for. Trump is reversing subsidies to green energy in favour of subsidies for coal, but he cannot buck the market. Solar is now cheaper than coal in cost per watt in the sunbelt states.

    The fossils know the game is up, just like tobacco did in the 1960s, but they will fight tooth and nail for each remaining year of profits before their lights are finally put out. And they will always have their bought politicians and their useful fools to argue their losing cause.

  20. I remember very well all the UK newspapers’ weather headlines in the final week of March 2012: “Bone-dry Britain set for water shortages, no end in sight”. What happened first week of April all the way until late June 2012? The heavens opened like never before, floods everywhere, record rainfall. They can’t even predict two weeks in advance.

    Look up the definitions of “weather” and “climate” and you might just get an idea of how stupid that comment is. Or don’t bother. We have been over this ground before. It’s always groundhog day with you guys.

  21. I won’t bother, thanks. I simply don’t have faith in your faith-system.

  22. Here’s the thing. Climate change doesn’t need believers. If you don’t believe in it – then its still going to happen. That you are a selfish bastard who wants to leave it to other people to fix is telling, but not believing in it because it is inconvenient for you isn’t going to stop it.

    Science is real even if no one believes it.

  23. I won’t bother, thanks. I simply don’t have faith in your faith-syste

    No, I am talking science, not faith, but you have frequently demonstrated that you have a totally closed mind to anything which questions your religious beliefs. You are on record here as being a creationist, so naturally you are anti-science.

    If you can’t accept Darwin you are a lost cause to scientific debate. Because you are not arguing science, you are arguing sky-god religion which claims that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

  24. Heres the real story, climate change is real but life will go on even the human race will continue in some form. The real story is how and why and exactly how many humans have to die.

    Will we see the return of the mega fauna or will it be small mammals that require less resources individually.

    I wish I could wake up in a thousand years and see what changes have been wrought

    But there is little doubt life as we understand it won’t survive

  25. lol…. from your link

    Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

    The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:

    Here we have “science” calling the immediate impact of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 “the climatic response” all the response take place in the time right after the eruption…

    According to you yourselves that impact took place in the time frame that you would qualify as WEATHER CHANGES not Climate because A) it was immediate, and B) the effects passed and had no long term effects. So here immediate weather is “climate” hmmm how can that be, but they called it “the climatic response” not the WEATHER response.

    in the graph they refer to they show how wrong the prediction was compared to reality.

    lmao they prove the models were wrong and they call weather climate.

    I will also remind you that the “scientists” that wrote the data for the IPCC were caught fudging the data.

    The Sun and the Earths rotation control the climate. We are only now beginning to study the sun. We don’t understand why it contracts and expands, we don’t know what causes the sunspot cycles or why they have become erratic of late. And the Earth’s orbit changes. It wobbles we can’t even explain why it’s off it’s access. Those two factors are what decides the Earth’s climate and mankind’s knowledge has not reach that level yet.

    Currently the earth’s magnetic field is in the process of shifting. Last year for the second time in ten years all the worlds aircraft had to have their instruments changed due to the shifting magnetosphere.

    Our magnetosphere is what acts as a shield to the solar winds it’s those winds that effect climate.

    You follow blindly people who predict the end of the world. I suggest you should study real science and realize how little we really understand.

  26. You can keep saying that only the sun and earths rotation control the climate. It doesn’t make it true.

  27. If a meteor hit EP then what you said may become truth, but certainly not from the mythological religion of man made climate change.

  28. Seamus, on April 10th, 2019 at 11:03 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You can keep saying that only the sun and earths rotation control the climate. It doesn’t make it true.

    DeNile is not a river in egypt….. Astrophysics is a real science where man made climate change is a religion.

  29. Astrophysics is a real science. Atmospheric science is also a real science. And they all say you are full of shit.

  30. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the more we emit into the atmosphere the greater will be the greenhouse effect. This has been known as far back as the 1880s.

    Forget about the future models, just look at the hard evidence of the melting glaciers. Their melt coincides remarkably well with our accelerating CO2 emissions since the early 1800s. As I have said before, we don’t need thermometers, just the evidence of our own eyes.

  31. CO2 is 0.0391 percent of the atmosphere. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor and that fluctuates wildly….. because of the Sun…. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere, but that minuscule 0.0391 percent of the atmosphere is going to destroy the planet….

    Oh my god stop burning the fuel that powers the world and for christ sake kill all the cows…. lmao

    March 28, 2018. According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, Arctic sea ice volume is growing rapidly, normal and the highest in several years. DMI Modelled ice thickness. The extent of thick ice has doubled over the last ten years.

  32. “Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere”

    Monatomic and diatomic gases are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation. This has been explained to you about 4 million times.

    Diatomic gases have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate, while monatomic gases do not have vibrational modes. So they do not interact with infrared radiation. So the fact that the majority of the atmosphere is made up of Nitrogen (diatomic), oxygen (diatomic), or argon (monatomic) doesn’t matter. What matters is the number of them made up of more complex gases (which only account for 1%, but going from 1% to 1.01% could have huge impact) which do interact with infrared radiation.

  33. less than 1% of the atmosphere no matter how much radiation it can absorb can not cause the entire system to change.

    Water vapor is the molecule that can and mankind A) can not calculate it’s concentration world wide, and B) is effected by the intensity of the Sun. Which can not be predicted.

    The science of climate is beyond mans ability to process. We don’t know all the variables let alone have the ability to model them.

  34. good night everyone.

  35. Peter

    So what are the solution(s) you propose to fully solve the problem?

  36. Peter,

    LOL. Yet another willfully pig-ignorant comment on this subject.

    Patrick must be in a fighting mood.
    Excellent response by the way Peter, but it’s wasted on Patrick.

  37. Patrick Van Roy,

    2 things and 2 things only control the Earths climate. The Sun and the Earths orbit around it.

    The atmosphere has a pretty big influence on the climate. I think you missed that one.

  38. Phantom,

    All the scientists are in on a grand conspiracy.

    Indeed Phantom. Except for the science Patrick agrees with of course. You know the science that doesn’t interfere with his political choices.

    People who claim that mankind is having no effect on the climate are either incredibly ignorant or willfully lying. Thousands of scientists, all experts in their field, in different countries all around the world, funded in a multitude of different ways, have almost unanimously reached the same conclusion.

  39. Patrick Van Roy,

    Gentleman all the climate change scenarios are based on computer models. The computer models have never given the same answers twice…. that’s not science.

    why do you keep repeating the same nonsense Patrick, when we’ve had this conversation many times before.
    The proof for global warming has nothing to do with future predictions based on computer models. The proof that man is influencing the world’s climate, put really simply is this:

    Mankind now produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
    it’s demonstrably provable the greenhouse gases warm the planet.
    The planet has been warming since the mid 20th century.

    None of these points above can be disputed.

  40. Seamus,

    You can keep saying that only the sun and earths rotation control the climate. It doesn’t make it true.

    Indeed Seamus, the main factor that influences our climate at the moment, is our atmosphere.

  41. “less than 1% of the atmosphere no matter how much radiation it can absorb can not cause the entire system to change.”

    Let’s go with a little thought experiment then. We will replace your drinking water with 99% drinking water and 1% arsenic. 1% can not cause the entire system to change. Would you drink it?

    The majority of the atmosphere is almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation. So the amount of Nitrogen in the atmosphere, the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere is irrelevant. As they are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.

    What matters is the amount of more complex molecules in the atmosphere. Gases that are affected by infrared radiation. Increase it too much and you keep too much of the Sun’s radiation in the Earth – the Sun’s power rays can penetrate on the way through, but when they bounce back off the Earth they are weakened and can’t penetrate on the way out – causing climate change. For what its worth if there isn’t enough of it you get a different, also serious problem, where too much of the Sun’s rays get through. That is why the Ozone crisis a few decades ago was such a big deal.

  42. tied up be back in a minute…. but here I’ve lived in 6 of these towns

    https://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/least-42-pa-towns-agencies-have-drinking-water-toxin-made-famous-erin

  43. 100 parts per billion. Or 0.00001%. So it is unhealthy to have 0.00001% of Chromium in drinking water. But I thought 1% can not cause the entire system to change. So how can 0.00001%?

  44. simple CO2 is not a deadly pollutant….. Arsenic and Chromium are. CO2 is food for the trees. And unless it get’s above 5% and it is 0.0391 of 1%

  45. Do you accept that small part of the system (such as arsenic and chromium) can have a major impact on the system?

  46. CO2 is neccesary for the survival of mankind. Without it we would not have plants and trees and man would die…..

    So tell me since they can predict what the temperature will be in 100yrs due to co2 levels what is the exact concentration of that co2 should be in the atmosphere to sustain life and not hurt it?

  47. Seamus, on April 11th, 2019 at 2:22 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Do you accept that small part of the system (such as arsenic and chromium) can have a major impact on the system?

    It depends on the System. Water, Earth, and Air are 3 completely different systems. The dynamics of one can not be applied to the other.

    1 neutron can completely change an atom, but one neutron can not change a rock.

  48. No one is suggesting getting rid of CO2. What people are saying is that we produce far, far too much of it. Oxygen is needed for the survival of humanity. Too much of it is toxic. So the key is having the right amount of it. Get too much and you die. Get too little and you die.

    “So tell me since they can predict what the temperature will be in 100yrs due to co2 levels what is the exact concentration of that co2 should be in the atmosphere to sustain life and not hurt it?”

    I’ve no idea off the top of my head. I’m sure the experts do. But considering that there will always be carbon dioxide. It has always been there. What has changed is that humanity over the last 200 years has pumped out an unsustainable amount of it.

    And here is the rub. Carbon dioxide may make up a small amount of the atmosphere. But it makes up a huge amount of the atmosphere that interacts with infrared radiation. And has the biggest impact on the greenhouse effect.

    Water vapour, while accounting for about 50% of the greenhouse effect, is caused by global warming, not the cause of it. So it has a reinforcing effect (the higher temperatures get the more water vapour, thus increasing the amount of temperature). The major impacts are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

  49. 1mg of cesium-137 will kill you, but 1mg of arsenic will not…. everything must be put in perspective.

    How much saturation of CO2 will feed the plants and not “change the atmosphere” to heat or cool the planet?

    Water vapour, while accounting for about 50% of the greenhouse effect, is caused by global warming, not the cause of it. So it has a reinforcing effect (the higher temperatures get the more water vapour, thus increasing the amount of temperature). The major impacts are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

    not true, and true.

    Here is where things get beyond mans ability to calculate even with the computers of today. Identifying variables.

    In the earths’s history there have been periods where co2 was as high as 9000 ppm during ice ages, Why ? with that amount of co2 the planet should have been roasting but it wasn’t. Why not?

    Because the earth’s orbit around the sun was on an outer loop of rotation. The planet drifts. When it’s drifting out less solar radiation heats the atmosphere causing less water in the oceans to evaporate which causes a cooling of the planet and as the ice spreads it kills the plant life that exists except for the seed and root systems. CO2 rises to astronomical rates because the plants aren’t filtering it out. When the Earth’s rotation drifts closer the ice melts, the plants regrow and filter out the excess co2 as they grow and feed.

    We do not have enough data to predict the earth’s drift. There is no way to calculate where we will be in the drift 100 years from now. We may be closer, we may be further from the sun. Without that knowledge all predictions in climate are guesses made with the greatest variable not being able to be added to the model.

  50. “How much saturation of CO2 will feed the plants and not “change the atmosphere” to heat or cool the planet?”

    They amount we had 3 centuries ago.

    CO2/Temperature models have been remarkable predictable. They have been backtracked and have predicted the temperature in the past (to remarkable accuracy) and have been projected forward (again with remarkable accuracy).

  51. then why aren’t NY and London under water as predicted?

    You can’t cherry pick results. If the co2 level models are as accurate as they say explain why the results predicted have not occurred?

    Simple…. because there are variables in the equation that science either hasn’t identified or has not calculated properly.

  52. “then why aren’t NY and London under water as predicted?”

    Where was it predicted that they would be?

  53. What about heightened levels of lead in the environment/atmosphere? That can hardly be blamed on ‘cow farts?’

  54. “Where was it predicted that they would be?”
    In the comic 2000AD, circa 1983, I think 😁

  55. If you can’t accept Darwin you are a lost cause to scientific debate……. heretic

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heretic-Scientists-Journey-Darwin-Design/dp/1936599503/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=heretic&qid=1555016776&s=books&sr=1-2

    “This book is a personal, strong, and motivated plea for intelligent design (ID) and ‘swims against the current’ of Darwinian evolution, now generally accepted in scientific circles and society. I personally do not endorse ID, but I am a good friend of the author, whom I also highly respect as a scientist active in academia and in the biotech industry over so many years. Heretic inspires readers to think critically and to open up a civilized discussion on neo-Darwinism versus ID. It covers the science and philosophical parts adequately; it is accessible to a large readership; and statements are underpinned by relevant research and literature data. Its value lies in the author’s lifelong engagement and personal crusade to stimulate the public debate among scientists as well as laymen over Darwinism (chance/random mutation and natural selection) versus ID, a vision that Leisola strongly advocates.” Dr. Erick J. Vandamme, Emeritus Professor of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium

    The usual response to any questioning of the theory of evolution is to label the doubter a ‘creationist’, the labeller generally being somebody who cannot see the absurdity of believing that everything came out of a flash 13.8 billion years and 10 days ago

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.