Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80

Thread: MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC

  1. #1 MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Here is an article by a man who can explain things rather well:

    FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD:

    Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

    To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

    On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth's climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.
    RSJ Logo
    Rocket Scientist’s Journal
    … UNDER CONSTRUCTION …

    1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

    A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

    2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

    Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.

    3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.

    This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry's Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry's Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.

    Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man's emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC's conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in latitude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.

    4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.

    5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.

    The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.

    6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the accumulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.

    Thus IPCC models Earth's carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.

    As a result, IPCC's conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it accumulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.

    7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth's climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.

    In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth's internal heat.

    In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth's surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.

    As Earth's atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth's climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.

    8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth's climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

    By omitting dynamic cloud albedo, IPCC overestimates the greenhouse effect by about an order of magnitude (computation pending publication), and fails to understand that Earth's climate today is regulated by cloud albedo and not the greenhouse effect, much less by CO2.

    © 2009 JAGlassman. All rights reserved.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    and we need this as a separate thread, from the ~4 other active climate threads WHY????


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Because the others don't start off in caps, methinks.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Because the others don't start off in caps, methinks.
    That was because the title I copied was in caps.

    I notice that there is lack if intelligent discourse on the subject. I guess that means it's hard to dispute Dr. Glassman's work.
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    basically the critique of the model is that it does what all models do, which is to simplify reality so that it can be calculated

    the debate is whether these simplifications matter (as Jeffrey Glassman does) or whether they don't (as the IPCC does)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I notice that there is lack if intelligent discourse on the subject. I guess that means it's hard to dispute Dr. Glassman's work.
    Mmm, yes, that's probably it.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
    Well, I'm not on the fence about it. I know enough facts to know most the warming is natural, and man doesn't make enough of an impact compared to nature.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
    Well, I'm not on the fence about it. I know enough facts to know most the warming is natural, and man doesn't make enough of an impact compared to nature.
    And we don't give our planet enough credit. It'll be around long after we're gone, and it'll be none the wiser that we were ever here.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
    Well, I'm not on the fence about it. I know enough facts to know most the warming is natural, and man doesn't make enough of an impact compared to nature.
    Hmm. Let's imagine for a moment that volcanoes had been so active over the past 150 years that their eruptions had actually doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And let's say there was a concurrent warming with that increased volcanic activity.

    Under such a scenario, would you consider that increased volcanic activity had been responsible for the planet warming?
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
    Well, I'm not on the fence about it. I know enough facts to know most the warming is natural, and man doesn't make enough of an impact compared to nature.
    And we don't give our planet enough credit. It'll be around long after we're gone, and it'll be none the wiser that we were ever here.
    No one has suggested otherwise, on either side.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Hmm. Let's imagine for a moment that volcanoes had been so active over the past 150 years that their eruptions had actually doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And let's say there was a concurrent warming with that increased volcanic activity.

    Under such a scenario, would you consider that increased volcanic activity had been responsible for the planet warming?
    The evidence I see is that doubling of CO2 would only create a warming of about with a maximum of 0.3 C. Probably be about half that. Now at first, we would see a cooling effect from the volcano blocking the sun.

    We have seen am increase from about 280 ppm to 387 ppm, or about a 38% increase. The approximate middle of the 9% to 26% range that CO2 attributes to Global Warming puts this at about a 0.4 C increase when you look at the math, and use 18%. That would equate to about a 0.7 C increase for a doubling. I am firm that CO2 accounts for less than half the warming it is attributed to having.

    One of the fatal flaws the IPCC does is attribute 1.46 watts of forcing for a 1998 CO2 level of 365 ppm, then a 1.53 watt forcing for a 2007 level of 383 ppm. This is linear and intersects at zero. Warming due to CO2 is logarithmic! They lie over and over.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Hmm. Let's imagine for a moment that volcanoes had been so active over the past 150 years that their eruptions had actually doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And let's say there was a concurrent warming with that increased volcanic activity.

    Under such a scenario, would you consider that increased volcanic activity had been responsible for the planet warming?
    The evidence I see is that doubling of CO2 would only create a warming of about with a maximum of 0.3 C. Probably be about half that. Now at first, we would see a cooling effect from the volcano blocking the sun.

    We have seen am increase from about 280 ppm to 387 ppm, or about a 38% increase. The approximate middle of the 9% to 26% range that CO2 attributes to Global Warming puts this at about a 0.4 C increase when you look at the math, and use 18%. That would equate to about a 0.7 C increase for a doubling. I am firm that CO2 accounts for less than half the warming it is attributed to having.

    One of the fatal flaws the IPCC does is attribute 1.46 watts of forcing for a 1998 CO2 level of 365 ppm, then a 1.53 watt forcing for a 2007 level of 383 ppm. This is linear and intersects at zero. Warming due to CO2 is logarithmic! They lie over and over.
    You did not answer the question. If volcanic activity had caused a doubling in atmospheric CO2 levels, with concurrent warming, would you consider the idea that volcanic activity bore responsibility for the warming? It is a yes or no type question.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    You did not answer the question. If volcanic activity had caused a doubling in atmospheric CO2 levels, with concurrent warming, would you consider the idea that volcanic activity bore responsibility for the warming? It is a yes or no type question.
    Give me a break.

    That is not a yes or no answer without qualifying it with "if all other factors remain the same."

    If all other factors remain the same, then yes. And the amount of warming would be slight like I indicated for a doubling of CO2.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Here is an article by a man who can explain things rather well:
    His lead sentence is a bullshit rightwing propaganda talking point.
    Quote Originally Posted by phd
    Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus.
    The claim that the science behind AGW relies on consensus is bs. The political effort and hoopla relies on such political manuevers, but not the science.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The evidence I see is that doubling of CO2 would only create a warming of about with a maximum of 0.3 C. Probably be about half that.
    The evidence that I see points to significantly more warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    One of the fatal flaws the IPCC does is attribute 1.46 watts of forcing for a 1998 CO2 level of 365 ppm, then a 1.53 watt forcing for a 2007 level of 383 ppm. This is linear and intersects at zero. Warming due to CO2 is logarithmic!
    That could be logarithmic, especially if - as has been asserted - the current concentration of CO2 is at the "bump" of the log curve.

    Or maybe: realistic warming from CO2 including all feedbacks, etc, is not logarithmic.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Here is an article by a man who can explain things rather well:
    His lead sentence is a bullshit rightwing propaganda talking point.
    Quote Originally Posted by phd
    Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus.
    The claim that the science behind AGW relies on consensus is bs. The political effort and hoopla relies on such political manuevers, but not the science.
    Then why do so many people point out how many scientists agree with a particular viewpoint?

    I see it as a statement of fact. Not political.

    Please don't turn this into politics. It's science. It is a fact that other scientists disagree. Science isn't something you vote on. I read both sides literature, and agree with the deniers. I understand the sciences enough that I am certain.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The evidence I see is that doubling of CO2 would only create a warming of about with a maximum of 0.3 C. Probably be about half that.
    The evidence that I see points to significantly more warming.
    Data and supporting math please.

    I gave most of mine, including the mathematical fact that if CO2 does contribute to 26% of the greenhouse effect, that doubling it only causes a 0.998 C increase.

    I have yet to see proper evidence of CO2 warming potential to any significant degree. If you have a source that applies scientific facts rather than observation of effect, I would love to see it. The problem we have with modeling CO2 by our paleoclimatology is we cannot model all variable accurate enough. Then when the IPCC conveniently leaves out 0.82 watts of radiative warming from 1750, the results are already tainted. That's already half the warning they claim CO2 is responsible for. In reality, total effect from solar radiation has a lag time also, because the oceans store it, and they are 71% of the surface. If we start from just before 1700, we have a 0.24% increase of solar energy, which equates to about 1.36 watts of radiative forcing. That's 1.24 watts more than the IPCC claims and if we subtract this from the 1.66 watts for CO2, CO2 is only left with a forcing of 0.42 watts. Only 1/4 what the IPCC claims. I still haven't subtracted their errors on Black Carbon, which are 0.6 watts greater. Now of course, CO2 has some effect, but it's even closer to zero now.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    One of the fatal flaws the IPCC does is attribute 1.46 watts of forcing for a 1998 CO2 level of 365 ppm, then a 1.53 watt forcing for a 2007 level of 383 ppm. This is linear and intersects at zero. Warming due to CO2 is logarithmic!
    That could be logarithmic, especially if - as has been asserted - the current concentration of CO2 is at the "bump" of the log curve.

    Or maybe: realistic warming from CO2 including all feedbacks, etc, is not logarithmic.
    OMG... Please, tell me you don't believe that...
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Is there any wonder I'm on the fence about global warming? Actually, screw that. I don't give a rat's ass about it. I'll see you guys later...I gotta go richen up the air/fuel ratio on my race car.
    Well, I'm not on the fence about it. I know enough facts to know most the warming is natural, and man doesn't make enough of an impact compared to nature.
    And we don't give our planet enough credit. It'll be around long after we're gone, and it'll be none the wiser that we were ever here.
    No one has suggested otherwise, on either side.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdTPy...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5l8i...eature=related
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    You did not answer the question. If volcanic activity had caused a doubling in atmospheric CO2 levels, with concurrent warming, would you consider the idea that volcanic activity bore responsibility for the warming? It is a yes or no type question.
    Give me a break.

    That is not a yes or no answer without qualifying it with "if all other factors remain the same."

    If all other factors remain the same, then yes. And the amount of warming would be slight like I indicated for a doubling of CO2.
    The problem with the denialist position is that it distinguishes 'human-caused' from 'natural.' Such a distinction is meaningless. Humans, including their technology, are part of nature, and whether a warming event is human caused or not, if it is a threat then it is in our best interest to mitigate it.

    If warming were entirely down to increased solar output or some such, it would still be in our best interest to mitigate it. Denialists imply that a 'natural' warming cycle is not somethign to try to avert. One imagines that if a meteor was heading towards the planet these denialists would therefore claim that we should do nothing but allow such a catastriophe to happen.

    If the CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of warming, this is another red herring. Aside from the oversimiplification of such a calculation, positive and negative feedbacks on climate abound. It is perfectly logical to mitigate where we are able, whether or not those mitigations are directly addressing the source of warming.

    Again, if solar output had increased substantially, we would not simply say that 100% of warming is natural, and sit idly by twiddling our thumbs. We would develop strategies to offset such warming.

    CO2 cap or sequestration is such a strategy.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The problem with the denialist position is that it distinguishes 'human-caused' from 'natural.' Such a distinction is meaningless. Humans, including their technology, are part of nature, and whether a warming event is human caused or not, if it is a threat then it is in our best interest to mitigate it.
    Oh really?

    I see it as the alarmist position to claim how much anthropogenic greenhouse gasses remain. I find it laughable when they are under 4% of the CO2 emitted on an annual basis.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    If warming were entirely down to increased solar output or some such, it would still be in our best interest to mitigate it.
    Why? Haven't you noticed what we have gained by it? More CO2 is especially helpful for better crop yields. Small degrees of warning are not a threat, and we have three or more times in the Vostok core samples showing we were warmer than today.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Denialists imply that a 'natural' warming cycle is not somethign to try to avert.
    Adapt and change.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    One imagines that if a meteor was heading towards the planet these denialists would therefore claim that we should do nothing but allow such a catastriophe to happen.
    That's a different thing. There is nothing catastrophic about natural warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    If the CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of warming, this is another red herring. Aside from the oversimiplification of such a calculation, positive and negative feedbacks on climate abound. It is perfectly logical to mitigate where we are able, whether or not those mitigations are directly addressing the source of warming.
    Again, why? Nothing is out of control. We have maintained a ±2° Celsius temperature range for the last 11,000 years. What makes you think that will change?
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Again, if solar output had increased substantially, we would not simply say that 100% of warming is natural, and sit idly by twiddling our thumbs. We would develop strategies to offset such warming.
    What is substantial? It rises and falls like anything else in nature. We have likely seen it's peak in our lifetime, and likely seen the bottom in the tree ring records just before 1700. This change has been about 0.3%, low to high. A total difference that allows for just under a 1° C change.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    CO2 cap or sequestration is such a strategy.
    Which isn't a bad idea where cost effective. However, added CO2 is good for plant life.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    I think with the rate of climate change, it would be easier to adapt to the warm weather than to waste our resources trying to stop it.

    Last time I was at the beach, the shoreline wasn't creeping up towards the boardwalk because of the rising sea levels.

    What's the predicted rise in ocean levels under the worst case scenario? And if Arctic ice pretty much nearly melts in the summer, why don't we see a massive seasonal rise in ocean levels every year?
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    What's the predicted rise in ocean levels under the worst case scenario?
    The average projection is about 3-6 meters, but it could be higher depending upon the intensity of the more difficult to predict outputs like methane and huge stores of CO2 being released from melting permafrost.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    And if Arctic ice pretty much nearly melts in the summer, why don't we see a massive seasonal rise in ocean levels every year?
    Because that is only surface ice which is melting during those times. The challenge here is that the sub-surface ice is currently melting, and that process is being sped by cavitation and erosive forces.

    Here's a good link to explore for a general sense of things:
    http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    And if Arctic ice pretty much nearly melts in the summer, why don't we see a massive seasonal rise in ocean levels every year?
    Full melt of the arctic ice, zero increase in sea level. It takes the melting of land ice to increase the sea level. Floating ice has no effect on level.

    How much if Greenland and Antarctica melted? Several meters. I forget how much. Maybe 20 meters? Not going to bother looking it up.
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It takes the melting of land ice to increase the sea level. Floating ice has no effect on level.
    That's perhaps the first correct comment you've made on this issue. Thanks for correcting my mistaken comment. I knew that, and yet misspoke above.

    It takes melt from ice over land to cause the sea levels to rise, as the ice in the water is already displacing the water it's in (the ice is in the water, so melting of that ice won't have an appreciable effect on the sea level). It takes the melting of ice which is on land to cause sea levels to rise, since the ice will flow from the land into the water... and when it was in ice form (over land) it was not yet displacing any water since it was supported by the landmass below it.
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    How much if Greenland and Antarctica melted? Several meters. I forget how much. Maybe 20 meters? Not going to bother looking it up.
    More than 60 meters.

    A one or two meter rise would destroy most of the most productive rice agriculture on the planet. That is easily available from the known melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, in a century or two.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Again, why? Nothing is out of control. We have maintained a ±2° Celsius temperature range for the last 11,000 years. What makes you think that will change?
    We are doubling the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. We expect that to have serious effects - and we are already at the high end of the recent temperature ranges (last million years or so).
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The evidence I see is that doubling of CO2 would only create a warming of about with a maximum of 0.3 C. Probably be about half that.
    The evidence that I see points to significantly more warming.

    Data and supporting math please.

    I gave most of mine, including the mathematical fact that if CO2 does contribute to 26% of the greenhouse effect, that doubling it only causes a 0.998 C increase.
    ,998 is more than triple .3. It is 6 times "half that". And that's without the feedback from water vapor, methane hydrates, peat thawing methane, etc.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The problem with the denialist position is that it distinguishes 'human-caused' from 'natural.' Such a distinction is meaningless. Humans, including their technology, are part of nature, and whether a warming event is human caused or not, if it is a threat then it is in our best interest to mitigate it.
    Oh really?

    I see it as the alarmist position to claim how much anthropogenic greenhouse gasses remain. I find it laughable when they are under 4% of the CO2 emitted on an annual basis.
    You are 'moving goalposts' I believe the phrase is. My commentary is specifically about the denialist's tactics, and you are demonstrating them here.


    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    If warming were entirely down to increased solar output or some such, it would still be in our best interest to mitigate it.
    Why? Haven't you noticed what we have gained by it? More CO2 is especially helpful for better crop yields. Small degrees of warning are not a threat, and we have three or more times in the Vostok core samples showing we were warmer than today.
    Crops are failing due to changes in climate and rainfall patterns.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Denialists imply that a 'natural' warming cycle is not somethign to try to avert.
    Adapt and change.
    Indeed. Change technology to adapt to our new understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    One imagines that if a meteor was heading towards the planet these denialists would therefore claim that we should do nothing but allow such a catastriophe to happen.
    That's a different thing. There is nothing catastrophic about natural warming.
    So you admit that the argument that warming is 'natural' is flawed - on at least one level. A natural event should be averted if it poses a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    If the CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of warming, this is another red herring. Aside from the oversimiplification of such a calculation, positive and negative feedbacks on climate abound. It is perfectly logical to mitigate where we are able, whether or not those mitigations are directly addressing the source of warming.
    Again, why? Nothing is out of control. We have maintained a ±2° Celsius temperature range for the last 11,000 years. What makes you think that will change?
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Again, if solar output had increased substantially, we would not simply say that 100% of warming is natural, and sit idly by twiddling our thumbs. We would develop strategies to offset such warming.
    What is substantial? It rises and falls like anything else in nature. We have likely seen it's peak in our lifetime, and likely seen the bottom in the tree ring records just before 1700. This change has been about 0.3%, low to high. A total difference that allows for just under a 1° C change.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    CO2 cap or sequestration is such a strategy.
    Which isn't a bad idea where cost effective. However, added CO2 is good for plant life.
    This is becoming tiresome.
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    If the CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of warming, this is another red herring. Aside from the oversimiplification of such a calculation, positive and negative feedbacks on climate abound. It is perfectly logical to mitigate where we are able, whether or not those mitigations are directly addressing the source of warming.

    Again, if solar output had increased substantially, we would not simply say that 100% of warming is natural, and sit idly by twiddling our thumbs. We would develop strategies to offset such warming.

    CO2 cap or sequestration is such a strategy.

    I think this is an interesting argument. "Regardless of the cause if we can establish that climate change has avoidable consequences and the benefits of doing something outweigh the costs we should take action.

    The problem is that we currently do not have enough information to make good and effective decisions. We certainly don't know what will happen if we do nothing. We don't know what will happen if we take steps to reduce CO2 concentration. We don't know if we will contribute to a new and worse problem like severe global cooling. If we are going to take action we have got to be very certain we understand wht it is likely to accomplish and how much it is going to cost.
     

  28. #27  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The problem is that we currently do not have enough information to make good and effective decisions.
    Yes, we do. Some people just choose to ignore/deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    We certainly don't know what will happen if we do nothing.
    Yes, we do. Some people just choose to ignore/deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    We don't know what will happen if we take steps to reduce CO2 concentration.
    Yes, we do. Some people just choose to ignore/deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    We don't know if we will contribute to a new and worse problem like severe global cooling.
    Yes, we do. Some people just choose to ignore/deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    If we are going to take action we have got to be very certain we understand wht it is likely to accomplish and how much it is going to cost.
    Actually, more important is to properly represent "cost." Most people care only about short-term immediate monetary costs, and lose total sight of long-term health, security, and opportunity costs... or the cost of failing to take action now. Those are the true costs to consider.

    Supporting these points, a recent study found that the annual health costs as a result of our burning fossil fuels are about $120 billion. The majority of these costs are related to premature deaths as a result of pollution as well as preventable diseases like asthma. None of these costs can be found in the price we pay for a gallon of gas or a kilowatt-hour of electricity.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794


    Another study found that global production of the six largest crops suffered significant losses due to global warming between 1981 and 2002. The study also found that global wheat growers lost $2.6 billion in 2002. Again, none of these costs end up on our monthly utility bill.

    https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug07/NewsJulAug07.html


    Then there are the national security costs. A RAND Corporation study released earlier this year looked at the cost to the U.S. taxpayer of protecting the supply and transit of oil from the Persian Gulf. The study found that the annual cost to U.S. taxpayers is more than $90 billion — about 12% to 15%of the current U.S. defense budget. Once again, these costs are not included in the price we pay for gas or electricity.

    http://www.rand.org/nsrd/


    And, there are countless other "costs" which require inclusion in these discussions. If you're going to raise the specter of "cost," then at least have the integrity to represent the issue authentically and honestly.
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    honestly inow, how can you be so certain you are correct? Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions and yet you act as if you are certain you are correct. How is it that you are so much more accurate than the researchers who labor to discover truth only to fail more often than not?

    You have never examined the raw data to verify the claims being made. You don't understand the physical properties of the systems involved, you cannot articulate where explanations have merit and where they are bogus and yet you are certain.....

    Wild Cobra has very clearly studied both sides of the argument carefully. He seems to have a decent grasp of the physical science behind it and he is uncertain about what's going on. He is leaning in one direction, but clearly he seems open to alternatives.

    What is it about you that makes you want AGW to be true so badly?
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Wild Cobra has very clearly studied both sides of the argument carefully. He seems to have a decent grasp of the physical science behind it and he is uncertain about what's going on. He is leaning in one direction, but clearly he seems open to alternatives.
    Thank You, but you do miss my points a bit I think too. The only gray areas for me are the lesser impacts that I haven't spent much time studying.

    I clearly see that CO2 is not a threat. CO2 does more good for us than bad. Particularly in crop yields.

    I clearly see than the majority of measured climate changes are due to the sun. It accounts for 99.998% of the earths heat. It cannot be dismissed, and anyone who dismisses it deserves to be ignored.

    I am open to power alternatives that do not cost much more to produce power, and at the moment, I favor methane fuel cells for portable power, like for an automobile. We will never run out of oil, but that's because supply and demand will make it too costly to use and the supply dwindles. We need to find other methods.

    I am a solid believer that mans biggest impact on global temperature was a cooling from pollution until we established pollution controls, and heating due to Asia, mostly China, having so many coal powered power plants, without using clean burning technology like most our plant use here in the USA. The soot on ice has had a dramatic impact on the Arctic ice cap melting in the summer.

    Did you guys know that a few years ago, China exceeded the USA in carbon emissions? I think it was 2006 when that happened.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    If the CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of warming, this is another red herring. Aside from the oversimiplification of such a calculation, positive and negative feedbacks on climate abound. It is perfectly logical to mitigate where we are able, whether or not those mitigations are directly addressing the source of warming.

    Again, if solar output had increased substantially, we would not simply say that 100% of warming is natural, and sit idly by twiddling our thumbs. We would develop strategies to offset such warming.

    CO2 cap or sequestration is such a strategy.

    I think this is an interesting argument. "Regardless of the cause if we can establish that climate change has avoidable consequences and the benefits of doing something outweigh the costs we should take action.

    The problem is that we currently do not have enough information to make good and effective decisions. We certainly don't know what will happen if we do nothing. We don't know what will happen if we take steps to reduce CO2 concentration. We don't know if we will contribute to a new and worse problem like severe global cooling. If we are going to take action we have got to be very certain we understand wht it is likely to accomplish and how much it is going to cost.
    It is safe to say that the planet has never had this many humans on it before, and that our technology is a stressor that has never been tested before.

    It is blindingly obvious that reducing environmental impact will be less transformative to the environment (ie better) than a capitalistic free-for-all.

    This is not limited to carbon.
     

  32. #31  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions
    Really? Did you also know that 47.3% of all statistics are made up?


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You have never examined the raw data to verify the claims being made.
    Rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You don't understand the physical properties of the systems involved,
    More rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    you cannot articulate where explanations have merit and where they are bogus and yet you are certain.....
    Not only have I articulated where explanations have merit, but I have shared sources in support of my assertions. You're oh for three there, chief. Sure you want to keep swinging?


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Wild Cobra has very clearly studied both sides of the argument carefully.
    And yet his conclusions remain incorrect, his representations of the system remedial and rather often ignoring key variables, and his premises flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    He is leaning in one direction, but clearly he seems open to alternatives.
    This comment is unsupported by his posts here. In fact, both his tenor and tone on this topic suggest the exact opposite. His mind is made up, and he is wearing a condom on his head which makes him impervious to evidence demonstrating his claims to be false.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What is it about you that makes you want AGW to be true so badly?
    There is nothing inside of me that "wants" AGW to be true. You know what's inside of me? A desire for others not to be disingenuous, and a strong attachment to validity and truth in comments. I think some people call that integrity. That's what is inside of me. You should try it sometime. It would be a much welcomed change.

















    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I clearly see that CO2 is not a threat. CO2 does more good for us than bad. Particularly in crop yields.
    Nope. Not so.

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._1_014002.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I clearly see than the majority of measured climate changes are due to the sun. It accounts for 99.998% of the earths heat. It cannot be dismissed, and anyone who dismisses it deserves to be ignored.
    And, you are wrong. Nobody says the sun is not a source of heat, so let's avoid the strawmen, shall we? What people DO say is that the sun cannot explain the recent upward trend in global average annual temperatures/climate.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    It is safe to say that the planet has never had this many humans on it before, and that our technology is a stressor that has never been tested before.

    It is blindingly obvious that reducing environmental impact will be less transformative to the environment (ie better) than a capitalistic free-for-all.

    This is not limited to carbon.
    Nobody is saying we don't have an impact, we only say the impact of CO2 is insignificant. I however am worried about man's Black Carbon (soot) emissions on the snow and ice. I see this as the most severe impact man has, and I want that issue addressed.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I clearly see that CO2 is not a threat. CO2 does more good for us than bad. Particularly in crop yields.
    Nope. Not so.

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._1_014002.html
    Liar.

    Yes... I am calling you out.

    At the risk of being chastised by our moderator, you are not only a liar, but a total buffoon.

    I said CO2 is good for our crops. You say I am wrong, and the article you cite says heat is not good for the crops. It doesn't say a damn thing about CO2. I am tired or your relentless stupidity.

    Can't you even comprehend how foolish you are?

    Heat and CO2 are not the same!

    You do it over and over. I have asked several time for you to explain why I am wrong, and all you do is link useless articles that don't prove a damn thing.

    I am tired of your level of incompetence, acting as if you understand a topic, saying I am wrong when you cannot back up a single claim. All you do is post links.

    I am absolutely fed up with you incompetence to respond with intelligent answers.
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I clearly see that CO2 is not a threat. CO2 does more good for us than bad. Particularly in crop yields.
    Nope. Not so.

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._1_014002.html
    Liar.

    Yes... I am calling you out.

    At the risk of being chastised by our moderator, you are not only a liar, but a total buffoon.

    I said CO2 is good for our crops. You say I am wrong, and the article you cite says heat is not good for the crops. It doesn't say a damn thing about CO2. I am tired or your relentless stupidity.

    Can't you even comprehend how foolish you are?

    Heat and CO2 are not the same!

    You do it over and over. I have asked several time for you to explain why I am wrong, and all you do is link useless articles that don't prove a damn thing.

    I am tired of your level of incompetence, acting as if you understand a topic, saying I am wrong when you cannot back up a single claim. All you do is post links.

    I am absolutely fed up with you incompetence to respond with intelligent answers.
    Uh huh.


    From my link:
    The results suggest that recent climate trends, attributable to human activity [22], have had a discernible negative impact on global production of several major crops. The impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2 levels
    <...>
    If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm) [23, 24], then the ~ 35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields. This conclusion challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses up to ~ 2° warming (1).



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Nobody is saying we don't have an impact, we only say the impact of CO2 is insignificant.
    And your comments have been repeatedly shown flawed.
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I see it as a statement of fact. Not political.

    Please don't turn this into politics
    When people post articles they praise for their "science", and the lead sentences - the very first words from these articles - retail bullshit rightwing propaganda talking points, it becomes difficult to avoid all political discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The problem is that we currently do not have enough information to make good and effective decisions
    We have to make the decisions anyway. Let's go with our best judgment, the preponderance of evidence, and the soundest arguments.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Inow, the use of an article that believes CO2 is the cause of temperature. Assume for a moment that CO2 does not generate that much heat. Yes, too much heat is harmful to some crops. CO2 however isn't.

    Hydrofarm CO2 Injection Kit, part of text:

    Hydrofarm CO2 emitter systems include everything needed to generate the ideal CO2 level of 1500 PPM into your growing space.
    That's only about 4 times our current level.

    Do yourself a favor, and google some non-global warming sites about the effect ofnCO2 on plants.
     

  38. #37  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    The simple fact remains, WC... CO2 leads to warming, and the warming we are experiencing results in more significant negative impacts on plants than it does in positive impacts on those plants. The "benefit" you cite that plants experience as a result of CO2 increase is outweighed (or, at the very least, negated and rendered moot) by the temperature increase which also results from that same CO2 increase. I have also cited recent empirical evidence in support of my rebuttal to your claim.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The simple fact remains, WC... CO2 leads to warming, and the warming we are experiencing results in more significant negative impacts on plants than it does in positive impacts on those plants. The "benefit" you cite that plants experience as a result of CO2 increase is outweighed (or, at the very least, negated and rendered moot) by the temperature increase which also results from that same CO2 increase. I have also cited recent empirical evidence in support of my rebuttal to your claim.
    You cannot prove that. If you think you can, show me the data and science behind it. Not just because you find links that your nanny governmental climate agency told you so.
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    You cannot prove that. If you think you can, show me the data and science behind it. Not just because you find links that your nanny governmental climate agency told you so.
    I already have shared multiple citations and references with you, WC. You simply dismissed them all as propaganda, and the tone of your post above suggests you will continue to do the same. MANY (if not most) of my links came from sources which had nothing to do with IPCC, and you dismissed them, too. So... No thanks. You've shown your lack of academic integrity, and you continually fail to argue in good faith. I have no interest in continuing this exchange.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    You cannot prove that. If you think you can, show me the data and science behind it. Not just because you find links that your nanny governmental climate agency told you so.
    I already have shared multiple citations and references with you, WC. You simply dismissed them all as propaganda, and the tone of your post above suggests you will continue to do the same.
    All the threads you link only give opinions. Do data or explaination of methodology. That is not a scientific explaination.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    MANY (if not most) of my links came from sources which had nothing to do with IPCC, and you dismissed them, too. So... No thanks.
    From people caught up in the GW fad. Again, no discussion of data and methodology.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You've shown your lack of academic integrity, and you continually fail to argue in good faith. I have no interest in continuing this exchange.
    I have explained on several topics how I derived at my conclusions and shown good data, and you question my integrity? How about attempting to do what I have. Correlate data and methodology. It is you who lack good faith and integrity.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Assume for a moment that CO2 does not generate that much heat.
    On that planet, boosting CO2 might have a net benefit for many plants.

    On our planet, it benefits more those plants not injured in their normal habitat and season by greater evapotranspirative deficits in the overall weather, and having more than minimal flexibility in stomatal response to temperature.

    Such as poison ivy, which is doing exceptionally well - even taking on woody forms in central Minnesota, something I've not seen much in my life.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions
    Really? Did you also know that 47.3% of all statistics are made up?
    That would explain why some of the research is in error. It would also explain how the IPCC might have many of their statistical estimates in error.

    I can support my claim about research because I try to maintain some of the integrity you speak of. Are you suggesting I made this up?
     

  44. #43  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I can support my claim about research because I try to maintain some of the integrity you speak of. Are you suggesting I made this up?
    Yep. Either made up or spun or shared out of context. That's precisely what I am suggesting.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I can support my claim about research because I try to maintain some of the integrity you speak of. Are you suggesting I made this up?
    Yep. Either made up or spun or shared out of context. That's precisely what I am suggesting.
    Please show me how he is wrong with data and scientific methodology.

    This is a science forum you know.
     

  46. #45  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I can support my claim about research because I try to maintain some of the integrity you speak of. Are you suggesting I made this up?
    Yep. Either made up or spun or shared out of context. That's precisely what I am suggesting.
    Please show me how he is wrong with data and scientific methodology.

    This is a science forum you know.
    He made the claim about flaws. I challenged it. The onus is on him to provide said evidence. Once he has, I'll gladly point to the flaws as appropriate. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    He made the claim about flaws. I challenged it. The onus is on him to provide said evidence. Once he has, I'll gladly point to the flaws as appropriate. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though.
    Well, that response definite comes at no surprise. You have not yet been able to make a sound scientific argument. Why should I expect you to start now?
     

  48. #47  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    When I make a claim, Wild Cobra, I will gladly support it and offer references and citations. I simply expect the same from others. Cypress claimed that "Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions." He has yet to demonstrate the veracity of that claim, and all of your attempts to attack my character or style will not change that.

    I will continue to await that supporting and context-giving information from Cypress, but TBH I am doubtful he'll step up to the challenge.
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I will continue to await that supporting and context-giving information from Cypress, but TBH I am doubtful he'll step up to the challenge.
    And I will continue to wait for you to show I am wrong about Global Warming, with scientific data and scientific methodology.
     

  50. #49  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    As I told you earlier in another thread... The fact that you are ignoring the counterpoints and arguments which show your claims false does not mean that nobody has offered any.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    As I told you earlier in another thread... The fact that you are ignoring the counterpoints and arguments which show your claims false does not mean that nobody has offered any.
    Links of propaganda are not counterpoints. If you wish to use them, at least quote a few relevant sentences. I will show how they are wrong, but not waste my time on the entire articles.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The simple fact remains, WC... CO2 leads to warming, and the warming we are experiencing results in more significant negative impacts on plants than it does in positive impacts on those plants. The "benefit" you cite that plants experience as a result of CO2 increase is outweighed (or, at the very least, negated and rendered moot) by the temperature increase which also results from that same CO2 increase. I have also cited recent empirical evidence in support of my rebuttal to your claim.
    Not to mention that putting forth such an argument is, again, illustrative of the general tactics.

    As I understand it, non-peer reviewed science is out, because it is not 'real science.' And, peer reviewed science is out, becauuse that is what the IPCC uses.

    That is quite a neat trick.
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When I make a claim, Wild Cobra, I will gladly support it and offer references and citations. I simply expect the same from others. Cypress claimed that "Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions." He has yet to demonstrate the veracity of that claim, and all of your attempts to attack my character or style will not change that.

    I will continue to await that supporting and context-giving information from Cypress, but TBH I am doubtful he'll step up to the challenge.

    I have provided you this information several times now and you have ignored it each time. Have a look at this thread for just one example of you ignoring my response to this same question.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-C...sis-21452t.php
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I suggest that everybody here is both right and wrong. I see people overextending their own position packages and discounting too much of the opponents'. It is really foolish to go on grooming a position for the sake of opposition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    the sun. It accounts for 99.998% of the earths heat. It cannot be dismissed
    Totally agree. It all starts there. So it is silly to budget heat loss with heat gain as a constant given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I am a solid believer that mans biggest impact on global temperature was a cooling from pollution until we established pollution controls...
    Yeah, I remember the smog. It was bad for our environment, because it offended the nose and eye. We did clean up, you're right. I doubt that smog is so unnatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    ...and heating due to Asia, mostly China, having so many coal powered power plants, without using clean burning technology like most our plant use here in the USA.
    So what's this!? USA pollution cools; Chinese pollution heats? That is such a transparently self-serving political theory you should be ashamed. It corrupts all the good you're put together. Throw it out!

    Then when you hear the Chinese blame it all on American cars, you needn't harden their argument. You want us all to be nonpartisan right?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  55. #54  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When I make a claim, Wild Cobra, I will gladly support it and offer references and citations. I simply expect the same from others. Cypress claimed that "Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions." He has yet to demonstrate the veracity of that claim, and all of your attempts to attack my character or style will not change that.

    I will continue to await that supporting and context-giving information from Cypress, but TBH I am doubtful he'll step up to the challenge.

    I have provided you this information several times now and you have ignored it each time. Have a look at this thread for just one example of you ignoring my response to this same question.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-C...sis-21452t.php
    Just as I thought. You were spinning the data, and excluding some rather relevant context. Once I got past your inability to just supply your source via a direct link (thus confirming my aforementioned doubt), I explored the link you gave me to another discussion in this forum. From that discussion, I scanned your posts, and finally found a link to a New Scientist article which seemed like it might be relevant to your claim. Fortunately for me, I clicked the link and it was the correct one. Yay! No more wasted time! Phew... Then, from that NS article, I found a link to the actual study you are using to poison the well of climate science research.


    Climate science is based on mountains of evidence. It is confirmed by thousands of different studies conducted by thousands of different scientists, each with their own preferences and politics and agendas. And yet, despite all of that difference and variability, the conclusions they reach are consistent and well aligned with one another. Further, there is a confluence of evidence from other research modalities... completely different research arenas ALSO confirm the conclusions.

    In sum, our conclusion that humans are having the largest impact on climate is not based on some lone study, or some tiny population sample, nor on the ramblings of just one or two people.

    With that said, let's look now at what the study you've been tossing about actually says, shall we:


    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020124
    The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
    Let me summarize what that means since you missed it. The probability of validity goes up as the study size increases. The probability of validity goes up when there are other sources supporting the hypothesis. The probability of validity goes up when the same conclusion is reached by different study types from different research arenas.

    Interestingly, your own link suggests that climate change research has a HIGHER probability of accuracy and validity. Fancy that!

    Oh yeah... And just so we're clear... the study you cited applies specifically to MEDICAL research, and cannot be adequately applied to climate research. This is especially apparent since the sample population leading to the study's results was all medical papers, and not a single paper on climate science.

    In short, cypress... Nothing but another epic fail from you. Enjoy your night.
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    ...and heating due to Asia, mostly China, having so many coal powered power plants, without using clean burning technology like most our plant use here in the USA.
    So what's this!? USA pollution cools; Chinese pollution heats? That is such a transparently self-serving political theory you should be ashamed. It corrupts all the good you're put together. Throw it out!

    Then when you hear the Chinese blame it all on American cars, you needn't harden their argument. You want us all to be nonpartisan right?
    Do you always jump to conclusions, or are you making up a false claim about my words because it's the only way to dispute me?

    If you have followed along, I specifically say why there is a difference. You see, the wind patterns take the black carbon emissions from Asia, and deposit in on the northern ice cap, melting it faster than normal. This causes the northern waters to absorb more heat than normal, adding to the earths energy budget.

    The heat reduction smog makes is small compared to what heat increase black carbon in ice does. Ice normally reflects ~90% of the solar energy. With a dirty surface, it now absorbs 45% to 85% of the solar energy, causing rapid ice melts. The extra exposed waters now absorb 92% of the solar energy they see. When we speak of one to three million square miles now exposed in the summer that are normally covered, this becomes a matter to be concerned of.
     

  57. #56  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Wild Cobra; Do you have a link that describes in detail this extra melting due to deposited black carbon? Actual measurements as well as a theoretical treatment? Sorry if you posted it already.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Wild Cobra; Do you have a link that describes in detail this extra melting due to deposited black carbon? Actual measurements as well as a theoretical treatment? Sorry if you posted it already.
    There is little in the way of measurement. We know that the albedo and emissivity change greatly with the purity of snow and ice. Here are a few links, with part of the text:

    Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
    New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.
    Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
    The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.
    Black and White: Soot on Ice
    Images above: This is a conceptual animation showing how polar ice reflects light from the sun. As this ice begins to melt, less sunlight gets reflected into space. It is instead absorbed into the oceans and land, raising the overall temperature, and fueling further melting. Darker, soot-covered ice reflects less light as well, part of the warming effect (no audio). Click on either image to view animation. Credit: NASA
    BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION
    Hansen and Nazarenko used a leading worldwide-climate computer model to simulate effects of greenhouse gases and other factors on world climate. The model incorporated data from NASA spacecraft that monitor the Earth's surface, vegetation, oceans and atmospheric qualities. The calculated global warming from soot in snow and ice, by itself in an 1880-2000 simulation, accounted for 25 percent of observed global warming. NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites are observing snow cover and reflectivity at multiple wavelengths, which allows quantitative monitoring of changing snow cover and effects of soot on snow.
    Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
    The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).

    That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic's proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world's aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.
    The Cryosphere Today



     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Thanks, I'll go through them. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When I make a claim, Wild Cobra, I will gladly support it and offer references and citations. I simply expect the same from others. Cypress claimed that "Over 50% of peer-reviewed research contain wrong conclusions." He has yet to demonstrate the veracity of that claim, and all of your attempts to attack my character or style will not change that.

    I will continue to await that supporting and context-giving information from Cypress, but TBH I am doubtful he'll step up to the challenge.

    I have provided you this information several times now and you have ignored it each time. Have a look at this thread for just one example of you ignoring my response to this same question.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-C...sis-21452t.php
    Just as I thought. You were spinning the data, and excluding some rather relevant context. Once I got past your inability to just supply your source via a direct link (thus confirming my aforementioned doubt), I explored the link you gave me to another discussion in this forum. From that discussion, I scanned your posts, and finally found a link to a New Scientist article which seemed like it might be relevant to your claim. Fortunately for me, I clicked the link and it was the correct one. Yay! No more wasted time! Phew... Then, from that NS article, I found a link to the actual study you are using to poison the well of climate science research.


    Climate science is based on mountains of evidence. It is confirmed by thousands of different studies conducted by thousands of different scientists, each with their own preferences and politics and agendas. And yet, despite all of that difference and variability, the conclusions they reach are consistent and well aligned with one another. Further, there is a confluence of evidence from other research modalities... completely different research arenas ALSO confirm the conclusions.

    In sum, our conclusion that humans are having the largest impact on climate is not based on some lone study, or some tiny population sample, nor on the ramblings of just one or two people.

    With that said, let's look now at what the study you've been tossing about actually says, shall we:


    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020124
    The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
    Let me summarize what that means since you missed it. The probability of validity goes up as the study size increases. The probability of validity goes up when there are other sources supporting the hypothesis. The probability of validity goes up when the same conclusion is reached by different study types from different research arenas.

    Interestingly, your own link suggests that climate change research has a HIGHER probability of accuracy and validity. Fancy that!

    Oh yeah... And just so we're clear... the study you cited applies specifically to MEDICAL research, and cannot be adequately applied to climate research. This is especially apparent since the sample population leading to the study's results was all medical papers, and not a single paper on climate science.

    In short, cypress... Nothing but another epic fail from you. Enjoy your night.
    Sorry Inow, you are just speculating that climate research is more accurate. You have no scientific basis, no study to support your presupposition. You are just guessing. Then when you add to it the many revisions in climate research including the hockey stick debacle and the numerous 2007 and 2008 revisions in GISS temperature data not to mention the 193,000 sqmi. revisions to artic ice last year, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not saying climate research is completely wrong, in fact I have acknowledged that many of your sources are correct for what they say. Most often they simply answer different questions. I am saying and Pong seems to agree, that your treatment that these climate researchers are infallible is unwarranted. I agree you are both right and wrong.
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Sorry Inow, you are just speculating that climate research is more accurate. You have no scientific basis, no study to support your presupposition.
    Nope. Look again. This time, more closely. I have made no claims, no speculations, nor any presuppositions. I merely said the link you shared cannot be applied to climate research, and explained precisely why that is so.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I am saying and Pong seems to agree, that your treatment that these climate researchers are infallible is unwarranted.
    Show me again where I did anything of the sort. This should be rich. Do you know what a strawman is, cypress?
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Sorry Inow, you are just speculating that climate research is more accurate. You have no scientific basis, no study to support your presupposition.
    Nope. Look again. This time, more closely. I have made no claims, no speculations, nor any presuppositions. I merely said the link you shared cannot be applied to climate research, and explained precisely why that is so.
    Your intent is clear. Furthermore, you provided no support that the results cannot be applied to all science. Nothing to indicate the pattern does not hold. By contrast we have strong indication that it does hold.

    Clearly you believe climate research conclusions stand apart.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I am saying and Pong seems to agree, that your treatment that these climate researchers are infallible is unwarranted.
    Show me again where I did anything of the sort. This should be rich. Do you know what a strawman is, cypress?
    You respond matter of factually that the opposing side is wrong and link a document by climate researchers as if they are correct by default. No explanation, just the document and a firm statement that you are correct and the opposing poster is wrong.
     

  63. #62  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Sorry Inow, you are just speculating that climate research is more accurate. You have no scientific basis, no study to support your presupposition.
    Nope. Look again. This time, more closely. I have made no claims, no speculations, nor any presuppositions. I merely said the link you shared cannot be applied to climate research, and explained precisely why that is so.
    Your intent is clear. Furthermore, you provided no support that the results cannot be applied to all science. Nothing to indicate the pattern does not hold.
    I don't have to. I have not made any claims. As anybody capable of reading can see, you are the one in this thread who made the claim that peer-reviewed science is full of holes and cannot be trusted. You did so in the context of climate research, both implicitly and explicitly stating that the work itself is wrong 50% without ever having enough integrity to show flaws in specific studies or to demonstrate where any conclusions are faulty.

    You were simply trying to poison the well, not show any specific conclusions false. When asked to support your claim regarding accuracy, you shared an article which was specific to medical research, and drew upon numbers regarding medical papers only.

    I simply pointed out to you that the study did not support your claim since it was completely unrelated to climate science. In essence, I was telling you that you'd have to find work showing flaws in climate change research if you'd like to apply the claim of inaccuracy to climate change research.

    You have been wholly unable to do this, and now you are back peddling and trying to shift the onus of proof to me... me who has not made any claims or assertions... instead of having enough integrity to support your own argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I am saying and Pong seems to agree, that your treatment that these climate researchers are infallible is unwarranted.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Show me again where I did anything of the sort. This should be rich. Do you know what a strawman is, cypress?
    You respond matter of factually that the opposing side is wrong and link a document by climate researchers as if they are correct by default. No explanation, just the document and a firm statement that you are correct and the opposing poster is wrong.
    Yeah. Fancy that. I actually support my claims and assertions with empirical evidence. Gosh. I show you evidence which demonstrates your assertions to be flawed and non-representative of reality, whereas you share nothing but a bunch of hand waving and ridiculous misrepresentations. If you prefer stupid games and misrepresentations, then so be it, but I prefer repeatable and verifiable evidence and that is what I share when I make a claim or challenge someone else's.

    As a result, you're trying to suggest that I should be ashamed of myself? You're a moron.
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Wild Cobra; Do you have a link....
    Here are some more interesting links:

    Black Carbon Pollution Emerges As Major Player In Global Warming; ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2008)
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2. The researchers also noted, however, that mitigation would have immediate societal benefits in addition to the long term effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    In the paper, Ramanathan and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes the body of climate change research.
    BLACK CARBON

    Black carbon is generally thought to have both a direct warming effect (by absorbing incoming solar radiation in the atmosphere and converting it to heat radiation) and an indirect warming effect (by reducing the reflectivity of snow and ice). Yet it has not been addressed by international or national global warming regulations.


    Global Warming by Veerabhadran Ramanathan

    Black carbon is probably the most insidious
    component of the haze as far as health is
    concerned; it is also the most important factor
    in terms of climate change. During the
    indoex campaign we deployed a suite of
    high-precision radiometers to discover that
    black carbon and other absorbing particles
    in the brown haze over the Indian Ocean and
    the Arabian Sea reduced sunlight by as much
    as 10–15 percent. The sunlight-reduction
    effect at the surface was larger by a factor of
    two or more than estimated by climate
    models. In terms of the ocean surface, black
    carbon in the brown haze reduces the average
    radiative heating by as much as 10 percent
    and enhances atmospheric solar radiative
    heating by as much as 50–100 percent.
    The Other Carbon: Reducing Black Carbon’s Role in Global Warming

    V. (Ram) Ramanathan of the UC-San Diego La Jolla, said that reducing black carbon could play an important role in reducing global climate change here at the AAAS annual meeting. Ramanathan said that a mere 10% reduction in black carbon would be equivalent to eliminating 25 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions. For scale, the world produces about 30 8 gigatons of CO2 equivalent per year (and 8 gigatons of carbon).

    Black carbon makes ice and snow packs dirty, reducing the reflectivity
    (aka albedo) of those materials. That makes them absorb more heat and melt more quickly, which is the kind of feedback loop that practically defines the climate change problem.
    Black Carbon and Global Warming

    Has a cute YOUTUBE presentation

    I found several more recent articles, but they all seem to cite Ramanathan and Carmichael. I think it's the research, but I don't have a subscription to the site:

    Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon; V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    the wind patterns take the black carbon emissions from Asia, and deposit in on the northern ice cap
    Okay so let's confirm that and put it in perspective. Thanks for all the links. Besides the last two from cryosphere seem kinda irrelevant (1 year of warming?), but that site is great for showing ice trends since the 70s, confirming that the Arctic's melting faster.

    Snow containing high amounts of soot, and especially snow covered by soot, must absorb more radiation. Totally agree.

    Chinese industry produces soot. Totally agree. Moreover I've observed that Western China (the Gobi actually I think) produces a ruddy visible aerosol prevailing eastward over Japan.

    Here's the route today:


    As you might imagine from that picture, the wind course flops around quite a bit, rather like the free end of a gushing hose. In any case it always passes over the Pacific Ocean. When this aerosol-laden air does that, it meets a persistent warm northerly current and moisture-laden air from the Philippines area. The result is cloud: typically low-level cloud which often blankets the North Pacific and reflects a lot of sunlight.

    Carbon soot also makes good cloud seed, with a caveat: Newly generated soot is hydrophobic, but, after some exposure in the atmosphere, soot becomes hydrophilic and provided there is vapour (i.e. the North Pacific) it's a good CCN and also ice site.

    Today that stream just happens to be flowing south over my home town Vancouver, after an unusual detour though the Arctic. The air is unseasonably cold and clear. So what happened to the usual clouds? Apparently they've precipitated in the Arctic. In this case, we can say for certain that no Asian aerosols have made it this far, and they're very likely to have fallen on Arctic snow especially the Bering area.

    I conclude that there is some truth to Wild Cobra's statement "the wind patterns take the black carbon emissions from Asia, and deposit in on the northern ice cap, melting it faster than normal."

    However, I suspect the affect of all Asian-origin CCNs including soot plays a stronger and opposite role in the form of clouds. High level cloud can retain more heat than it reflects but cloud in general does reflect more. Unfortunately we have practically no records of cloud cover prior to about 1985. Traditional (pre-satellite) recording was ground observation of "eighths of sky mostly covered" ( :? ), and the only multi-decade record I've found comes from China (it's decreased over the last century, but no recording of cloud type or altitude).

    Visualize how regional sources of aerosol or vapour meet through prevailing winds to form cloud. Here are some maps one might like to superimpose on that above wind map:



    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I conclude that there is some truth to Wild Cobra's statement "the wind patterns take the black carbon emissions from Asia, and deposit in on the northern ice cap, melting it faster than normal."
    Thank-You.

    It is always possible I am wrong as to the degree it causes warming, however, I don't just make things up about Black Carbon, Solar activity, etc. like Inow seems to believe.

    If you watch a lapse time satellite image from Cryosphere, you will see the ice melts the fastest in the area that the winds carry the soot over. Just north of Alaska and Russia.

    40 MB MOV file of the Arctic Melt
     

  67. #66  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I conclude that there is some truth to Wild Cobra's statement "the wind patterns take the black carbon emissions from Asia, and deposit in on the northern ice cap, melting it faster than normal."
    Thank-You.

    It is always possible I am wrong as to the degree it causes warming, however, I don't just make things up about Black Carbon, Solar activity, etc. like Inow seems to believe.
    I believe no such thing. I agree with the statement shown in bold above from Pong... there is some truth to that claim. What I believe, however, is that you have an awful tendency of leaving out variables, and of dismissing evidence which contradicts your own preferred narrative as "propaganda." You care more about the narrative... more about finding data to affirm your existing preconception than about finding data and later forming a conclusion... and that you care about those things more than you care for the truth. That's what I believe.

    Carry on...
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If you watch a lapse time satellite image from Cryosphere, you will see the ice melts the fastest in the area that the winds carry the soot over. Just north of Alaska and Russia.

    40 MB MOV file of the Arctic Melt
    Fascinating. Picture fight!

    So here's a seafloor map I've scaled and rotated to watch beside the melt movie. If no widescreen then scale both down. Ice thickness seems to correspond with depth and even rivers, which guide the melt progression. I guess this is due to halocline disruption. You'll mostly find the thickest ice over deepest depths, where you could say the salt gradient has more leeway, but not always. Note what looks like long range tunnelling of freshwater current from the Kolyma and Mackenzie rivers, disrupting the halocline at the movie start..? Well, enough jabber and see for yourself:



    (View this image beside 40 MB MOV file of the Arctic Melt)

    Ice on the Atlantic side is anchored just beyond the continental shelf. It actually looks like it's anchored by the drop-off... which makes no sense to me...? In any case that shallow continental shelf just refuses to permit ice. Too shallow for salinity column maybe? On the Pacific side the Bering Strait exchange clearly hampers ice growth. You can see that even better with the last 30 day (growth) animation also available top center page at cryosphere. Strangely though, Bering seems irrelevant to melt pattern.

    Honestly I couldn't see a soot effect from China. On the other hand, melt on the Bering side looked mostly chaotic to me... and I doubt it really is. I've tried to disprove soot with better (ocean current) explanation, but I'm gonna have to throw my hands up over that. Maybe someone here knows the waters better.

    We should look more closely at prevailing winds for a reality check.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Well Pong, nice pic. They do line up for the most part. My guess is because the deeper waters stay colder with the combination of density and depth. The shallow waters probable have more warmth mainly because of density.

    I would say the shallower ares are more susceptible to melting because of the depth, allowing minor changes to affect it more than other areas. As for the Atlantic, I believe the waters are normally warmer due to an unrestricted ocean current.

    I wish there was more research in this area. Still, the albedo and emissivity of clean snow/ice is far different than dirty snow/ice. Dirt ice and snow absorb at least 4 to 9 times the solar energy, and the air is always too cold to melt the ice.

    The two pics side by side tell me there needs to be far more changes in the solar (or greenhouse effect) to completely melt the ice. This does suggest most the ice cap is immune to all but more drastic changes.
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Presumably an arctic soot event like volcano should bear this out? Would you take that as strong evidence for/against ? Since we're going to check prevailing winds do carry Asian soot into the Arctic, in all likelyhood we'll find that blows over the Aleutian volcanic arc, and I know there are active smokers up there. Agreed?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Presumably an arctic soot event like volcano should bear this out? Would you take that as strong evidence for/against ? Since we're going to check prevailing winds do carry Asian soot into the Arctic, in all likelyhood we'll find that blows over the Aleutian volcanic arc, and I know there are active smokers up there. Agreed?
    True. Mt Cleveland has been erupting off and on over the years. I don't know about the others, haven't been following them.

     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    So much for the royal "we". I guess I'll have to prove winds bring Chinese soot up into the arctic? Hmpf.

    In the meantime, here's a picture. This picture of dust happened to feature a volcano as well, which graphically puts the magnitude of dust vs. ash in perspective. The dust peaks in the spring.



    Does it look to you like that dust is seeding cloud when it gets over the water?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I can't find that winds from China enter the Arctic more than any other. WC I leave you to show that, as I give up.

    Air from China is pretty consistently running past Hawaii and into the Pacific Northwest or, put differently, the PNW gets the bulk of its air from China. Now, since we can say Northern Rockies snow is "made in China" I suggest we look for black carbon here. If none, and China has no magic portal to the Arctic, your ice cap soot must come from elsewhere.

    Alright? I'm gonna start comparing icefield shrinkage against other parts of the world.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I can't find that winds from China enter the Arctic more than any other. WC I leave you to show that, as I give up.

    Air from China is pretty consistently running past Hawaii and into the Pacific Northwest or, put differently, the PNW gets the bulk of its air from China. Now, since we can say Northern Rockies snow is "made in China" I suggest we look for black carbon here. If none, and China has no magic portal to the Arctic, your ice cap soot must come from elsewhere.
    Look at the differences of the Polar Jet Stream during La Niña and El Niño.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Alright? I'm gonna start comparing icefield shrinkage against other parts of the world.
    I haven't looked at the net results globally, but I believe you will find the net land based ice loss to be minimal, if not actually growing. It's at least not even close to the rates alarmists suggest. You will probably see losses until about 2004 or 2005 and probably find gains afterward.

    I think if you can find some definitive figure on sea temperature increase, you will find it makes up for most to all of the sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I haven't looked at the net results globally, but I believe you will find the net land based ice loss to be minimal, if not actually growing. It's at least not even close to the rates alarmists suggest. You will probably see losses until about 2004 or 2005 and probably find gains afterward.
    No, you won't.

    The net loss of land based ice cover is significant, including since 2005, and is growing faster than the standard predictions from the global warming alarmists - especially in Greenland, due to sped up glaciers, but also Antarctica .
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I haven't looked at the net results globally, but I believe you will find the net land based ice loss to be minimal, if not actually growing. It's at least not even close to the rates alarmists suggest. You will probably see losses until about 2004 or 2005 and probably find gains afterward.
    No, you won't.

    The net loss of land based ice cover is significant, including since 2005, and is growing faster than the standard predictions from the global warming alarmists - especially in Greenland, due to sped up glaciers, but also Antarctica .
    So why didn't your article quantify the land based ice melt volume?

    You know, ice has been melting for an excess of 11,000 years. At 2 mm per year average rise in sea level, with probably at least 75% of it due to thermal expansion, I'm not worried one bit.
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    No, you won't.
    This directed at, but a general comment.


    As is religion to me unrealistic to argue, so has this ONE politically driven theory come to be. It seems to me every thread, fifty or so listed on the the forums I visit, is full of unprovable and hypothetical testimony based on charts and graphs that are basically meaningless. Then throw in mankind and it goes wild, some suggesting the people of the world should fork over 60-80 Trillion Dollars (they don't have) for what MAY actually someday happen, to remedy the problem, that may not exist. Truth be known the planet will warm to +8 or so degree F or -8 degree or +5000 degree in its final days, but NO ONE knows or could know, when this will be. It has before, long before mankind became, it MAY happen while we're here or may not, but one thing for sure; IMO mankind's activity, is being more than compensated by nature and if anything is part of the equalization. Here is a view from NASA, an unadulterated member of the pro-political stance, on the net ice on the earths poles;

    "The media has reported a lot about how ice is changing, particularly in Greenland, but the numbers vary depending on the time period examined and the technique used. As a result, there may be some confusion out there about what's really happening," said Waleed Abdalati, a glacier expert and head of the Cryospheric Sciences Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We have all these techniques and some are giving different answers than others. But what's significant is that we have the ability to even debate ice sheet measurement results at all when we could not have a few years ago. Now, we're talking about how much ice sheet shrinkage there is and how rapidly it's taking place."
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...greenland.html

    Here is a viewpoint from the other direction. If your one that likes graphs, there is one here showing signs of a reasonably steady period of gains and losses as the earth rotates on her axis;


    Last week, Dr James Hansen from NASA spoke about how CO2 is affecting the polar ice caps.

    "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes... The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would," he said.
    Well, not exactly.

    Hansen is only telling half the story. In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases [pdf], in which he explained how CO2 causes "polar amplification." He predicted nearly symmetrical warming at both poles. As shown in Figure 2-2 from the article, Hansen calculated that both the Arctic and Antarctic would warm by 5-6 degrees Centigrade. His predictions were largely incorrect, as most of Antarctica has cooled and sea ice has rapidly expanded. The evidence does not support the theory.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ard_polar_ice/

    If Corporations are the problem, if some people have more than you, drive bigger cars, fly in private aircraft or some one may get elected to an office, argue that. This taking a relatively minor issue, blowing it out of proportion to fit other issues which would never get discussed has really got out of hand. From my perspective, for what it's worth....

    Wild Cobra; It's my opinion, you are making some very good comments, on all threads and that the locked thread WAS NOT locked for lack of support. In fact, I don't understand that action in the first place, you and inow have been commenting much the same on all these threads, with name calling being pretty much one sided. I'll throw 'cypress' in as well, noting he apparently is an Electrical Engineer and the brunt of one set of comments. In defense of inow and his opinions, they are representative of four years of posting on this issue, where the majority of posters have grievances that are important only when and if they are incorporated into GW, IMO inow.
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So why didn't your article quantify the land based ice melt volume?

    You know, ice has been melting for an excess of 11,000 years. At 2 mm per year average rise in sea level, with probably at least 75% of it due to thermal expansion, I'm not worried one bit.
    So your previous assertion - that you thought ice melt would be reversed about 2004 or 2005, with a net gain of land ice after those years in the Arctic and Antarctic both,
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I haven't looked at the net results globally, but I believe you will find the net land based ice loss to be minimal, if not actually growing. It's at least not even close to the rates alarmists suggest. You will probably see losses until about 2004 or 2005 and probably find gains afterward.
    is something you have rethought?

    Or something you just threw out there to join the rest of your assertions, that never seem to line up with the data or bother you in that failure?
     

  79. #78  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Jackson - In every thread where you've ever contributed to a climate change topic, the essence of your arguments always seems to boil down to this:





    Besides that, you like to suggest people who stand up for reality are equivalent to those who deny it. When you do this, you need to realize that you are doing a great disservice to those around you and that you are deeply mistaken when doing so.
     

  80. #79  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I can't find that winds from China enter the Arctic more than any other.
    Look at the differences of the Polar Jet Stream during La Niña and El Niño.
    Okay, I see Niña drives the winter stream up into Alaska, so presumably more Chinese air to the Arctic then? Soot effect should be strongest the summer following La Niña, on sea ice.


    (from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg , http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/...ter/MEI/ts.gif )

    :|

    Well China isn't really a northern country. Still I'm curious to know if Chinese soot is melting British Columbian icefields and I'm still looking into that. Honestly I fear this is simply political. Californian scientists have proved that Chinese industry pollutes their state, that includes the mercury in their soil. I can see a lot of otherwise objective people wanting to finger China.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Wild Cobra; It's my opinion, you are making some very good comments, on all threads and that the locked thread WAS NOT locked for lack of support. In fact, I don't understand that action in the first place, you and inow have been commenting much the same on all these threads, with name calling being pretty much one sided. I'll throw 'cypress' in as well, noting he apparently is an Electrical Engineer and the brunt of one set of comments. In defense of inow and his opinions, they are representative of four years of posting on this issue, where the majority of posters have grievances that are important only when and if they are incorporated into GW, IMO inow.
    Thank-you.

    I think most people recognize I come out with points, that have not been anyone's talking points. Though I accidentally mixed up the numbers in that locked thread, I never seen anyone try to quantify the amount of heat it takes to melt that much ice before. I started with 333.55 calories per gm. My mistakes was that 333.55 is joules per gram, not calories. I was a factor of 4.184 off. Not an acceptable mistake.

    I have never seen anyone else challenge the Milankovitch cycle like I do. I am surprised that I haven't found anyone else discussing the profound effect that a varying eccentricity has.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •