Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 122
Like Tree99Likes

Thread: Can we get some of your views/input on this please?

  1. #1 Can we get some of your views/input on this please? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    No global warming for 17 years 8 months | Watts Up With That?


     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    you posted it. what is your opinion?


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    you posted it. what is your opinion?
    I would like others opinions, I already know what mine is.
    keeseguy likes this.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    It's the quiet sun

    ......................
    You do know who Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is?
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I would like others opinions, I already know what mine is.
    I assume your is illogical, deluded and misinformed.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Seriously...what is with some of the hostility on here at times?

    Do you answer your front doors clutching a crucifix whilst wearing bulbs of garlic around your neck? ffs!
    sculptor, keeseguy and samsmoot like this.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    strange was just trying to be nice
    and failing miserably at it

    .........
    and, pulling up old sites with discredited claims kinda says a lot about biased views.
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Go on the science forums they said, their ever so knowledgeable and friendly they said.....


    I'm obviously on the one that isnt!
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    some days and some people

    .................
    don't take it personally
    Stargate and keeseguy like this.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Perhaps all the crap humans have been putting into the atmosphere have somehow made a pollution shield that protects us from the heat of the sun. Some crap reflects away the sunlight which is what could be happening.

    Now that I've said what my opinion was , what is yours?
    Stargate likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I didn't read the link in the OP because I saw the infamous 1998 marker. That year is considered an outlier. The trend is still upwards.

    I think it's also important to start out with your OWN opinion and not just shoot down someone when they ask for it. WE don't know your opinion, so perhaps you should share it to get things started. If you solicit the opinions of others and withhold yours, it looks a little shady.
    John Galt and exchemist like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I think it's also important to start out with your OWN opinion and not just shoot down someone when they ask for it. WE don't know your opinion, so perhaps you should share it to get things started. If you solicit the opinions of others and withhold yours, it looks a little shady.
    i just did some research and found that hannah40 has been accused and criticised in several threads of having her own agenda and not showing it till later. this is more of same i think
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    it's the sun





    Can anyone seriously doubt that the maunder minimum was causal to the little ice age?
    Our sun may be heading to another minimum, and during minima, we get colder, more cosmic rays penetrate the heliosphere, and we get more clouds.

     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    (ywln)


    Hey nice chart that sunspot and temperature one that is (hehe). Great example of the cherry picking. And a temperature chart that compares solar cycle (which no one denies has an impact on climate) is conveniently cut off at about 1980 even though the chart creator felt confident enough to plot five year points in an 11/22 year cycle (sort of silly) up until that point and could have shown the same for another 20 years. But of course that wouldn't distort or bias information. (sort of like not bothering to mention the near record warm winter in Iowa last year but finding it worthy to post about a cold one this past winter year.)

    And no climatologist denies there's a link between sunspots, solar irradiation amounts and surface temperature--the issue is it's no longer the most important driver.

    Anyhow (imagine the Paul Harvey voice) here's the rest of the story:

    KALSTER, PhDemon and dan hunter like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    all models
    all charts
    by their nature have different baselines, and inputs and must always therefore cherry pick from the available data.

    Therein lie the caveats
    the model is not the climate
    the chart is not the climate

    Your chart is an old one and is even less accurate than the ones I posted.

    Bottom line:
    If we are indeed heading into a solar minimum, then the temperature should start accelerated falling tracking the frequencies of the solar cycles.
    But, we'll have to wait a few years to see where that's going.
    .............
    And, then we are left with the problem that the temperatures at the various levels of the troposphere aren't showing the expected heat divergences from climate models focusing on CO2 as a lead force. This is especially true of models that assume a "solar constant" , and didn't include the likelyhood of increasing ssw events.
    .............
    Here's a fun temperature chart for the primary corn and soybean belt in the USA---set the base at 1931, and notice that only one year in the past 100 was warmer than 1931.
    wheeeeeeeeeeeeee such fun
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...tbaseyear=1931
    ...............
    OK: Lets compare the CO2 boogieman to temperature

    Note that the temp and CO2 only track together from about 1977 to 2000.
    Coincidence does not equal causality.
    Is the boogieman a tad more impotent than you had expected?
    ...........
    here's another solar irradiance and temp chart:
    Last edited by sculptor; April 6th, 2014 at 05:41 PM.
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    all models
    all charts
    by their nature have different baselines, and inputs and must always therefore cherry pick from the available data.
    There is a difference between cherry picking and choosing an appropriate baseline.

    Your chart is an old one and is even less accurate than the ones I posted.
    It is not "less accurate". We are talking about climate here, meaning trends, meaning longer periods.

    Here's a fun temperature chart for the primary corn and soybean belt in the USA---set the base at 1931, and notice that only one year in the past 100 was warmer than 1931.
    wheeeeeeeeeeeeee such fun
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...tbaseyear=1931
    You are highlighting a simple record year for one area. Did you really think it was that significant? This is about global climate.
    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
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    all models
    all charts
    by their nature have different baselines, and inputs and must always therefore cherry pick from the available data.
    (A)There is a difference between cherry picking and choosing an appropriate baseline.

    Your chart is an old one and is even less accurate than the ones I posted.
    It is not "less accurate". We are talking about climate here, meaning trends, meaning longer periods.

    Here's a fun temperature chart for the primary corn and soybean belt in the USA---set the base at 1931, and notice that only one year in the past 100 was warmer than 1931.
    wheeeeeeeeeeeeee such fun
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...tbaseyear=1931
    (B)You are highlighting a simple record year for one area. Did you really think it was that significant? This is about global climate.
    (A)Kinda depends on who is doing the choosing. One man's cherry picking may be another man's appropriate baseline.
    Why do you think the commonly chosen baseline is commonly chosen out of the hundreds of other potential baselines?
    Have you tested the data using randomly selected baselines? and did the results then differ significantly?

    (B) kinda goes to show that point.

    ....................
    keep a critical mind
    When you think that everybody agrees on what they are seeing, look behind the curtain.

    .................I ain't claiming that CO2 has no effect.
    What I am saying is that it ain't the simple answer as advertised.
    The climate is just a tad more complex than that("a tad" is a gross understatement)

    In the previous charts, you may note that when solar and CO2 are combined, the upslope seems a tad steeper(but just a tad, if at all).
    ....
    Think about this:


    Does you mind now have a solar irradiance baseline in W/sq.M?
    How much of an increase do we expect for a doubling of CO2?
    Last edited by sculptor; April 6th, 2014 at 06:12 PM.
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (A)Kinda depends on who is doing the choosing. One man's cherry picking may be another man's appropriate baseline.
    Why do you think the commonly chosen baseline is commonly chosen out of the hundreds of other potential baselines?
    Have you tested the data using randomly selected baselines? and did the results then differ significantly?

    (B) kinda goes to show that point.
    Not hardly, cherry picking is pretty easy to identify because it doesn't correspond with any objective or accepted statistical methods. Using 1998, one year, clearly doesn't represent climate. Using a single Iowa winter clearly does not' represent a global trend. Using an unscreened non-spatially averaged raw station temperature clearly doesn't represent climate over a region (or globe). Cutting off a chart around 1980 where two factors correlate when another 20 years were available where they weren't correlated clearly doesn't represent correlation or causality over the entire period.

    You see, the problem is either a poor understanding of basic statistics, willful ignorance of statistics, or a severe selective bias towards non-climate web blogs and organizations that while they don't contribute a single bit to climate research are effective as duping non-critical thinkers and non-statisticians into their cherry picked presentations to stall the public/political debate about GHGs. Ask yourself: Why didn't I catch that obvious 1980 cut off? It appears you simply posted it without thinking.

    --
    What I am saying is that it ain't the simple answer as advertised.

    The only ones claiming it's "simple" are the Watts-up and other web sites that are misrepresenting the science. Virtually every science review paper (see the IPCC report just released) goes into those complexities and remaining questions in great detail.

    --
    Does you mind now have a solar irradiance baseline in W/sq.M?
    How much of an increase do we expect for a doubling of CO2?

    converted into TSI (4 x the surface average) a doubling will be in the ball park of 8-10W/m^2, a much larger (perhaps 3x) forcing than solar irradiation cycles.
    KALSTER and PhDemon like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Anyone worried about statistical relevance or significance of climate stuff should always check at the Open Mind blog.

    You want a search based on 1998? Here's the search results. 1998 | Search Results | Open Mind

    "what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?" Check it out. (It's from the first result on that search.)

    Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind

    let’s put all those perfectly valid considerations aside. Let’s ignore the oceans, the ice, the known natural factors, all of it, and look at nothing but global average air temperature (at the surface and in the lower troposphere).

    Riddle me this: if we had been told by an unimpeachable source on January 1st, 1998 that there would be no statistically significant temperature increase over the period from the beginning of 1998 through the end of 2013, what would we have predicted? How would that compare to what has actually happened?


    Worth reading. And thinking about.
    Last edited by adelady; April 6th, 2014 at 10:10 PM.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Personal Opinion: "Global Warming" is a poor measure of the problem due to the Earth's inherent resistence to temperature change as a stable (I hope this is the right term) "triple state system". What I am refiring to is that water exists on earth in all three of its states at the same time. All of earth's climate hovers around this "triple point" of pressure/temperture.

    Elsewhere I posted the "pot-simmering-on- the-stove" analogy. It is a valid analogy in that it points to the vigor of the boiling action rather than the temperature being the measure of the change. The temperature of a pot of water on the stove remains at the boiling point whether it is just simmering or at a rolling boil. Earth's temperature will tend to stay stable as long as water can remain in all three states at the same time on our planet.

    A more sensitive measure of the problem will be the extremities of weather. It is however more difficult to measure than just charting temperature.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Its true that the earth is either warming or cooling at any given time, or that the trend is either or as well, depending on who is paying for the research.

    Im not in agreement with the ICCP carbon agenda for many reasons. And really, Al Gore isn't a scientist and the hockey stick dealio correlates with a loss of the ozone layer more than a rise in c02 although the rise in co2 can be explained by a diminishing ozone layer.

    How did the IPCC’s alarmism take everyone in for so long? - Telegraph
    sculptor likes this.
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Seriously...what is with some of the hostility on here at times?

    Do you answer your front doors clutching a crucifix whilst wearing bulbs of garlic around your neck? ffs!
    Hannah the expectation, indeed the implicit requirement, of posting here is that we don't just post some information, but we comment upon this information in order to initiate a discussion. You failed to do so with your OP - and I believe you have failed to do so on other occasions.

    Secondly, it is rude (offensive, egotistical, discourteous, boorish, vulgar, disrespectful, impolite) to ask for the opinion of others and to refuse to reveal your own. That is why you are encountering hostility - it is a reaction to your anti-socila behaviour.

    Now, I am willing to accept that this behaviour is simply down to unfamiliarity with the expected behaviour on this forum. Now you have been informed I am sure you will meet expectations and the hostility will then evaporate.
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Im not in agreement with the ICCP carbon agenda for many reasons.
    Apparently, none of them to do with science.

    And really, Al Gore isn't a scientist
    I have no idea who Al Gore is or why you mention him. Especially if he isn't a scientist. And especially if he isn't a climate scientist.

    the hockey stick dealio correlates with a loss of the ozone layer more than a rise in c02
    Citation needed.

    although the rise in co2 can be explained by a diminishing ozone layer.
    Citation needed.

    Is the Daily Telegraph a peer-reviewed journal? Is Christopher Booker a scientist? Are you a hypocrite?

    But thanks for confirming that you are not interested in science. (Or perhaps you are deliberately trying to make climate change denialists look ignorant and dishonest in order to discredit them. In which case, well done.)
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (A)Kinda depends on who is doing the choosing. One man's cherry picking may be another man's appropriate baseline.
    This seems like an extremely intellectually dishonest way to prop up bad data and support your point. You can't just paint everything that potentially disagrees with you as bad data selection or bias on the part of the researcher.

    As a researcher, I find it a little insulting that you would suggest that what I deem appropriate data through hard work and rigour might just as easily be cherry picked and flawed as someone who has an agenda.
    Lynx_Fox, KALSTER, adelady and 3 others like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    I have no idea who Al Gore is o
    seriously?
    Hahahahahahaha
    thanx, i needed a good laugh
    Stargate likes this.
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    seriously?
    Fairly seriously. I believe he is an American ex-politician of some sort. I don't know why climate change denialists depend on him so much, though.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  29. #28  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    seriously?
    Fairly seriously. I believe he is an American ex-politician of some sort. I don't know why climate change denialists depend on him so much, though.
    He was our Vice President for a bit and had the election "stolen" from him by Bush in his presidential bid. He made a popular movie about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth and it became the single biggest target for climate science deniers that I've ever seen.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Presumably because they don't have science on their side, so all they can do is attack a movie. That is a bit sad.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    or
    we miss the crazy antics of goofy Gore and hallucinating Hansen

    if nothing else, they were darned entertaining with their hyperbolic fear mongering

    and the most entertaining part was the mass insanity of their gathered followers
    and the dynamite kid's peace prize
    .................
    from the NOAA testimony before congress 2009

    Question 6: Dr. James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore both are on record saying the
    IPCC is wrong and sea levels may rise upwards of 20 feet by the end of the century; do you
    subscribe to this view? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Response: The models used to project sea level rise reflect a fairly robust scientific understanding of
    the contributions of thermal expansion and glacier melting to sea level rise. The complex processes that
    determine past and potential contributions to sea level rise from changes in ice sheets, however, are less
    well understood. The scientific literature used in preparing the 2007 assessment by IPCC reflected the
    inability of the scientific community at the time to quantify the contributions to sea level rise due to
    changes in ice sheet dynamics, and thus projected rise in the world's oceans of between 8 inches and two
    feet by the end of this century. More recent research3
    has provided additional insights into the potential
    contributions to sea level rise from the accelerated flow of ice sheets to the sea and to estimate sea level
    based on the observed relationship between sea level and temperature. Estimates of sea level rise based
    on these new scientific insights exceed those of the IPCC with the average estimates for sea level rise
    under higher emission scenarios at between 3 and 4 feet
    Thank god that the noaa folks spit out some of the cool-aide
    ..................
    "under higher emission scenarios"
    which doesn't seem to be happening

    ............
    You really should see "an inconvenient truth"
    (all it lacked is a laugh track)
    if memory serves, it did receive some sort of entertainment award
    Last edited by sculptor; April 7th, 2014 at 09:38 AM.
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    You really should see "an inconvenient truth"
    Would you recommend The Day After Tomorrow as a useful source of information as well?

    Or perhaps we could stick to the science? Although, I suppose that might be "inconvenient" for you, as it would show you to be either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    not as a useful source of information
    unless the information you seek is into the psychology of mass insanity
    more for it's entertainment value

    .............
    trends are also part of the research into the budding of the information
    which is why I post things like noaa's testimony

    It might help to think of the hyperbole as a pendulum being pushed far to one side, then watch it swing back and forth and back and forth:
    Ever becoming more moderate.
    Last edited by sculptor; April 7th, 2014 at 10:25 AM.
     

  34. #33  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,911
    Ban Hammers for denialists!
    I would like to thank all the regular climate knowledgable people on the site who bother to carefully refute the crap-spam of the denialists, but you shouldn't really have to.
    Can we just start banning this bunch of crapulant woo flamers?
    I do wish that life were a highway, and that all the AGW deniers were also oncoming semi denialists as well.
    That would be convienient.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Giant E---whatever

    Perhaps 't'would be good(better?) for you to state your beliefs?
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Giant E---whatever

    Perhaps 't'would be good(better?) for you to state your beliefs?
    I assume he believes science works. Why people like you don't, is beyond me.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  37. #36  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Giant E---whatever

    Perhaps 't'would be good(better?) for you to state your beliefs?
    I assume he believes science works. Why people like you don't, is beyond me.
    Yep! What strange said.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    But, then again,YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE ALSO.

    Science only works for those with the ability of critical thinking.
    For dolts, it's just another band wagon.
    (careful that you don't fall of and dent your sorry little head)

    ..............
    we could stop the ad hominem crap anytime you like
    sooner would be better
    samsmoot likes this.
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    I have no idea who Al Gore is o
    seriously?
    Hahahahahahaha
    thanx, i needed a good laugh
    Without using Google do you know who Ian Duncan-Smith is? If not then I suggest you STFU.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    if memory serves: lian Duncan-Smith is a right wing nutjob who has nothing to do with the "global warming" debate.
    Wasn't he one of Thacher's boys?
    Ascended likes this.
     

  41. #40  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    Why isn't this is pseudo with the other threads started or derailed by crackpots?
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    But, then again,YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE ALSO.
    I am frequently wrong. So what?

    Science only works for those with the ability of critical thinking.
    Which is, presumably, why you reject it.

    we could stop the ad hominem crap anytime you like
    If you come to a science forum and express anti-science crank opinions, then you must expect a slightly negative reaction. If this makes you feel the need to launch into ad hominem attacks, I guess that just shows how weak your position is.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  43. #42  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,911
    Ban hammers for crackpot spammers!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    But, then again,YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE ALSO.
    I am frequently wrong. So what?

    Science only works for those with the ability of critical thinking.
    Which is, presumably, why you reject it.

    we could stop the ad hominem crap anytime you like
    If you come to a science forum and express anti-science crank opinions, then you must expect a slightly negative reaction. If this makes you feel the need to launch into ad hominem attacks, I guess that just shows how weak your position is.
    more adhominem crap
    Shame on you
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend and the (most likely) coming solar minimum?

    Or did you guys just want to turn this into a screaming match?
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    more adhominem crap
    I don't believe I have made any ad hominem comments. I have just commented on your rather obvious rejection of science. It is statement of fact, not a personal attack. I haven't said what I think of people who reject science and thereby put people and society at risk.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend ?
    Citation needed.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    if memory serves: lian Duncan-Smith is a right wing nutjob who has nothing to do with the "global warming" debate.
    Wasn't he one of Thacher's boys?
    1. Politically he is to the left of Obama. I have never heard anyone, including his most severe detractors, describe him as a nutjob.
    2. He was leader of the Conservative party for some time.
    3. Your ignorance of him is on a par with Strange's ignorance of Al Gore.
    4. Consequently, your dismissive remarks directed at Strange are - in my view - unwelcome, inappropriate and foolish.
     

  49. #48  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend
    When you get angry, your colors start to show. This is either a display of intentional provocation, dishonest cherry picking, or complete idiocy.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    I have no idea who Al Gore is o
    seriously?
    Hahahahahahaha
    thanx, i needed a good laugh
    Without using Google do you know who Ian Duncan-Smith is? If not then I suggest you STFU.
    But then again, if you do not use Google what would you know? O science give me the ability to read and understand that Google is the life source to knowledge that someone else has tested and I am privileged to take that knowledge as my own.
     

  51. #50  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    That's just what this thread needed, the irrelevant musings of (another) anti-science nutjob.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ophiolite:
    Part of our tv programming here includes debates in parliament.
    Darned entertaining combination of pseudo formal politeness and nasty insults.
    And someone from the opposition saying disparaging things about Duncan-Smith.
    Aside from that, I know almost nothing of lian Duncan-Smith.(and have no real desire to know more)
    (Hell dadio, i don't pay much attention to the "american" right either)

    I honestly did find Strange having no knowledge of Al Gore to be very funny, and responded from that humor.
    I suspect that everyone from the USA who pays any attention to the climate science debate has seen Gore's silly movie.
    And I often mistakenly assume that everyone shares the same knowledge base-----mea culpa)
    Ok, sometimes, my sense of humor can be a tad abrasive.

    Everything else was counter-attack on my part.

    All I really wanted to discuss was the cooling trend.
    And the most likely suspect I've found is the "quiet sun".
    So that's where I went.

    And, that is where I'd like us all to go.
    from the NOAA 2009 testimony:
    The fact that globally averaged surface air temperature has shown ... a slight cooling over the last 7 years
    ..................
    (but hell, if i didn't respect this forum, I'd enjoy a good ad hominem dust-up too)
    Last edited by sculptor; April 7th, 2014 at 11:46 AM.
    astromark likes this.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend
    When you get angry, your colors start to show. This is either a display of intentional provocation, dishonest cherry picking, or complete idiocy.
    Hahahahaha

    I ain't angry dad-
    I think most of the crap that has gone on in here today is hilarious.
    astromark and Stargate like this.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Imo, climate change has always occurred and anthropogenic causes accelerated the natural order starting about the time of cfc's and nuclear bomb testing. This testing is responsible for the process that releases massive amounts of nitric oxide into the atmosphere.
    Ozone Depletion | Effects of Nuclear Weapons | atomicarchive.com

    Natural causes of ozone depletion in the atmosphere include volcanic activity which can release kilotons of bromocarbons. Also, earths weakening magnetosphere causes ozone layer disruptions. Earth has been going through a magnetic pole shift and the process is ongoing.

    The weakened ozone layer allows more uv radiation to penetrate earth. This actually causes warming. Yes, its the sun. When uv-b radiation penetrates the ocean the upper water column of marine life begins to die off releasing co2. When the lower water columns of the oceans warms it releases co2 and loses the ability to retain co2 similar to how a bottle of classic coke releases its fizz when warmed. The oceans account for over 70% of earths surface and is responsible for massive releases of co2.

    Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought - environment - 25 April 2011 - New Scientist
    Climate double whammy: UV light melts Arctic ice and turns frozen organics to CO2

    There are no climate models that can input all of these natural variables and conditions to explain climate change. The evidence points to a diminished ozone layer allowing uv radiation to penetrate earth. Co2 actually protects earth by absorbing uv radiation. This leads me to believe that this increase in co2 has a direct correlation to uv radiation and ozone depletion and that the increase in co2 is part of a natural cycle.

    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/u...nce-towsey.pdf
    sculptor likes this.
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "under higher emission scenarios"
    which doesn't seem to be happening
    I realise it's not happening on any planet that's not ours, but do you really think that emissions are declining on this planet?

    Greenhouse gas emissions hit highest level ever
    (The interactive thingummy with this article is good to play with.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  56. #55  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    But then again, if you do not use Google what would you know? O science give me the ability to read and understand that Google is the life source to knowledge that someone else has tested and I am privileged to take that knowledge as my own.
    Do you have ANY idea what the ability to search for and locate scientific information has done for science as a whole? You can find scholarly articles with simple (and surprisingly refined) searches rather than spending HOURS combing through publications and directories.

    Google (scholar) does not give you knowledge, but it makes it so absurdly easy to locate peer-reviewed journal articles that questioning it as important is just silly.

    By the way, if we didn't "source" our knowledge, we would never learn ANYTHING. You didn't learn English on your own. You didn't even learn how to piss in a toilet on your own. Quit being such a smartarse.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  57. #56  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend
    When you get angry, your colors start to show. This is either a display of intentional provocation, dishonest cherry picking, or complete idiocy.
    Hahahahaha

    I ain't angry dad-
    I think most of the crap that has gone on in here today is hilarious.
    I don't find climate science to be particularly amusing. Sorry.

    I find it slightly frustrating to have people trying to poke holes in the science with inferior data.

    EDIT: I'm 30 years old. I have yet to have any children of my own. For me, the notion that we are creating a world of more dangerous and frequent storms, falling biodiversity, toxic air and water pollution, piles of trash on land and in water, dwindling resources over which blood is shed ... is very sad. I don't want to watch that happen to the world. Moreover, I don't want that to be my legacy. The generations prior to mine should be ashamed for letting it get this far, but the current generations need to get off their couches, turn off the televisions and computers, and do something to fix the problem.
    Last edited by Flick Montana; April 8th, 2014 at 07:32 AM.
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    This leads me to believe that this increase in co2 has a direct correlation to uv radiation and ozone depletion and that the increase in co2 is part of a natural cycle.
    So how can anyone explain the change in carbon isotope ratios based on that idea? The historical/ geological changes in isotope ratios was 5 times less than the rate of change since the start of the industrial revolution. If the changed ratio is not due to fossil burning, you've not advanced any "natural" process/ theory/ idea that could do that.

    This (rather old) item gives a brief explanation along with references to a few scientific papers.
    RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

    In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the
    13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years. -
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    You do realize that the natural carbon cycles releases over 750 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere each year compared to anthropogenic releases of 29 gigatons per year ?
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    You do realize that the natural carbon cycles releases over 750 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere each year compared to anthropogenic releases of 29 gigatons per year ?

    Yes. That is explained here: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? - Skeptical Science:
    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptical Science Article
    Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    "under higher emission scenarios"
    which doesn't seem to be happening
    I realise it's not happening on any planet that's not ours, but do you really think that emissions are declining on this planet?

    Greenhouse gas emissions hit highest level ever
    (The interactive thingummy with this article is good to play with.)
    Yes
    Europe and the USA have declining emissions, and china's rate of increase dropped from 10%/year to under 4% last year.

    Ultimately we would like to see emissions holding steady and then falling. We ain't there yet globally, but fersure on the right road.
    So, "under higher emissions scenarios" from their 2008-2009 perspective does not seem to be happening
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Do you all realize that Skeptical Science ain't exactly without bias?
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Do you all realize that Skeptical Science ain't exactly without bias?
    Yes, it is biased towards the science rather than rejecting it.
    Lynx_Fox and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend
    When you get angry, your colors start to show. This is either a display of intentional provocation, dishonest cherry picking, or complete idiocy.
    Hahahahaha

    I ain't angry dad-
    I think most of the crap that has gone on in here today is hilarious.
    I don't find climate science to be particularly amusing. Sorry.

    I find it slightly frustrating to have people trying to poke holes in the science with inferior data.

    EDIT: I'm 30 years old. I have yet to have any children of my own. For me, the notion that we are creating a more world of more dangerous and frequent storms, falling biodiversity, toxic air and water pollution, piles of trash on land and in water, dwindling resources over which blood is shed ... is very sad. I don't want to watch that happen to the world. Moreover, I don't want that to be my legacy. The generations prior to mine should be ashamed for letting it get this far, but the current generations need to get off their couches, turn off the televisions and computers, and do something to fix the problem.
    You drank the catastrophic warming cool-aide, didn't you?

    plant a tree and nurture and care for it until it's strong enough to survive on it's own
    then plant 1000 more
    then 1000 more
    etc

    reduce your consumption
    repair then
    rebuild then
    re-task everything that comes under your control, then
    recycle

    Once you've done all that you can, rest assured that you did your best.

    Climate science ain't particularly amusing
    though I do like studying it
    Posturing and bellowing and really lame ad hominem attacks, and refusal to directly address the issues raised, on the other hand are funnier than a barrel full of monkeys.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    There is also a correlation to earths weakening geomatic field and the diminishing ozone layer.

    https://www.boundless.com/physics/ma.../geomagnetism/

    At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10 to 15 percent decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years.
    If one thing leads to another then it could be said that because of a weakening magnetosphere the ozone layer is less protectitive. When the ozone layer weakens more uv radiation penetrates earth. When more uv radiation penetrates earth the earth gets warmer. When earth gets warmer there is a release of co2. This co2 absorbs uv radiation. The heating of earth also produces more cloud cover which protects the earth.

    Oddly, many greenhouse gasses, both anthropogenic and natural, do help to keep uv radiation from penetrating the earth.

    Another less heard discussion of a warming earth is earths axial tilt. Large earthquakes have affected the axial tilt and along with variations in axial obliquity seem to be a factor of weather swings and climate change.
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    There is also a correlation to earths weakening geomatic field and the diminishing ozone layer.

    https://www.boundless.com/physics/ma.../geomagnetism/

    At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker; the present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10 to 15 percent decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years.
    If one thing leads to another then it could be said that because of a weakening magnetosphere the ozone layer is less protectitive. When the ozone layer weakens more uv radiation penetrates earth. When more uv radiation penetrates earth the earth gets warmer. When earth gets warmer there is a release of co2. This co2 absorbs uv radiation. The heating of earth also produces more cloud cover which protects the earth.

    Oddly, many greenhouse gasses, both anthropogenic and natural, do help to keep uv radiation from penetrating the earth.

    Another less heard discussion of a warming earth is earths axial tilt. Large earthquakes have affected the axial tilt and along with variations in axial obliquity seem to be a factor of weather swings and climate change.

    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    plant a tree and nurture and care for it until it's strong enough to survive on it's own
    then plant 1000 more
    then 1000 more
    etc
    As you are so keen on science, perhaps you could show the calculations that this is sufficient to avoid the problems of climate change? And, as I assume you don't just mean Flick should do this, perhaps you could show that there is enough spare land for most people on Earth to plant thousands of trees (without impacting agricultural productivity, for example)?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  68. #67  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    You drank the catastrophic warming cool-aide, didn't you?
    If you mean I believe, for example, that human environmental impact has been connected to rising ocean temperatures and rising ocean temperatures fuel warm cored storms such as hurricanes, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    plant a tree and nurture and care for it until it's strong enough to survive on it's own
    then plant 1000 more
    then 1000 more
    etc
    Aside from the fact that I am not capable of planting and caring for thousands of trees (property limitations notwithstanding), I don't understand what trees have to do with climate science. They contribute to carbon sequestration, but restoring vast swathes of forests will not only have a smaller effect than many people might think, it also isn't feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    reduce your consumption
    repair then
    rebuild then
    re-task everything that comes under your control, then
    recycle
    I think an important step is missing here; disseminate climate science truth whenever possible.

    I can do my part, but if everyone else is fooled into thinking there is no danger looming from our treatment of the planet (even disregarding warming trends), then I am not doing anywhere near all I can. My goal is to help expose the facts around our climatological history and attempt to pose better solutions moving forward. Primarily, I am concerned with our water resources, so I'm very interested in how rising temperatures and poorly managed hydrology will impact people across the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Once you've done all that you can, rest assured that you did your best.
    You seem to be under the impression that my environmental concerns are somehow tied to my sense of pride. I don't care if I go to bed feeling good about myself every day. I care that people out there are informed about the science of my work and capable of making smart decisions in regards to their own resource management and, in a larger perspective, their legislative choices regarding environmental concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Climate science ain't particularly amusing
    though I do like studying it
    Posturing and bellowing and really lame ad hominem attacks, and refusal to directly address the issues raised, on the other hand are funnier than a barrel full of monkeys.
    I don't see anyone else laughing.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  69. #68  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    Reply to post#64. Unless I'm missing something you appear to be confused as to which portions of the spectrum are absorbed by which molecules. In order to support your claim please provide the absorption cross sections for the gases you are considering as a function of wavelength and calculate from this and current concentrations as a function of altitude the amount of incoming solar radiation and outgoing re-emitted radiation from the Earths surface that is absorbed by each species as a function of wavelength and altitude. To have made your claim you must have done this calculation or have a reference to where someone else has carried it out, right?
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Reply to post#64. Unless I'm missing something you appear to be confused as to which portions of the spectrum are absorbed by which molecules. In order to support your claim please provide the absorption cross sections for the gases you are considering as a function of wavelength and calculate from this and current concentrations as a function of altitude the amount of incoming solar radiation and outgoing re-emitted radiation from the Earths surface that is absorbed by each species as a function of wavelength and altitude. To have made your claim you must have done this calculation or have a reference to where someone else has carried it out, right?
    I would prefer you do this if you like and while your at it please break down the percentages of which molecules are considered anthropogenic compared to natural occurring. Thanks in advance.
     

  71. #70  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    Good try, and a nice little dodge at the end to try and change the subject when your bullshit is called out. You made the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'll assume you made it up and give your musings the credibility they deserve (none).
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I think some of you guys drank the catastrophic warming coolaide and are way off base about what exactly climate change will likely entail.
    And way off base as to the current climate drivers.

    If you think CO2 is the problem, then CO2 is what you should be addressing.
    To grow a pound of wood, a tree consumes about 1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide and releases approximately 1.07 pounds of oxygen.
    A healthy growing tree can consume up to 52 lbs of CO2 while releasing 37.85 pounds of oxygen every year.
    Some fast growing trees like the poplar is estimated to sequester about 2,460 kg (5,420 lb) over 30 years--which means 82 pounds per year....
    An acre of trees can neutralize the carbon footprint of more than 18 average people in the USA.
    I planted 1458 trees on my land, and another 5000 on government land controlled by the DNR (all i had to do was offer, and the DNR forester offered help, training, and tools and thanked me to boot).
    So, I went carbon neutral for my entire family, and for another 200 of my fellow citizens.
    It was a bit of work, but i like the woods and the wildlife.

    The trees love the CO2 enriched atmosphere and are growing faster now than in at-least the last few hundred years.

    We, every last living thing on this planet, are in symbiotic relationships. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, trees inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen.
    This seems like what my sons would call a "no brainer".
    With the ethanol subsidies, many midwest farms bulldozed out the windbreaks(trees) and plowed under the runoff shelter beds to plant corn from fence row to fence row. And, the corporate farms took out the fence rows.

    You guys seem to fear "global warming" and are convinced that "we" are causing it.
    I do not fear it, nor am I convinced that the simpleminded modeling I've seen has actually reached a point of accurately understanding our earth's climate drivers.
    Nor, do we agree on what exactly would constitute a climate catastrophe.

    That being said. When I witness people bitching whining, moaning and complaining about how "we" have destroyed the planet, and are unwilling to lift one goddamned lazy finger to do anything about what they fear, i lose all respect for their opinions.

    So, where does that leave us?
    This thread started addressing the recent cooling trend.

    Does anyone give enough of a shit about climate science to actually want to discuss the likely causal factors?
    Or would you rather hold your hands over your ears and dance around in a circle shouting la-la-la-la and deny what the instrumentation is showing us?

    5 years ago, NOAA was noting the cooling trend. Can you do no less?
    Last edited by sculptor; April 7th, 2014 at 07:25 PM.
     

  73. #72  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I think some of you guys drank the catastrophic warming coolaide and are way off base about what exactly climate change will likely entail.
    It won't lead to expanding habit with rising temperatures for malaria-infected mosquitoes and that won't lead to more cases of malaria in the third world which won't lead to more people dying from malaria?

    I think you're assuming we expect the planet to explode when temperatures go above a certain mark. I doubt many of us are alarmists. The real dangers of climate change are enough that we don't need to blow it out of proportion.


    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If you think CO2 is the problem, then CO2 is what you should be addressing.
    CO2 and climate change are but a part, albeit a large part, of a much bigger problem; our mismanagement of global systems. Like I said, I am interested in hydrologic studies and I am only moderately versed in climate science. What I do know is that shifting climates leads to shifting water supplies and when water resources change hands, wars break out.

    You think oil is vital? The most valuable resource on this planet is, far and away, water.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The trees love the CO2 enriched atmosphere and are growing faster now than in at-least the last few hundred years.
    Really? You're not trying out the "increased atmospheric CO2 is GOOD for the planet" thing...are you?

    Even if atmospheric CO2 were the limiting factor in plant growth, there is still a surplus of CO2 from human activity that cannot be absorbed by trees. And, again, trees are not the only method (nor the greatest) for carbon sequestration. Planting trees will NOT save the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    You guys seem to fear "global warming" and are convinced that "we" are causing it.
    I do not fear it, nor am I convinced that the simpleminded modeling I've seen has actually reached a point of accurately understanding our earth's climate drivers.
    Nor, do we agree on what exactly would constitute a climate catastrophe.
    I fear the long term effects of altering a natural cycle. Why wouldn't I? I've seen large scale agriculture lead to a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico because of increased erosion and fertilizer runoff. I've seen drained wetlands in central Indiana lead to massive scale flooding in southern Indiana. I've seen countless other examples of humans ignorantly modifying natural systems and causing disaster. Why should this be any different?

    To me, a "catastrophe" is anything which leads to a loss of biodiversity, clean and usable resources, or life of any kind on a large scale. Define large however you want, but something as simple as increased hurricane frequency or force or the spread of disease in the third world from mosquito population booms are catastrophes to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    This thread started addressing the recent cooling trend.
    No such thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Does anyone give enough of a shit about climate science to actually want to discuss the likely causal factors?
    Everyone HAS been talking about climate science. Simply because you shoot it down with poor data does not mean we're somehow dodging the issue.
    Strange and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    reduce your consumption
    repair then
    rebuild then
    re-task everything that comes under your control, then
    recycle

    Once you've done all that you can, rest assured that you did your best.
    I understand this.

    You'd like to think that you personally, and people generally, can get to a good outcome for everyone by their individual separate actions. You're keen on planting trees and you'd like to think that's making a difference. I'm pleased that my solar panels on my own roof mean that I'm some months a net producer rather than a net emitter of greenhouse gases in relation to my household power use.

    We have to stop kidding ourselves that we can personally - and everyone else along with us - get out of this mess by force of will or power of personal action alone. We can't. Just as we couldn't personally set up a mass transit system in order to reduce our carbon consumption for any city we live in, we can't sequester all the CO2 we've produced over our lifetimes by planting a few thousand trees - even if we had the space to plant and the control of the environment to ensure they didn't die so quickly that their sequestered carbon was released within a few decades.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    flick
    forget the malaria doom and gloom crap for the moment.

    Oil is but an energy source.
    We, as a species have exploited many other energy sources, and one by one switched to sources which, pound for pound, offered more energy.
    coal saved many forests, kerosene came in as whale oil fuel for lamps were getting too expensive as the wales were being over harvested.
    I cannot imagine the energy source 100 years from now, but I think oil will be a small part of it.

    Water is more deserving of our concerns...The draining of the ogallala aquifer could turn into a disaster within a generation.

    as/re:
    Really? You're not trying out the "increased atmospheric CO2 is GOOD for the planet" thing...are you?
    (a quote from 1000 clowns) Gosh 'n gollies you betcha.
    Symbiosis is more than just a word. We are doing for the greenery of this planet what no single species before us has been able to do. Plants---almost all plants like a carbon rich atmosphere-and we like an oxygen rich atmosphere. Tit for tat---it's a balancing thing.

    You have but to read up on the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (face) studies to know that plants prosper at 600 ppm of CO2.
    And, I think, far better to have more greenery than ice fields or arctic deserts.

    as/re
    This thread started addressing the recent cooling trend.
    No such thing.
    You forgot to chant la la la la la---------are you dancing around in a circle with your hands over your ears?
    Are you a climate science denier?

    Do you really believe that
    Everyone HAS been talking about climate science.
    ?


    hahahaha
    Not from my perspective dadio
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Perhaps, we should be getting back to the cooling trend ?
    Citation needed.
    see above
    (the noaa quote)
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I planted 1458 trees on my land, and another 5000 on government land controlled by the DNR (all i had to do was offer, and the DNR forester offered help, training, and tools and thanked me to boot).
    That's entirely commendable. But you see what you're up against when you work out how much area you've covered with trees during several months/years of work and compare that to worldwide deforestation barrelling along at 36 football fields a minute until recently.

    High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change (Abstract only - it's Science so there's a paywall.)

    Quantification of global forest change has been lacking despite the recognized importance of forest ecosystem services. In this study, Earth observation satellite data were used to map global forest loss (2.3 million square kilometers) and gain (0.8 million square kilometers) from 2000 to 2012 at a spatial resolution of 30 meters. The tropics were the only climate domain to exhibit a trend, with forest loss increasing by 2101 square kilometers per year. Brazil’s well-documented reduction in deforestation was offset by increasing forest loss in Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Zambia, Angola, and elsewhere. Intensive forestry practiced within subtropical forests resulted in the highest rates of forest change globally. Boreal forest loss due largely to fire and forestry was second to that in the tropics in absolute and proportional terms. These results depict a globally consistent and locally relevant record of forest change.
    Note that they only count something as a "tree" when it's over 5 metres tall.

    Here's their map. Global Forest Change | Google Crisis Map
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    NOAA Response(2009): The fact that globally averaged surface air temperature has shown no trend or even
    slight cooling over the last 7 years.....
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Is there any particular item in that NOAA document that should interest us? It seems to be a fairly standard debunking of the nonsense that sometimes gets advanced as testimony at Congressional hearings.

    I couldn't see anything relevant to this discussion. I couldn't see any other specially remarkable material. (Apart from the Monckton nonsense, but the NOAA comments were about correcting that - and very politely not ridiculing representatives for putting this stuff up in the first place.)

    Or were you referring to them explaining that it's entirely possible to have a decade of cooling (which we haven't had anyway) in a longer term warming trend?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    In that congressional testimony, Noaa debunked the
    Monckton nonsense,
    and the Gore-Hansen nonsense too. In total, I found it refreshingly moderate.

    Like I said before, they spit out some of the cool-aide.

    We would have an easier time of searching for real climate data and science if the braying jackasses(on both sides of the issue) would vacate the extreme positions which they seem to so dearly love........
    Any reasonable web search will yield well over 90% extremist crap for every bit of actual science.
    And the loony tunes charts bend and twist the data to serve something that seems ugly and stupid to me and pollutes the science for some peculiar agendas.
    Some of those grossly inaccurate charts have been posted on these forums as though they actually reflected real science, and this saddens me. And, worse still is the posters refusal/unwillingness to delete them when field data clearly refutes their claims.

    (sigh)

    It doesn't take one whole lot of thinking, intelligence, nor science to know that we have been in a general warming(punctuated by short term warming and cooling trends) trend since the maunder minimum/little ice age. And, most likely since the younger dryas.

    Of course that is why i am watching for new solar data.
    We get almost all of our heat from the sun-------(is that too obvious to state?)

    It's nice to know where we are, and where we've been, and fun to guess where we are going.
    I once sailed with a captain who steered the boat by watching the wake behind us and the compass.
    He had his ways, i have mine.
    Last edited by sculptor; April 7th, 2014 at 07:48 PM.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Good try, and a nice little dodge at the end to try and change the subject when your bullshit is called out. You made the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'll assume you made it up and give your musings the credibility they deserve (none).
    As are yours. You brought it up but have no answer other than Im full of bullshit, which, imo, is somewhat disparaging. Your post reads like a true liberal money gruber alarmist.
     

  82. #81  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    Wrong, my experience as an atmospheric chemist means I know roughly what the relative IR and UV cross sections and concentrations are in the relevant parts of the atmosphere (at least close enough to spot your argumentum ad anus). It may be that I'm mistaken and if so I'll admit it but not until I see the numbers supporting your argument, until then there is no reason to take it seriously as all you have is an unsupported claim. I think you'll find YOU brought it up in your original made up claim, you know when you were taking about gases absorbing UV, that bit. The fact you don't know you brought it up just shows how well thought out your made up claim is I won't do your work for you, support your claim or admit you made it up. BTW your last sentence reads like an ignorant, clueless crank with a political agenda, I'm not interested in trading insults with you, until you support your claim or admit you made it up I see no point in responding to your nonsense.
     

  83. #82  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    flick
    forget the malaria doom and gloom crap for the moment.
    Since I live in the first world, that's easy enough to do. Seems like most other people in the first world have no problem ignoring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Water is more deserving of our concerns...
    Well, we agree on something.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    And, I think, far better to have more greenery than ice fields or arctic deserts.
    Polar bears and penguins might disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    You forgot to chant la la la la la---------are you dancing around in a circle with your hands over your ears?
    Are you a climate science denier?
    Until you present convincing evidence of a cooling trend (not something ~5 years), I will continue to, as you say, cover my ears and chant la la la.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Of course that is why i am watching for new solar data.
    We get almost all of our heat from the sun-------(is that too obvious to state?)
    We get all of our heat from the sun.

    The question is how much heat we retain for how long. And it's greenhouse gases, and only greenhouse gases, that retain some of the heat that would otherwise radiate straight back out to space and thereby make the planet habitable for life as we know it. They're also capable of making it impossible for life as we know it and for different species of life and ecologies to dominate - but totally unsuitable for us and for many other species.

    We're finding out, for example, that increasing CO2 levels are probably bad for important grain crops. Not necessarily for the plants themselves, but for their suitability or effectiveness as nutrition sources for us. Food quality will suffer with rising carbon dioxide, field study shows -- ScienceDaily

    Bloom noted that other studies also have shown that protein concentrations in the grain of wheat, rice and barley -- as well as in potato tubers -- decline, on average, by approximately 8 percent under elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    "When this decline is factored into the respective portion of dietary protein that humans derive from these various crops, it becomes clear that the overall amount of protein available for human consumption may drop by about 3 percent as atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches the levels anticipated to occur during the next few decades," Bloom said.
    Wheat, rice, barley, potatoes. I'm not keen on that "overall amount" figure. It obscures or ignores the fact that grains are a very substantial portion of the diet of a very substantial portion of the world's population. Mainly in areas where malnutrition is already very common. Reduce the protein available from the major part of their very limited diet by 8% and malnutrition can become starvation.

    Might not sound like much, but think about what a beef or pig producer would say if you told them that their feedstock would from now on contain any % less protein and they'd tell you to go away because they're going to find another supplier who can offer a better % protein. They want healthy growth at a steady rate to a reasonable size. We want the same for ourselves.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Hah! Love this.

    https://what-if.xkcd.com/88/

    Found it in a comment on this post at Open Mind. Hansen’s 1988 Predictions | Open Mind Which I'm pretty sure I've linked to before.

    Most importantly, for anyone who's read that Hansen was wildly off the mark in his 1988 paper, here's the important part.

    Here’s the climate forcing used in the three scenarios compared to actual climate forcing since the prediction began:


    Anyone who tells you that Hansen's forecast was wrong, badly wrong, is incorrectly comparing actual observations to his Scenario A. It's incorrect because climate forcings don't match Scenario A, they're pretty close to Scenario C. In fact, Grant Foster remarks that the reality is so close to the projection that there's a good deal of coincidence involved.

    In fact, the match of observed temperature to Hansen’s scenario is C quite good. Damn good. So good, that I suspect the match isn’t entirely due to the excellence of the model, in part it was coincidence.


    I've always had the view that Hansen including a large volcanic eruption in his projection was pure serendipity in that we had Pinatubo more or less smack dab in the middle of the time period he'd estimated. But there's at least as much good science as good luck in getting it all so correct. Especially when you consider the clunky computer resources he had available at the time. Still, Arrhenius got it all pretty right nearly a century earlier and he was stuck with pen and ink and nothing more.
    KALSTER and PhDemon like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    May I suggest that we get a minute amount of our heat from the earth itself via volcanism.
    as/re Hansen:
    from the above referenced:

    Question 6: Dr. James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore both are on record saying the
    IPCC is wrong and sea levels may rise upwards of 20 feet by the end of the century; do you
    subscribe to this view? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Response: The models used to project sea level rise reflect a fairly robust scientific understanding of
    the contributions of thermal expansion and glacier melting to sea level rise. The complex processes that
    determine past and potential contributions to sea level rise from changes in ice sheets, however, are less
    well understood. The scientific literature used in preparing the 2007 assessment by IPCC reflected the
    inability of the scientific community at the time to quantify the contributions to sea level rise due to
    changes in ice sheet dynamics, and thus projected rise in the world's oceans of between 8 inches and two
    feet by the end of this century. More recent research3
    has provided additional insights into the potential
    contributions to sea level rise from the accelerated flow of ice sheets to the sea and to estimate sea level
    based on the observed relationship between sea level and temperature. Estimates of sea level rise based
    on these new scientific insights exceed those of the IPCC with the average estimates for sea level rise
    under higher emission scenarios at between 3 and 4 feet.
    not 20

    Hansen has forsaken his credibility for political hyperbole.
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Hansen has forsaken his credibility for political hyperbole.
    No. He simply did a scenario calculation based on the concept of the rate of SLR giving rise to a doubling every 10 years.

    The one thing he didn't do was to give different scenarios, doubling every 12, 15, 20, or 25 years, to show the range of possible results for the end of this century. Most importantly, his real objective was to show that increasing sea level rise is non-linear/ exponential and what the consequences are if you use 10 years as your doubling time.

    But seeing as he's James Hansen, we all know full well that the worst possible scenario would be the one that some people would latch onto anyway even if he had given a full range of scenarios.

    This article gives links to some of the more important discussions about this, but emphasises the non-linearity of declining ice-sheets. The big difference between Hansen and many other researchers and commentators is that his climate expertise is mainly in paleo and he approaches things quite differently from people who rely on recent or Holocene period observations and try to extrapolate from those. His approach is to look at the physics and the paleo and find where things do and don't match up in climate history.

    However, the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen (2005, 2007) argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear, and that IPCC's BAU forcing is so huge that it is difficult to see how ice shelves would survive. As warming increases, the number of ice streams contributing to mass loss will increase, contributing to a nonlinear response that should be approximated better by an exponential than by a linear fit. Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible, and pointed out that such a doubling time, from a 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015, would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095.
    http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...-rise-possible

    Note that the figure he's basing it on is a 1mm per year ice sheet melt contribution to SLR in this decade.

    According to this summary from the NSIDC, SOTC: Contribution of the Cryosphere to Changes in Sea Level | nsidc.org, the current contribution of ice melt to SLR is more than 1 mm per year.

    Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year (expansion) and 1.19 millimeters (glacier melt) per year respectively
    So the only questions are

    1) whether SLR increase is linear or exponential.

    2) if it's exponential, is 10 years the right, or at least plausible, doubling interval.

    I'm pretty sure that the non-linearity of ice loss is fairly generally agreed. So the main discussion should be around the rate, the doubling time. If someone is prepared to argue for 12 or 22 years as more likely than 10, they should go right ahead. Preferably they should back it up with paleo parallels and link those to current and expected CO2 concentrations. (Though future concentrations become less and less relevant once the process is fully underway.)
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Good try, and a nice little dodge at the end to try and change the subject when your bullshit is called out. You made the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'll assume you made it up and give your musings the credibility they deserve (none).
    As are yours. You brought it up but have no answer other than Im full of bullshit, which, imo, is somewhat disparaging. Your post reads like a true liberal money gruber alarmist.
    Moderator Request: You have made an assertion. I suggest you do one of the following:
    1) Provide an appropriate citation supporting your assertion.
    2) Provide a reasoned argument, with data and calculations, supporting your assertion.
    3) Withdraw your assertion.
    4) Cease posting in this thread.


    And regardless of which of these options you choose please cease the personal insults. (That goes for everyone in the thread.)
    KALSTER and Stargate like this.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Of course that is why i am watching for new solar data.
    We get almost all of our heat from the sun-------(is that too obvious to state?)
    We get all of our heat from the sun.
    certainly a very large percentage

    which is maybe why you might find this of interest:


    from the accompanying text:
    Another new solar sunspot record peak of 73.2 was set for Cycle 24 last month ... In a big surprise, it’s over six spots higher than the first sunspot peak[of cycle 24] set in early 2012 and will probably go up. A secondary peak that much above the first is almost unheard of.

    The new sunspot peak is unusual for two conflicting reasons:

    The secondary peak is higher than the first
    Current physics suggests the solar cycle should be weakening

    Conflicting signals coming from the sun muddles how it might affect earth’s future climate. A more active sun will have a warming effect. A less active sun, predicted by most solar physicists, will have a cooling effect.

    The sun hasn’t decided what it wants to do yet.

    amen to that brothers and sisters
    pineapple007 likes this.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Stray question as/re plate tectonics
    Does the oceans' spreading (continental drift) proceed at roughly the same pace during ice ages(like this one) as during the normal warm periods between ice ages?
     

  91. #90  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Stray question as/re plate tectonics
    Does the oceans' spreading (continental drift) proceed at roughly the same pace during ice ages(like this one) as during the normal warm periods between ice ages?
    Seeing as you are against science, I believe the answers you wan to fit your personal delusions might be found here; Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Thanx GiantEgo

    Next time you're praying don't forget to tell "GOD" that i love her ass.
    You might tell her that I'd walk 10 miles barefoot through a blizzard just to stand in her shit.
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Wrong, my experience as an atmospheric chemist means I know roughly what the relative IR and UV cross sections and concentrations are in the relevant parts of the atmosphere (at least close enough to spot your argumentum ad anus). It may be that I'm mistaken and if so I'll admit it but not until I see the numbers supporting your argument, until then there is no reason to take it seriously as all you have is an unsupported claim. I think you'll find YOU brought it up in your original made up claim, you know when you were taking about gases absorbing UV, that bit. The fact you don't know you brought it up just shows how well thought out your made up claim is I won't do your work for you, support your claim or admit you made it up. BTW your last sentence reads like an ignorant, clueless crank with a political agenda, I'm not interested in trading insults with you, until you support your claim or admit you made it up I see no point in responding to your nonsense.
    Obviously you know more about this subject than I. Im in the group of people that has no political agenda whatsoever but I don't see the point of making co2 the bad thing and then regulating it because of climate models and scientific collusion for profit.

    I did leave links on my posts, however unworthy of attention by the "upper echelon minds" that did explain where I came up with my conclusions. I did read your link from skeptical science and think that it is interesting and haven't found any links to dispute your carbon interaction information ,yet, but I really haven'y looked very hard.

    For the same reasons you post, and because you possibly already know because your an atmospheric chemist, why don't you do the explaining and convince me that co2 is the enemy. It would be something that I haven't heard of to date. Also, I understand if your unwilling or unable because of time constraints.
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    but I don't see the point of making co2 the bad thing and then regulating it because of climate models and scientific collusion for profit.
    Number 1. CO2 isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's the only reason we're here at all. This planet would be as uninhabitable as any other without it. But just like all good things, it's possible to have - or create - too much of a good thing. And that's a bad thing.

    Number 2. The concern is not because of climate models. The concern is based entirely on physics. Tyndall, Arrhenius, Fourier in previous centuries had no computers to help them with calculations, let alone models, and Gilbert Plass in the 1950's was equally deprived of their help. Nobody used a computer to come up with this 1958 film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

    Number 3. Scientific collusion for profit. Perhaps you don't understand scientists. Firstly, every year there is a new crop of scientists keen and eager, willing and wanting to make their mark on the world of science.

    You should know that there's a Nobel Prize there for the taking for anyone who could demonstrate an entirely new understanding of radiative physics that would undercut or overturn a couple of centuries (if we start with Fourier in 1822) of accepted science. If anyone could show that CO2 lasers and heat-seeking missiles did not work in the way that everyone else thought they did would guarantee honours, prizes and worldwide recognition. Competition of this sort means that there'd always be a renegade willing to step outside any such collusion.

    Collusion? That's been kept secret? How many physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, ecologists, statisticians as well as CO2 laser operators and military munitions specialists and satellite data processing technicians do you think there are in the world? How many have there been altogether since, say, the 1960s. There were thousands of people involved just in collating and writing the IPCC reports themselves, let alone doing the research included in those reports. I don't know if you've ever tried to keep something confidential, but when you're talking about tens of thousands of people keeping quiet about a conspiracy during several decades - you're talking about the impossible.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  95. #94  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    scientific collusion for profit.
    Profit? Really? Where? I'm constantly having to beg people for money to buy even basic lab supplies. If there is some kind of big money-making opportunity I'm missing out on, it's not fair that you guys didn't clue me in.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There's a couple of really good posts on this money for scientists idea at Prof Mandia's blog.

    Taking the Money for Grant(ed)

    The example he gives is here. (I'm leaving out some details - you can read those for yourself.)

    “Prof. X received a grant for $437,232. He is getting rich from research funding! No wonder he claims that humans are causing global warming. He is in it for the money!” Sound familiar? It is often the case where a climate scientist receives a large grant and then there are cries of outrage from those that have no idea of how the money gets spent. ...

    $204,489.92 is what the investigators on the grant are paid over three years. There are six (6) of us working on this grant. Three of us, including the PI, will receive the majority of that amount. I will receive $48,264.75 over three years ($16,088.25 per year). The PI will receive $49,175.31 over three years.
    Imagine that! What appeared to be a grant for Prof. X for $437,232.67 really nets him $16,391.77 per year.
    But then we get to the crux of the issue.

    At Suffolk County Community College (SCCC) and many other institutions, grant money can only REPLACE teaching load. Grant money does not add to our salaries. For me, $16,088.25 per year equates to 11.8 credit hours of overload teaching. (Overload hours are those that go above the base salary of fifteen credit hours per semester. I typically teach 20 overload hours per year which is four classes.) Rounding to 12 hours, I will give up 2.5 classes per year in order to participate in this grant endeavor.
    So what the grant does is allow the prof to work on this particular project rather than on teaching - for no change in salary.

    And then there's part 2. Taking the Money for Grant(ed)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Some theorists believe that there is a correlation between Earth's temperatures and both the level of solar activity and the length of the solar cycle. The low solar activity levels and the delayed start to the solar cycle indicate that we're in a cooling phase.
    It's possible that the delayed start means a delayed end.
    It is expected that Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 25 will be relatively quiet-to-average cycles, leading to a cooling pattern over the next few decades.
    Temperatures have been colder than it would have been otherwise.
    Sunspots are simlar to a bathtub of lukewarm water; if you trickle in cold or hot water, it may take a while to notice the difference. If this cooling phase on Earth is offset by any warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases, they also raise the question of whether an eventual warming cycle could lead to more rapid warming on Earth than expected.
    every climate coin has 2 sides
    maybe we toss this one and it lands on it's edge and stays there?



    Dark blue shows average sunspot cycle; red shows current cycle 24 and light gray shows SC5. Horizontal axis is the number of months after the start of cycle. -

    (for those who are ignorant, sc5 led us into the Dalton minimum)
    The Dalton had the "year without a summer" that may have killed well over 10% of anyone above 30 degrees latitude. During the following famine Estonia lost over 70% of their population.

    quick
    someone run out and kick the sun and wake the damned thing up
    or
    move in the general direction of the equator

    ...............
    note the double tops is sc5 and in sc24
    (sorry, this graphic is a tad old and doesn't show the higher second double top in cycle 24 so see the graphic in post #88)

    ..........................
    and, that my fellow forum users is just one component of climate science

    ..................................
    prognostication time: (?)
    Considering that the sun just might be the main climate driver on this spaceship "EARTH"
    my money would be on a continuation of the abatement of warming,
    and,
    (further out on this prognosticatory limb)
    a gradual cooling
    unless
    anthropogenic atmospheric forcing starts to pick up again.

    "Gas up the SUV honey, we got a planet to save!"
    Last edited by sculptor; April 8th, 2014 at 10:13 PM.
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Of course that is why i am watching for new solar data.
    We get almost all of our heat from the sun-------(is that too obvious to state?)
    We get all of our heat from the sun.
    certainly a very large percentage

    which is maybe why you might find this of interest:
    The sun hasn’t decided what it wants to do yet.

    amen to that brothers and sisters
    Why should we it doesn't matter much anymore:


    --
    And it's hard not to notice your bias when you pick and completely dismiss Hanson's concerns about models poor ice/glacial dynamics underestimating sea level...particularly when there's a splendid example of 5m rises per century in the geological/paleo records.

    "Some such records suggest that the last deglaciation was punctuated by a dramatic period of sea-level rise, of about 20metres, in less than 500years."
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10902.html

    You might also notice the IPCC nearly doubled their sea level rise by 2100 estimate, a combination of the empirical data already exceeding all the models, and some limited improvements to dynamics of ice movement.

    Now if you were actually half as unbiased and scientifically interested, and hell bent to actually follow the empirical data as you claim...you'd be screaming the Hanson might be right and going to great lenghts to explain (in your feeble non-scientific way (sigh)) how the models suck and past data shows Hanson sized rises. But of course you aren't, because like the solar/temperature data, you'd rather disguise your cynical thinking and hide behind pseudoscience of Watts/up and similar sights that feed your preconceptions of the world.
    ---

    In any case, no thread should turn into an "everything about climate" thread and instead stay much more focused in this part of the forum.

    The OP has been answered in spades and I'll be closing this thread tomorrow.

    Feel free to start a more focused thread about anything in this one, and try harder not to pull it off track. (myself included).
    RedPanda likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    every climate coin has 2 sides
    maybe we toss this one and it lands on it's edge and stays there?
    Climate is much more like a Rubik's cube than a coin.

    Anyway, on to quiet sunspot cycles, I've yet to see anyone explain why the temperature didn't go down over the last few such cycles.

    Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see thePMOD index page for data updates).https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=5


    If you look at the period 1960 to 1980, you'll see that the temperature stayed fairly steady despite the drastically low - near dormant - cycle at the time. And when the solar cycles again head downwards, the temperature heads upwards. (Notice that they've used the same 11 year smoothing for both to ensure there's no mismatching of analyses.)

    There's a good item dissecting the arguments and "observations" of the main proponents of this solar cycle stuff, the Norwegians Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum. The biggest problem that I can see with their solar cycle model for predicting lower temperatures in the next few years/ decades is that it's already failed in relation to the recent cycles we have observations for. Their model works for cycles 14 to 20, and from then on has failed either badly or catastrophically for cycles 21 to 24.

    Look at the red stars for the model predictions of mean temperature, and at the blue circles and the solitary blue star for the observed mean temperatures.

    Figure 1. The observed and predicted temperatures up to now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-Cycle-Model-fails.html
    RedPanda likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    AdeLady
    think of your earth as a heat sink
    energy(heat) input, or the lack there-of
    takes awhile to show effects.

    boil some water in a covered container
    turn off the heat
    15 minutes later stick your hand in------------------------------------OUCH!
    Or freeze the H2O , take it out of the fridge into room temps
    check it in 15 minutes---------------still icy and cold?

    Now consider the mass of the earth compared to your little pot............

    Are the gears in the critical mind meshing?
    ..............
    alternately:
    If there was a robust forest on the shores of the arctic ocean the last time that CO2 levels were this high;
    would you expect the arctic to instantly melt and the forest to start tomorrow sharply at 5 am?

    Climate is much like a super tanker that just doesn't stop nor turn on a dime---------
    It would seem that the guys who are convinced that CO2 is the main climate driver, think that CO2 has the power of a trim tab.
    I ain't so convinced.

    That being said, I am fairly certain that if we look carefully enough, and prognosticate from our observations, and keep track of when and why we were correct
    and incorrect and figure out why-----------we'll proceed in the process of (down the path to)enlightenment.

    Most likely:
    You and I will be long dead before anyone has a handle on this curiosity.
    Last edited by sculptor; April 9th, 2014 at 08:35 AM.
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    AdeLady
    think of your earth as a heat sink
    energy(heat) input, or the lack there-of
    takes awhile to show effects.

    Now consider the mass of the earth compared to your little pot............

    Are the gears in the critical mind meshing?
    I beg your pardon?

    You presume to tell me about heat sinks and delayed effects and climate and How To Think.

    How dare you!
    Strange, sculptor and DogLady like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Input to our brain without using any SENSE.
    By sir ir r aj in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2013, 02:32 PM
  2. In need of input for a project!
    By annayvo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2013, 07:57 PM
  3. Input Work vs Input Force
    By WriterTyper in forum Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 11th, 2011, 08:59 PM
  4. Input On A Derivative .. x(absolute value of X )
    By MohaveBiologist in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 30th, 2009, 09:40 PM
  5. A MUST READ! and A MUST INPUT!
    By redrum4196 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 25th, 2006, 06:16 PM
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
  •