Climate-gate

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Percentages of solar and anthropogenic forcings remain in doubt.

not really... read those links i left... refer to the studies in them.

We keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the warming has taken an hiatus.

you are not going to say there hasn't been any warming, are you?
I can debunk that with a simple graph
Trends are typically 30 years, as per NOAA, EPA and everyone else doing climate science, so... taking the last 30 years as a trend (1985-2015) we can see that there is a rise:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015

now, you can cherry-pick this site and get just about anything you want it to say... i know, i watch certain idiots and trolls do it a lot on PO, but there is always this little note on the main page to be aware of:

Beware sharp tools
However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.

Something to seriously consider

Ergo, my suspicion that the claims for agw are much of hubris.
Scientifically, when your predictions fail to match real world events, then more knowledge is needed.

and you are viewing your "skepticism" of the science through lenses of conspiracy, politics or religion (or pseudoscience) and that is no basis for a judgement
if you cannot refute the studies using the scientific method, then you are making assumptions and playing Dunning-Kruger to the entire scientific community
and THAT is pretty much my point

not about anyone being a skeptic... i was one once myself
but it is all about the SCIENCE... and the science is far more accurate than you are saying
you are ASSuming that "predictions fail to match real world events" because of the inability to comprehend statistics, probability, the scientific method, or a myriad of other reasons
you are promoting a fallacious argument that is based upon political (or other) reasoning, and that is NOT scientific
it is not even logical

One reason that you are refusing to accept the science is this circular reasoning process that does not allow you to accept it
and that is supported by more scientific evidence
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Stepping back from preconceptions and viewing the experiment from a different perspective is usually a good way of inculcating new knowledge.

of course, it also helps if you are able to provide a scientific basis for skepticism, which i've not seen
you are simply parroting other political/religious/other arguments and even using their graphs, etc

A little warming now could be of tremendous benefit within our children's lifetimes.

(Gas up the SUV darling, we've got a world to save)
If only the promise of AGW were true.

i point out that the "little warming" happened half a century ago... we are past the "little" and getting to the "uh-oh" stage
you make light of it because you do not comprehend the possibilities, nor the potential

This is analogous to thinking atoms are small and thus cannot hurt anyone
and yet... split one, or fuse one...

 

[billvon]

Now the warming is a good thing?

You have to understand something about deniers. Many of them don't have a specific position other than denial. The actual details change from day to day.

I generally break deniers down into three types:
Type I - "the climate isn't warming!"
Type II - "OK so the climate is warming but we had nothing to do with it!"
Type III - "OK so maybe we had something to do with it but there couldn't possibly be any bad consequences from such a warming!"

However, this classification is of limited usefulness because many deniers change from type to type depending on the day. You'll often hear the same person say "here's a study that proves the climate hasn't changed in 17 years! See, no warming!" then a day later say "yeah, it's warming, but it's a natural warming trend, stupid!" Then a week later you'll hear "the warming is protecting us from a deadly ice age!" The only common thread is denial.

 

[cosmictotem]

You have to understand something about deniers. Many of them don't have a specific position other than denial. The actual details change from day to day.

I generally break deniers down into three types:
Type I - "the climate isn't warming!"
Type II - "OK so the climate is warming but we had nothing to do with it!"
Type III - "OK so maybe we had something to do with it but there couldn't possibly be any bad consequences from such a warming!"

However, this classification is of limited usefulness because many deniers change from type to type depending on the day. You'll often hear the same person say "here's a study that proves the climate hasn't changed in 17 years! See, no warming!" then a day later say "yeah, it's warming, but it's a natural warming trend, stupid!" Then a week later you'll hear "the warming is protecting us from a deadly ice age!" The only common thread is denial.

Based on your defense of capitalism in the other thread, I thought I sure would have you pegged for a climate denier too. Good to see you ain't all bad.

 

[Photizo]

"The Obama administration's plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to "proceed with caution" in negotiations with Washington because any deal could be later undone."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republicans-warn-world-obama-u-n-plan-could-231904316.html

 

[iceaura]

Much of our warming of the last century was most likely from the grand solar maximum

The numbers don't add up for that - the grand solar maximum didn't provide enough extra solar energy to begin to account for the warming we saw at the time, let alone the continuing warming we are still seeing.

Percentages of solar and anthropogenic forcings remain in doubt.

The range of doubt for solar alone is nowhere near enough to account for this heat wave.

We keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the warming has taken an hiatus.

No, it hasn't.

It has slowed down from its acceleration of recent years - which of course needs explanation. But the very need for that explanation (which may be very bad news, btw, so cross your fingers) points to the primary role of CO2 boosting in the physics of the situation - one needs to account for a lack of effect, not an effect. The CO2 boost is expected, by ordinary physics and observation, to cause a rapid and dangerous rise in biosphere temperatures.

 

[Billy T]

... Much of our warming of the last century was most likely from the grand solar maximum

Percentages of solar and anthropogenic forcings remain in doubt. We keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the warming has taken an hiatus.

I would not say "remain in doubt" but both do vary as economic changes modulate the rate of CO2 release and as you note the sun's output varies too. Neither is very predictable, but sun does have an 11 year cycle, reflected in the number of sun spots, and we have about 400 years of data on that. (More sunspots when solar out put is greater.)

The Maunder Minimum is also called the little ice age. I don't think anyone knows why the solar out put falls for half a dozen cycles, and as you can see below we may be starting a new period of lower than average solar output which some, especially deniers of AGW call a "hiatus" indicating global warming is not AGW as we were for several 11 year cycles* with more than the average number of sun spot - They call that the "grand solar maximum."

*6 of 7 most recent cycles shown in top graph had peaks of more than 150 spots. (Only cycle 20 was less than that.) The smoothed data of lower graph with only 2.5 cycles shown may indicate a declining solar intensity trend has started. (Top graph ends with cycle 23 which is lower than 22 as seen in more detail in lower graph.) Despite now about three decades of solar decline the CO2's increasing blocking of IR escape has more than compensated for less solar heating. Global temperatures have risen.

There is a hiatus or at least a significant slowing of the rate of temperature rise. Part no doubt now due to the falling solar output, but also part due to the fact IR blocking by CO2 in its absorption bands and only be 100% and it has now achieved about 65% of what it can. I.e. even if the CO2 concentration were to increase five fold to 2,000ppm the solar blocking by CO2 would not quite increase by 50%!

In contrast CH4 is now blocking only a tiny fraction of its potential. Further more, CH4 potential blocking of IR escape is much larger because unlike 1D molecule O--C--O the methane molecule is 3D with many more complex ways to absorb IR. Not only that, CH4 is mainly removed from the air in chemical reactions with OH- radical that is produced by harsh solar UV. For more than 800,000 years the solar production of OH- was faster/greater than the rate of CH4 release so the concentration of CH4 was held low. Now it is three times higher than it was at any time during those 800,000 years (ice core data) and every year it a molecule of it lives longer before it finds a OH- radical to mutually destroy both. I. e . CH4's half live, in 2013 12.6 years, was only 9.6 years in 2003. h4's half life is now increasing at 0.3 year per year, and that is increasing as the OH- radical concentration keeps falling. (Harsh UV production of OH- can't keep up the ever increasing CH4 release rate.)

There is a huge amount of carbon in the "releasable" CH4 - more carbon than in all the coal that ever existed! Also bacteria in warming bogs and peat deposits and the tundra are generating more CH4 every year as they warm. Plus the Gulf Stream is now partially flowing into the Arctic Ocean, along the shallow continental Siberian shelf, decomposing methane-hydrates. So much so that it is bubbling up now in columns, some a Km in diameter. Earlier theory, used by the ICCP said this could not happen as the vertical rise velocity limit (its "terminal speed") was so low that the bubbles would dissolve before reaching the surface. What they forgot was the fact that these bubble lower the density of the water column they are in and the whole column, with bubbles in it, is buoyant and accelerating towards the surface.

For these reasons, and the fact that even with only 12.6 year half life, a Kg of CH4 makes more global warming in the first decade after it is released than 80 kg of CO2 does (plus when OH- reacts with a molecule of CH4 a molecule of CO2 is produced). Not long by human standards, before that 80 becomes >100 times more powerful than same mass of CO2, as the life time of each CH4 molecule in the air is rapidly increasing; I am more worried by the long term effects of CH4 than CO2. It was three well separated bursts of CH4 release that caused the "great extinction" according to the latest and most complete, SCIENTIFIC investigation* using sediment core records that extend back to before the time of the dinosaurs.

* Take less than 10 minutes to see summary of this study in this video:

 

[billvon]

Based on your defense of capitalism in the other thread, I thought I sure would have you pegged for a climate denier too. Good to see you ain't all bad.

Give it time; you'll decide I am a denier as well, since I don't believe in everything that the alarmists say either.

 

[Billy T]

Time for editing post 2247 has expired so I note here (thanks to correction by Trippy) that the great extinction reference there is an error. It was about 252 million years ago. The video concerns the great (8C) and rapid temperature rise, which was on top of an earth about 5C warmer than now. I.e. most had been killed earlier and relatively few new creatures had evolved (I think) to fill their nitch.

Anyway about 55% of all marine genera did not make it thru the great extinction and ~33% did not make it thru the great temperature rise. - According to chart at Wiki on the great extinction event page, which will not copy here.

My error does not affect my point (just shows my ignorance or the times when various paleontological events occurred - video clearly states it concerns the 55 million years ago event). My point was that CH4 has made rapid temperature rise (8C) that would make most mammals, including man, go extinct; although those living in polar regions not necessarily by the heat and humidity directly - more lack of food supply with oceans acidified and plagues coming from millions of un buried bodies. (not just humans).

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would not say "remain in doubt" but both do vary as economic changes modulate the rate of CO2 release and as you note the sun's output varies too. Neither is very predictable, but sun does have an 11 year cycle, reflected in the number of sun spots, and we have about 400 years of data on that. (More sunspots when solar out put is greater.)

The Maunder Minimum is also called the little ice age. I don't think anyone knows why the solar out put falls for half a dozen cycles, and as you can see below we may be starting a new period of lower than average solar output which some, especially deniers of AGW call a "hiatus" indicating global warming is not AGW as we were for several 11 year cycles* with more than the average number of sun spot - They call that the "grand solar maximum."

*6 of 7 most recent cycles shown in top graph had peaks of more than 150 spots. (Only cycle 20 was less than that.) The smoothed data of lower graph with only 2.5 cycles shown may indicate a declining solar intensity trend has started. (Top graph ends with cycle 23 which is lower than 22 as seen in more detail in lower graph.) Despite now about three decades of solar decline the CO2's increasing blocking of IR escape has more than compensated for less solar heating. Global temperatures have risen.

There is a hiatus or at least a significant slowing of the rate of temperature rise. Part no doubt now due to the falling solar output, but also part due to the fact IR blocking by CO2 in its absorption bands and only be 100% and it has now achieved about 65% of what it can. I.e. even if the CO2 concentration were to increase five fold to 2,000ppm the solar blocking by CO2 would not quite increase by 50%!

In contrast CH4 is now blocking only a tiny fraction of its potential. Further more, CH4 potential blocking of IR escape is much larger because unlike 1D molecule O--C--O the methane molecule is 3D with many more complex ways to absorb IR. Not only that, CH4 is mainly removed from the air in chemical reactions with OH- radical that is produced by harsh solar UV. For more than 800,000 years the solar production of OH- was faster/greater than the rate of CH4 release so the concentration of CH4 was held low. Now it is three times higher than it was at any time during those 800,000 years (ice core data) and every year it a molecule of it lives longer before it finds a OH- radical to mutually destroy both. I. e . CH4's half live, in 2013 12.6 years, was only 9.6 years in 2003. h4's half life is now increasing at 0.3 year per year, and that is increasing as the OH- radical concentration keeps falling. (Harsh UV production of OH- can't keep up the ever increasing CH4 release rate.)

There is a huge amount of carbon in the "releasable" CH4 - more carbon than in all the coal that ever existed! Also bacteria in warming bogs and peat deposits and the tundra are generating more CH4 every year as they warm. Plus the Gulf Stream is now partially flowing into the Arctic Ocean, along the shallow continental Siberian shelf, decomposing methane-hydrates. So much so that it is bubbling up now in columns, some a Km in diameter. Earlier theory, used by the ICCP said this could not happen as the vertical rise velocity limit (its "terminal speed") was so low that the bubbles would dissolve before reaching the surface. What they forgot was the fact that these bubble lower the density of the water column they are in and the whole column, with bubbles in it, is buoyant and accelerating towards the surface.

For these reasons, and the fact that even with only 12.6 year half life, a Kg of CH4 makes more global warming in the first decade after it is released than 80 kg of CO2 does (plus when OH- reacts with a molecule of CH4 a molecule of CO2 is produced). Not long by human standards, before that 80 becomes >100 times more powerful than same mass of CO2, as the life time of each CH4 molecule in the air is rapidly increasing; I am more worried by the long term effects of CH4 than CO2. It was three well separated bursts of CH4 release that caused the "great extinction" according to the latest and most complete, SCIENTIFIC investigation* using sediment core records that extend back to before the time of the dinosaurs.

* Take less than 10 minutes to see summary of this study in this video:

excellent post Billy T thanks.

 

[Trippy]

 

[Photizo]

Understand the map as 'reality' with the blue area as the realm of science/man (limited by the [dis]abilities of his body i.e. brain/senses... physical/mental/sensual 'reach')... the overall view is God's perspective.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Understand the map as 'reality' with the blue area as the realm of science/man (limited by the [dis]abilities of his body i.e. brain/senses... physical/mental/sensual 'reach')... the overall view is God's perspective.

when you allow religion to dictate your responses (or reality), there is no room for science

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

Trippy
love this graphic... might post it on some other places!
Thanks for posting it

 

[Photizo]

when you allow religion to dictate your responses (or reality), there is no room for science

When you allow yourself to dictate your responses (or reality), there is no hope for freedom --> John 8:34-36).

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

When you allow yourself to dictate your responses (or reality), there is no hope for freedom --> John 8:34-36).

considering that you have regularly lied for the sake of a delusion, and your religion considers lying a sin, then the above john reference is dedicated to you, not to those who seek to know or understand the reality around them (James 3:14)

You also have it wrong: when you allow someone else to dictate your responses because of a fallacious premise that has no bearing or relation to, or existence in the reality that has evidence or proof; that is no hope for freedom... might as well go back to the days of blue bloods

but i don't believe in your sky faerie, therefore you have no province over me
there is NO empirical evidence of ANY kind that supports your historical comic myth, nor is there any justification in accepting your religious beliefs as being any more credible than, say, the flying spaghetti monster or the Ravenous blugblatter beast of Traal

i believe only in what can be proven with evidence, and you have no evidence of the existence of your deity, nor of your historical myths
you might as well be saying you are a devout follower of the modern cultural phenomenon of thus:

a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in a cultural art form that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music

(fish slapping dance)

it has the EXACT same validity as your fallacious plagiarized secret authored book which was edited for convenience by the Canon
actually, more, as there is a video record of the cultural art form which can be considered empirical evidence of it's existence
and that is FAR better than the hear-say and eye witless testimony within your comic

 

[Billy T]

Read post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-global-warming-even-real.143423/page-20#post-3289429 It gives data on rapid temperature rise about 55 million years ago during the PETM and concludes with:
Whether the plants and animals upon which humans depend can survive the present rapidly changing environment remains to be seen.

Quoted text there also states:
"current CO2 emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster."

Now for some sick or gallows humor:

There'll be a hot time in the world soon - but a wasted show by mother nature with no human audience.

 

[Photizo]

...i believe only in what can be proven with evidence...

Sorry to have yanked your chain...
Your answer provides evidence of your slavery; what's your excuse now?

 

[Quantum Quack]

i believe only in what can be proven with evidence, and you have no evidence of the existence of your deity, nor of your historical myths
you might as well be saying you are a devout follower of the modern cultural phenomenon of thus:

Vent:

One could quite easily demonstrate that the current potential racial extinction predicament we find our selves in is due to our "natural" human desire to become masters of our universe.
Ever since Plato and ilk inspired the scientific method and killed of the ancient Greek Gods, with logic and science mankind has progressively quested to replace the God(s) with himself on the throne instead.

There is plenty of evidence ( take the AGW and fauna extinctions, as an example) that we as a race have not been deserving the stewardship of this planet and this is due to our deliberate attempts to manage and control our environment with out the wisdom necessary to do so.

There may be no real proof of a divinity as such but there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate mankind constantly wishing to become that divinity. (Narcissism - Pride - Original sin)

We seek to blame Mankind for GW and climate change, and so we may as well claim to be also failing in the role we have chosen to take upon ourselves as "Masters or Gods of our own Universe". for surely if one believes the evidence supported predictions we have less than 100 years left to learn from our mistakes.

If God does indeed exist he must be rather saddened that the "Natural Evolution of Human Self-responsibility and Wisdom" can be so painful but alas how else can it be?

 

[Quantum Quack]

With out getting all manic about religion I find it quite ironic that the book says upon the fruit of the tree of knowledge being eaten: (Garden of Eden - (I read - Environmental balance - sustainable harmony, Utopia etc))

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us" (Genesis 2:4-3:2 King James Version)

hee hee ...well there is some credence to that statement IMO.

Except we may not have yet learned how to be one of "us" and unfortunately may not have enough time left to do so...

and before you get on your religio-phobic high horses, my philosophical persuasion is towards Pantheism*.

*Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Sorry to have yanked your chain...
Your answer provides evidence of your slavery; what's your excuse now?

and your continued diatribe is simply your inability to comprehend science, the scientific method or reality because you are far too inundated with religion, conspiracy and the delusions that are not allowing you to see, comprehend or admit to reality
you continue to validate the studies i linked: "The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science"
you can read it again here: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

the only demonstrations of slavery here are the ones from religion and conspiracy like you, Photizo
religion ties people with bonds of fear, pressure, hate, prejudice, segregation, and more...

i have made a CHOICE, and i live by my choice... that of the pursuit of truth through following the evidence using the scientific method... religious acolytes do NOT live by choice

the religious are controlled through fear: of punishment, reprisal, fear of misstep,ostracization, peer pressure or the myriad other means and methods of fear based control
and i differentiate between a faith and a religion
a faith is simply the belief without evidence... there need be nothing else

however, religion is the codification of rules or tenets often surrounding a faith, but most frequently dedicated to a mass delusion, and it uses fear to control those who are weak minded or who have no logical ability to think or clearly see reality for what it is

you can NOT be free if you are religious because your entire life is governed by fear and strict protocols which do not allow for individual logical thought
thus, only the religious are slaves to anyone... and usually it is to a narcissistic sociopath of a leader who knows how to manipulate others by utilising the very tenets against those around them for the purpose of control, fame, money or self aggrandizement

the bible is nothing more than a means to control others and that is why there are so many contradictory messages and passages in it
there is no love in a deity who will punish those who refuse to be bound by others into a slavery of stupidity