Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Oh the irony!!

 

Lake Mead, Nation’s Largest Reservoir, To Reach Record Low This Week

[Styx]

Top solar countries India is noticeable by it's absence.

 

Such a shame to see Australia so far down the list considering its competitive advantages! Its world ranking won't be elevated anytime soon, there is simply no policy framework to make that happen.

 

Australia too has missed out on a wonderful opportunity to be a world leader in solar research - an exporter of product and new technology. Hard to corner the market if you aren't a significant player. 

[knocker]

Such a shame to see Australia so far down the list considering its competitive advantages! Its world ranking won't be elevated anytime soon, there is simply no policy framework to make that happen.

 

Australia too has missed out on a wonderful opportunity to be a world leader in solar research - an exporter of product and new technology. Hard to corner the market if you aren't a significant player. 

 

Actually I read an article two or three days ago on how well a solar rooftop policy in Queensland was working but I can't think where I saw it. Of course this was separate to the grid at the moment.

 

This wasn't the article but it's along similar lines.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-08/qld-providers-trying-to-block-solar-from-grid-groups-says/5579874

Edited July 8, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmm 750,000km2 above normal?

 

2m thick so that's 750.000 times 2 to get volume which I make 1.5million km3?

 

DMI log a 5gt loss on july 5/6 this year and those rates had been similar for a number of days......... ice losses having doubled over the noughties across Greenland

 

So is the antarctic sea ice increase of significance? Does it really balance ice losses across the northern hemisphere ice?

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999824

 

 

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

 

http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

 

Good lord has this come up again. It was a lie the first and second time around.

 

Twisting Frames: WUWT is back to recycling old 36% geoscientist denier memes, calling them "new"

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/twisting-frames-wuwt-is-back-to.html

Edited July 8, 2014 by knocker

[PeteG]

Hmmm 750,000km2 above normal? 2m thick so that's 750.000 times 2 to get volume which I make 1.5million km3? DMI log a 5gt loss on july 5/6 this year and those rates had been similar for a number of days......... ice losses having doubled over the noughties across Greenland So is the antarctic sea ice increase of significance? Does it really balance ice losses across the northern hemisphere ice?

I think you'll find your arithmetic is wrong. 750000 km2 x 2m (0.002km) is 1500 km3.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999824

 

No Keith it's misleading and deceptive. A survey found that "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis" yet that becomes the headline: "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists...".

 

I can see the deception there, why can't you? I see such a deception as an insult to my intelligence.

 

Why are you promoting such clap trap???

Edited July 9, 2014 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999824

 

No Keith it's misleading and deceptive. A survey found that "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis" yet that becomes the headline: "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists...".

 

I can see the deception there, why can't you? I see such a deception as an insult to my intelligence.

 

Why are you promoting such clap trap???

 

Yep, copying and pasting almost exclusively from the worst climate denier websites, with little or no thought about the content. There's something that justifies a 10 posts per day limit imo.

[knocker]

Yep, copying and pasting almost exclusively from the worst climate denier websites, with little or no thought about the content. There's something that justifies a 10 posts per day limit imo.

 

And then when we repeatable point out that it's nonsense we are deemed to rubbish any views contrary to our own and not countenance an alternative viewpoint. Go figure. As I pointed out in an earlier post that latest piece of rubbish has been doing the rounds for a couple of years. Frankly I just think it's trolling and you are being generous with the 10 posts.

[Polar Maritime]

After the remark about Climate Models not being evidence, And continuing to ignore all rest ..Good. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10955605/Lord-Lawson-BBC-has-banned-me-because-of-my-climate-change-scepticism.html

Edited July 9, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Gray-Wolf]

Whoops! No excuses but it brings things into an even clearer perspective? Whilst extensions in seasonal ice might give albedo feedbacks the 'extensions' are peripheral and so gone before they can return any negative feedback?

 

The loss of land ice is not being 'replaced' by seasonal snows ( and the darkening of Greenland shows the snow all goes each year) exposing more and more land as the ice sheet retreats up-slope. Obviously the end result is very worrying! ( seeing as the other thread would demand it yesterday or label it a 'fraud' they would not have any concerns though)

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999935

 

 

Not really GW. What we would like to see however is some (any?) of the predictions come to fruition. Sadly they seem to keep moving into the future....

 

I'm not sure that we would all like to see that. I certainly wouldn't. Possibly the most famous prediction of them all and it was certainly spot on.

 

 

In 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar was the first to demonstrate that the Earth’sland surface was warming. Callendar also suggested that the production ofcarbon dioxide by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate. This short note marks the 75th anniversary of Callendar’s landmark study and demonstrates that his global land temperature estimates agree remarkably well with more recent analyses

 

 

A for a prediction moving into the future I'm intrigued how it can move into the past.

 

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins_jones_2013_Callendar.pdf

 

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.

 

Niels Bohr 

Edited July 9, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes a prediction is in the future, if I predict I'll make £10 in 2 years & after 1 year I change that prediction to 3 years what has happened to the prediction? It's moved FURTHER into the future.

 

When I see one single prediction that has been made by these experts (& the keyboard warriors on here) come true (maybe before 2100 though, eh?) I'll believe they know what they are talking about.  As it stands they make predictions, they don't happen so they come up with new ideas (claiming science has moved on) and new predictions.

 

Maybe the argument here isn't whether it's warming or not more whether these experts have a clue what will happen & when.

 

And here is where I find 'common ground' with you drgl! Most folk here resort to the IPCC report for their general day to day understanding of where we are headed and I believe that we will find some of these 'predictions' extremely conservative? 

 

Couple this with the tendency to only look at the mid line or lower values given ( lower values more commonly used over on your thread?) then we have problems with our 'expectancy' of what is to come?

 

Then there is the issue of 'time delay' in the IPCC report. Just this week we have seen worrying re-calcs of ice loss in Antarctica ( now including the increased/anomalous wind we see there currently) giving us a doubling of the rate of losses we should expect?

 

This is similar to the shock we had in 07' of the sudden decrease in sea ice there. The scientists that were engaged in Arctic study were flagging the issue but the rest of science were focussed on the older model output.

 

None of this is science being 'wrong' but merely that new data was gained meaning drastic revisions to our understanding of the systems under study and so 'tweaks' to our predictions of the behaviour of that system.

 

Maybe we should head the warnings of the folk at the 'coal face' and not just revert to the older predictions as an argument to reject the new info ( however dire the info may be?)

 

As it is we have folk on the other thread permanently resorting to older studies as 'proof' to either science being 'wrong' or more informed studies being 'alarmist/catastrophist ' in nature?

 

Dr Sharakova's warnings are just such ( new mission to the ESS now underway!) an issue with older 'nothing to worry about' statements being held up as proof that she is to be ignored and the Methane rapid release issue should be ignored.

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999943

 

 

When I see one single prediction that has been made by these experts (& the keyboard warriors on here) come true (maybe before 2100 though, eh?) I'll believe they know what they are talking about.  As it stands they make predictions, they don't happen so they come up with new ideas (claiming science has moved on) and new predictions.

 

I note that I'm now a keyboard warrior, variation on a climate Nazi I suppose, but I would be grateful if you would enlighten me as to it's meaning.

 

Remind me again of your scientific credentials. I'm assuming they must be substantial given the authoritative way you dismiss hundreds of scientists in different disciplines as not knowing what they are talking about.

 

But just in case, slim though it may be, you have forgotten the odd thing or two, A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

 

An extract

 

 

Some people feared that the IPCC was too conservative; they insisted on emergency measures to avoid the risk of catastrophe if temperatures rose to the upper end of the projected range or even beyond. Others insisted that the IPCC was wholly mistaken; there was no need to worry. They pointed to a minority of scientists (scarcely any of them known for contributions to climate science) who held to the old conviction that human activity was too feeble to sway natural systems. Distrust of the climate experts was encouraged by corporations and political interests that opposed any government interference in the economy. However, the scientists who had been predicting for decades that by 2000 the world would be significantly warmer were now obviously correct. Science reporters, business leaders, government advisers and others increasingly believed them. An ever larger number of individuals, corporate entities, and government agencies at every level decided that something had to be done.

 

And regarding this

 

 

Maybe the argument here isn't whether it's warming or not more whether these experts have a clue what will happen & when.

 

Maybe the puzzle here is not whether it's warming or not, but how a person with your credentials, who boldly dismisses expert opinion without offering any scientific explanation, can repudiate basic physics so easily.

 

I take it your point, thinly disguised, is not with the prediction, but with the science behind the prediction??

Edited July 9, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999964

 

 

& yet at one point (still?) we were told there is a lag of some 6-800 years between CO2 & temperature increases?

 

In the eagerness to reply you both seem to have failed to answer that simple question. Which is it? Is there a lag or not?

 

The rise is CO₂ concentration in the Vostok ice core record lags the temperature rise by between 600 – 800 years. This is sometimes used to maintain that therefore CO₂ cannot be driving up global temperatures.The interpretation is incorrect. What we see in the Vostok record is a consequence of what is known as Milankovitch cycles.

 

The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not fixed. It varies with a period of about 100000 years. These variations result in changes to the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun and where this energy is deposited. At the beginning of a cycle the Earth’s temperature will start to rise. The ability of water to retain CO₂ depends on temperature and so this rise in temperature results in a rise in the atmospheric CO₂ concentration. This increased CO₂ concentration further amplifies the warming which then further increases the atmospheric CO₂ concentration. The net result is that the surface temperature increases by about 10^oC and the CO₂ concentration rises by about 100 ppm. An important point, however, is that the orbital variations alone cannot explain this temperature rise. It requires amplification due to enhanced levels of atmospheric CO₂.

 

Later in the cycle, however, the orbital variation changes the amount of energy the Earth is receiving so that temperatures start to decrease. The cooler oceans are able to absorb more CO₂ and atmospheric CO₂ levels also start to decrease. This reduces the warming influence of CO₂ and the system returns back to where it was at the beginning of the cycle. This process can also repeat. There is essentially a feedback relationship between temperature and CO₂ levels.

 

The problem today, is that the rise in CO₂ is not because of a rise in surface temperatures. It’s because of us releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels.

 

So the answer to your question is yes there was a lag, but man in in his infinite wisdom is ensuring we currently don't require one.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[BornFromTheVoid]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if we increase it's concentration, we will increase the down-welling longwave radiation,the climate system will accumulate heat, nights will warm faster than days, the stratosphere will cool, sea levels will rise, global ice levels will fall, Spring and Summer snow cover will fall (eventually followed by winter), polar regions will warm faster than equatorial, oxygen levels will fall, extreme cold records will be outnumbered by warm records, the ocean will absorb CO2 and begin to acidify, etc, etc

Is someone going to argue than none of these things are happening?

 

A relatively recent piece on the Antarctic ice core, CO2/temperature lag issue

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

[VillagePlank]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if we increase it's concentration, we will increase the down-welling longwave radiation,the climate system will accumulate heat, nights will warm faster than days, the stratosphere will cool, sea levels will rise, global ice levels will fall, Spring and Summer snow cover will fall (eventually followed by winter), polar regions will warm faster than equatorial, oxygen levels will fall, extreme cold records will be outnumbered by warm records, the ocean will absorb CO2 and begin to acidify, etc, etc

Is someone going to argue than none of these things are happening?

 

A relatively recent piece on the Antarctic ice core, CO2/temperature lag issue

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

 

Sigh. You mention nothing of dynamic equilibria. 

 

What is the saturation level of the CO2 molecule according to quantum mechanics - do you know what it is without looking it up? What physical law governs it?

 

Is there a limit? Are we approaching the limit? Have we surpassed the limit? Is there evidence that the earth has a maximum temperature based on a limit? (Yes,Yes,No,Yes- based on physical laws (ie first principles), not (recent) scientific papers)

[Paul]

Just for the sake of clarity and to stop people ending up with posting restrictions and the like, please have a read of the forum guidelines, noting the parts about being 'nice' to people and showing respect for others opinions. 

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sigh. You mention nothing of dynamic equilibria. 

 

What is the saturation level of the CO2 molecule according to quantum mechanics - do you know what it is without looking it up? What physical law governs it?

 

Is there a limit? Are we approaching the limit? Have we surpassed the limit? Is there evidence that the earth has a maximum temperature based on a limit? (Yes,Yes,No,Yes- based on physical laws (ie first principles), not (recent) scientific papers)

 

The points I listed are things that are happening, not really a discussion on equilibrium climate sensitivity or the apparent dynamic equilibria present in the Quaternary climate reconstructions. Sorry that makes you sigh.

 

What exactly are you referring to? The absorption wavelength? Planck's law? The bonding structure of molecules that allows them to be GHGs?

 

Seems you already have all your own answers, to all your own questions. Good luck debating with that approach.

[VillagePlank]

The points I listed are things that are happening, not really a discussion on equilibrium climate sensitivity or the apparent dynamic equilibria present in the Quaternary climate reconstructions. Sorry that makes you sigh.

 

What exactly are you referring to? The absorption wavelength? Planck's law? The bonding structure of molecules that allows them to be GHGs?

 

Seems you already have all your own answers, to all your own questions. Good luck debating with that approach.

 

Where I am going, I don't need luck .... I am impressed that you've even heard of Planck, to be honest. The bonding structure is not critical to a molecule being a GhG, btw. I can recommend some "easy reading" text books if you need them. Honestly - being helpful, PM me.

 

(OK, misquote)

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sparkicle

[Gray-Wolf]

In the eagerness to reply you both seem to have failed to answer that simple question. Which is it? Is there a lag or not?

 

I wish things were always 'simple' to answer but sadly we live in a very complex world? The latest research appears to show 'synchronous' rises (  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract ) but if you think about it CO2 is not the only thing at play here? We have the massive albedo shifts from ice cover to open water/land surface and then the topography of the land surface itself?

 

All ice ages differ due to the configuration of the orbit, tilt and position of axis ( wobble) so some times we get a southern hemisphere heavy glaciation and sometimes we get a more northern heavy? ( remember the current orbital configuration favours far northern cooling..... but something stopped that cooling and reversed it into warming???)

 

If you have land masses covered in ice then you have a 'buried' carbon cycle. If it is oceans that are covered we don't see the same issue? When a land mass thaws so does it's buried carbon reserves ( and permafrosts) bringing instant carbon to the table along with the albedo driven changes. If an ocean ( like the southern ocean?) emerges do you imagine that we have the same potential carbon spike?.

 

So the end of the last ice age does not show too much of a lag in temp rises (orbital forcing and albedo driven) and rises in CO2 ( rotting of the frozen carbon materials and thaw of the permafrost/peatlands).

 

The 'greenhouse forcing' is there as soon as the CO2 is there ( not much lag at all?) but it will take time to become fully established ( they give us a 30year period to see the full impacts of our current loading so if we ceased production of CO2 today we would still have some more rises to come?)

 

Personally I think we have many folk that will suffer quite a rude awakening once the current configuration of natural , and man made, drivers alter.

 

If NASA is ballpark in its figures for the impacts of man made 'global dimming then the rapid expansion of China's coal burning ( 2002 to 2007 doubling) came at just the wrong/right moment as the natural drivers flipped strongly negative .

 

Both home grown and international pressure has lead to a policy change in China and so their worst excesses are now over with a move , ongoing, to reduce particulate pollution and increase renewables. The Sulphates have a 7 year life span so will begin reducing as the 'naturals' are flipping more positive ( augmenting of warming) so we will see both the 'full effect' of our CO2 forcing alongside an augmentation of that warming by Natural phases.

 

With the Arctic in dire straights and the shelf sea permafrosts looking far more likely to add into the GHG issues this could not happen at a worse time?

 

What will you do if you begin to see this process occurring drgl? Will you hold your hands up and say something like " I do not know why I chose to dispute the data that trained scientists brought to us" or will you just fall silent?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Where I am going, I don't need luck .... I am impressed that you've even heard of Planck, to be honest. The bonding structure is not critical to a molecule being a GhG, btw. I can recommend some "easy reading" text books if you need them. Honestly - being helpful, PM me.

 

(OK, misquote)

 

While I fully expect thinly veiled insults during any exchange with a "sceptic", if you're going to go down the route of being patronising, you should probably know what you're talking about first.

The bonding structure of simple gases are vital as to whether or not they are GHGs, and how strong a GHG they are, what wavelengths that absorb and re-emit, etc. As is the case with most things, a quick google search will provide a wealth of info on the subject.

 

EDIT: Spelling...

Edited July 9, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[VillagePlank]

While I fully expect thinly veiled insults during any exchange with a "sceptic", if you're going to go down the route of being patronising, you should probably know what you're talking about first.

The bonding structure of simple gases are vital as to whether or not they are GHGs, and how strong a GHG they are, what wavelengths that absorb and re-emit, etc. As is the case with most things, a quick google search will provide a wealth of info on the subject.

 

EDIT: Spelling...

 

Wrong. Plain and simple. Gases do not bond. Atoms do, and that's subject to quantum mechanics, not some Google search as you put it. Learn the subject, you are a bright person, you'll do well.

 

It's all about physics, not some search you did on the internet one day, fella. Learn that lesson. And learn it well.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

I am delighted to be called skeptic, btw. It's better than being part of an accepting crowd. Science is as science does, I guess. Thanks for the compliment.

 

Looking forward to your precis of the CO2 molecule and it's dynamics. You've made quite some claims, and, no doubt, as a sceptic (small 'c') you've investigated them yourself, and can better inform us all of your results. You're experimental evidence, particularly, interests me. Reproducibility is essential in science, wouldn't you agree?

 

I wait in anguish.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

I see the ego has landed.