Global warming discussion III

[thaiboxerken]

So, when are all of the "global warming" non-deniers going to actually do something to help them survive the imminent dystopian future they are predicting? I mean, if I thought the seas were actually going to start rising any day now, I would be moving inland and storing large supplies of food, fuel, guns, and ammunition. I don't see liberals doing any of those things. Instead, what I see them doing is trying to raise taxes and get rich off of carbon credits. Liberals are talking the talk, but walking an entirely different walk.

This has to be one of the silliest posts I've ever seen. Maybe you are overstating the "doom" that is predicted to happen and how soon. Climate change will have a larger impact on the lives of future generations, not so much ours.

 

[bit_pattern]

So, really there is nothing we need be concerned about right now. Some day the seas will rise because of "global warming". Some unspecified day in the future its going to happen, just not right now. I think I understand. Liberals never need to prepare for a dystopian future because it is never going to happen in near enough proximity to "now" to require planning for it.

That's right. Just the same as how you can smoke right up until you get cancer at some unspecified point in the future and THEN do something about it!

 

[bit_pattern]

Climate change will have a larger impact on the lives of future generations, not so much ours.

Speak for yourself, old man

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Source?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

[Olowkow]

The link is to an opinion by Chris (John) Booker. I would love to hear the apologetics surrounding that bit of drivel. I would also like to hear just one AGW denier give his take on the so-called faked data revealed by the emails that were so gleefully touted by deniers. At the least I would be amazed if one admitted he had read the truth.

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

The "asbestos hoax" is a fun one, and any fan of Booker's will just love some of the other AGW deniers.

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

Try Claude Allègre for example. Another real POS.

In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[12] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.

It is remarkable how so many conservatives just can't manage to come to grips with some method for figuring out who the attention whores are, which are the con men and which sources actually know what the **** they are talking about.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks very much. No rush, but it is quite important to me, as that exact property, the exudates and their interaction with the soil food web, soil carbon and adsorbed minerals, is how I manage to do what many claim is impossible. So obviously anything I can learn about that interaction is important for me to understand as I develop my agricultural model. If for some reason you can't get it, all OK. I will eventually be able to get past the paywall by getting down to the university library. However, this is starting to be my busy season, so that won't happen for a while.

Ahh, sorry about the delay, I've been very involved in a few research endeavors of my own lately and have had to reduce my online social interaction time. I imagine with spring upon us we are both doing a lot more yard, garden and farm work as well. Sitting on the tractor turning over the cover crops, and pulling the spreaders provides a lot of quality thinking time.

As to the research in question:

"Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates" - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2580.html

I have a copy of the paper and can send you a copy if you want to PM me a email address. And/or, if you would like to discuss the paper/findings we can take it over to your thread and I can synthesize my understanding of the paper/findings (with supporting quotes) and we can explore the subject in more detail.

for a more casual discussion of the paper/findings:

http://www.farmingfutures.org.uk/blog/plant-roots-may-accelerate-soil-carbon-loss?page=3

The researchers showed that chemicals emitted by plant roots act on carbon that is bonded to minerals in the soil, breaking the bonds and exposing previously protected carbon to decomposition by microbes.

The carbon then passes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), said the study's coauthor, Markus Kleber. He said the study challenges the prevailing view that carbon bonded to minerals stays in the soil for thousands of years. "As these root compounds separate the carbon from its protective mineral phase," he said, "we may see a greater release of carbon from its storage sites in the soil."

As warmer weather and more carbon dioxide in the air stimulate plants to grow, they produce more root compounds. This will likely release more stored carbon, which will enter the atmosphere as CO2--which could in turn accelerate the rate of climate warming.

http://www.prbo.org/sciencenews/?p=6262

“By enhancing microbial access to previously mineral-protected compounds, some root secretions promote an indirect mechanism of accelerated carbon loss, more than simply increasing the supply of energetically more favorable substrates. “Our results provide new insights into the coupled biotic-abiotic mechanisms underlying the ‘priming’ phenomenon and challenge the assumption that mineral-associated carbon is protected from microbial cycling over millennial timescales,” she said. “Our study revealed a climate dependent `priming’ mechanism where plant secretions counteract the strong protective mineral-organic associations and facilitate the loss of carbon from the soil system,” Pett-Ridge said. “If root secretion rates respond to climate change as predicted, elevated CO2 concentrations may not only stimulate secretion, they also may alter the composition of those secreted compounds released into soil, and increase metal and organic matter mobilization in the rooting zone.”

 

[BrooklynBaby]

This has to be one of the silliest posts I've ever seen. Maybe you are overstating the "doom" that is predicted to happen and how soon. Climate change will have a larger impact on the lives of future generations, not so much ours.

Perhaps you should take it up with whats-his-name, the guy that flies around the world in private jets releasing tons of co2 into the atmosphere, in order to warn people of the danger co2 in the atmosphere poses to all of us. Here's a summary of one of his points from a movie he made, which I'm sure won tons of awards, taken from Wikipedia:

"For example, Gore discusses the possibility of the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet, flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees."

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here's a summary of one of his points from a movie he made, which I'm sure won tons of awards, taken from Wikipedia:

"For example, Gore discusses the possibility of the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet, flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees."

Is that wrong?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Is that wrong?

Is this a trick question? When sea levels rise 20 feet, all of the land in Key West, Fla. will be underwater. So yes, it is wrong. I guess Al Gore feels like as long as he doesn't give a specific date when the oceans will rise and start swallowing all of the land, he will never be proved wrong. That is just nonsense. "Global-warming" is just like a religion - if you don't do what we tell you needs to be done, you are doomed. Step one is to give us all of your money. I think it compares very well to Scientology.

Do the "global warming" enthusiasts ever stop to think that if we stop using fossil fuels like they want, billions will die? Why not just take our chances and do nothing?

 

[bit_pattern]

Do the "global warming" enthusiasts ever stop to think that if we stop using fossil fuels like they want, billions will die? Why not just take our chances and do nothing?

Who the alarmist religion-freak now?

At least Gore's comments about Greenland and West Antarctica are rooted in reality, this is just bug-eyed hysteria that can't be supported in any kind of meaningfully empirical sense.

 

[pharphis]

Global cooling? Is this another one of those old lies about the scientific consensus? Source that isn't an opinion piece, maybe?

My question was left unanswered :/

 

[bit_pattern]

My question was left unanswered :/

Are you surprised?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Here's some easy money for the "global warming" true believers, courtesy of someone named Lord Monckton:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/i-challenge-climate-fascists-with-500000-bet/

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here's some easy money for the "global warming" true believers, courtesy of someone named Lord Monckton:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/i-challenge-climate-fascists-with-500000-bet/

Do you know how to read a chart Brooklyn Baby? Read that chart please. Where is the average line placed? At zero? Or approx .25?

Then read what the numbers mean.

RSS Global Mean Temperature change

So that chart shows a global warming of .25 degrees C per year! The chart doesn't show no warming, it only shows for a short time the rate of increase leveled instead of accelerating. If there were no warming, the line would be at zero. Maybe take this as a lesson how the skeptic can quickly and easily spot deception and propaganda.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

My question was left unanswered :/

Here's a list of "global cooling" sources from back in the day:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's a list of "global cooling" sources from back in the day:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Gee, the Youngstown Vindicator, Ellensburg Daily Record and Hartford Courant all sound like prestigious scientific journals. Seriously, you're being presented with a list of media reports as evidence of what scientists were predicting and you find this persuasive, why exactly?

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's some easy money for the "global warming" true believers, courtesy of someone named Lord Monckton:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/i-challenge-climate-fascists-with-500000-bet/

He's a Lord, my, how authoritative!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

He's a Lord, my, how authoritative!

The advantage of posting what a Lord says instead of science, is that it can remain in the political thread instead of the science thread. In the science thread Lord Monkey has been debunked multiple times ad nauseum.

 

[Reality Check]

.

Any opinion on this ??

.

Let see Arnold Martin:

1. A lie about a ""so-called global warming “consensus”".
   There is overwhelming evidence that there is an actual scientific consensus on AGW and the 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening.
2. Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens is not about the scientific consensus!
3. Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens is an early online release possibly for a May 2015 edition of the Journal of Climate.
   Few climate scientists reading it means no effect yet on the scientific consensus on AGW.
4. A hysterical blog entry is not science.
5. A hysterical blog entry citing the unsupported opinions of people working for the Cato Institute is not science.
   The Cato Institute (previously the Charles Koch Foundation) is not overtly climate change denial. They do not deny global warming - they deny the effects and possibility of mitigation.
6. A hysterical blog entry ignorant about the actual paper is not science.

Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens has only one author.
The abstract is:

Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. ... These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.

RealClimate Climate Sensitivity Week has a link to the full text of a text of the paper:

In conclusion: three different lines of evidence provide support for an aerosol forcing less negative than -1.0Wm-2: If one adopts an upper bound for the aerosol forcing of -0.3 Wm-2; based on an analysis of Earth’s energy budget since 1950, this suggests that the radiative forcing from the anthropogenic aerosol is very likely (90%) to be between -0.3 Wm-2 and -1.0 Wm-2:
This range for the present-day aerosol forcing is consistent with, but considerably narrower, than the estimate of that same forcing in the AR5.The central estimate from the AR5 (-0.9 Wm-2) is also consistent with the present forcing range.

Despite the hysterics in the blog entry, the paper is consistent with the existing literature but provides a smaller range of forcing. The author goes onto reasons why the models match the instrumental record from 1850 to 1950 when the large aerosol forcing should give a negative trend.

 

[Trakar]

.
...Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevenshas only one author.
The abstract is:

RealClimate Climate Sensitivity Week has a link to the full text of a text of the paper:

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is the pre-submission draft at https://powerfolder.gwdg.de/dl/fi6cZtMfgDdaTwSPsrcnJznC/AerosolForcing_Stevens_2015.02.23.pdf

Despite the hysterics in the blog entry, the paper is consistent with the existing literature but provides a smaller range of forcing. The author goes onto reasons why the models match the instrumental record from 1850 to 1950 when the large aerosol forcing should give a negative trend.

Didn't we discuss this back near the first half of last month? Maybe it was a a different board. IIRC, correctly one of the concerns that some have raised is that significant other positive forcings such as BC (Black Carbon / soot) is not adequately accounted for in the estimating assumptions used by Stevens.

...First, I develop and motivate a simple model designed to represent the time-history of F_aer, and through which a revised lower bound of its present-day value is derived. Second, I interpret this model in light of present understanding of aerosol processes, and show that this understanding is consistent with a less negative lower bound on F_aer. Third, through an analysis of simulations conducted as part of the fifth phase of the coupled model intercomparison project, (CMIP5, Taylor et al. 2012) I argue that a smaller forcing is implied when one compares the response of the models to available observations. At the end of the manuscript the implications of my findings are discussed. In a series of appendices further theoretical justification is given for the simple model used to interpret the historical aerosol forcing, and the methods, models and a more complete description of primary data sources are presented.

There are a lot of findings that can be derived from B. Stevens work here may prove very useful going forward, such as directions worth more serious attention to help nail down the more exact contributing factors and mechanisms leading to a more negative than he posits lower end for aerosol forcing. I can't recall, off-hand, what all the issues of concern were, but I'll refresh myself on the paper and review discussions I've seen that have already foreshadowed the peer analysis which will occur when the paper is actually published.