Urgent memo to the expert scientists at NASA, NOAA, Scripps, Woods Hole, Hadley, etc, etc:
Some anonymous character on the internet has it all figured out, and has demonstrated that you guys are smoking crack. And this despite that s/he is demonstrably clueless. What does this say about you losers?
Urgent memo to the expert scientists at NASA, NOAA, Scripps, Woods Hole, Hadley, etc, etc:
Some anonymous character on the internet has it all figured out, and has demonstrated that you guys are smoking crack. And this despite that s/he is demonstrably clueless. What does this say about you losers?
Carbon is NOT the big culprit as previously believed.. carbon release FOLLOWS Global Warming.. it does NOT precede it.
Lollimer and true sceptic.
Lets even accept ALL the unproven effect of carbon on Global Warming.
Lets accept that man causes 30 % of carbon in the atmosphere (also disputable)
Lets accept that Carbon has a 9-26 % effect of the total GW affect. (also disputable)
This would still mean man has a minimum effect of (.3 x .09) and a maximum of (.3 x .26). This is a range of 2.6 % to 7.8 % affect on overall Global Warming.
At a pure temperatures increase this would mean an average summer increase of .5 – 1.5 of a degree (now I admit this does sound a LOT more significant)
BUT..This is the absolute maximum using VERY disputable affects and amounts and completely negating the science and physics shown in the above article.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable saying that AGW is VERY disputable and its affect may be very small.
1. I am not a “shill” for big oil.. I believe we need to wean ourselves off our current energy sources for many reasons BETTER than AGW.. if AGW paranoia accelerates this then in may be a good thing
2. GW may be VERY real and if it is going to dramatically affect us negatively then we should do all we can to fight it (even if pisspot changes to carbon help)
3. Pascals wager.. even if AGW is crap fighting it may still be helpful.
My only point here is IF AGW is crap should we seriously affect economies and our lifestyles fighting it.
Secondly I think I have made it very clear in various equations what COULD be the effect on temperature caused by MAN.. they range from Nuthin to about 1.5 degrees.
I would like the alarmists to show as simply why I am wrong ! AND if I am how it will affect the Earth !
Do not insult other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
It may have done on previous occasions but the carbon release definitely came first this time. So no, carbon release does not necessarily follow global warming.
OK, here's one key fact you seem to be missing: Water has a huge heat capacity and there is lots of water on the planet (in the oceans, ice caps, etc.). If you change the properties of the atmosphere so to alter the fluxes of energy going in or out (which changes in GHG concentrations would do - the physics of this is pretty basic), it will take decades before the ocean temperatures catch up and equilibrium is reached again. Therefore, the 1.5 degree increase in temperature observed since pre-industrial times is not the total amount of warming we can expect as a result of human activity.
Suddenly ceasing anthropogenic GHG emissions is one scenario commonly considered by climate modellers and the usual prediction is for warming to continue for several years if this were to happen.
Carbon is NOT the big culprit as previously believed.. carbon release FOLLOWS Global Warming.. it does NOT precede it.
Lollimer and true sceptic.
Lets even accept ALL the unproven effect of carbon on Global Warming.
Lets accept that man causes 30 % of carbon in the atmosphere (also disputable)
Lets accept that Carbon has a 9-26 % effect of the total GW affect. (also disputable)
This would still mean man has a minimum effect of (.3 x .09) and a maximum of (.3 x .26). This is a range of 2.6 % to 7.8 % affect on overall Global Warming.
At a pure temperatures increase this would mean an average summer increase of .5 – 1.5 of a degree (now I admit this does sound a LOT more significant)
BUT..This is the absolute maximum using VERY disputable affects and amounts and completely negating the science and physics shown in the above article.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable saying that AGW is VERY disputable and its affect may be very small.
1. I am not a “shill” for big oil.. I believe we need to wean ourselves off our current energy sources for many reasons BETTER than AGW.. if AGW paranoia accelerates this then in may be a good thing
2. GW may be VERY real and if it is going to dramatically affect us negatively then we should do all we can to fight it (even if pisspot changes to carbon help)
3. Pascals wager.. even if AGW is crap fighting it may still be helpful.
My only point here is IF AGW is crap should we seriously affect economies and our lifestyles fighting it.
Secondly I think I have made it very clear in various equations what COULD be the effect on temperature caused by MAN.. they range from Nuthin to about 1.5 degrees.
I would like the alarmists to show as simply why I am wrong ! AND if I am how it will affect the Earth !
Do not insult other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
The issue is that you are making very strong assertions based on dubious information. First of all you were using the figure of 5% of atmospheric CO2 being human-caused. Where did that come from? We know that levels have increased from 280 to 385, we know that the extra is of fossil origin because of carbon isotope analysis, and we know how many tons of hydrocarbons we have been burning.
I'm not calling you a shill but you really need to explain why your figures are right when they are so different to ones generally accepted and easily supported.
I'm not calling you a shill but you really need to explain why your figures are right when they are so different to ones generally accepted and easily supported.
And Aussie Thinker, please note that what you just posted in an opinion-editorial piece on a community Web site.
That's the kind of "source" that is used by, say, IDers to attempt to claim that there's a scientific controversy over evolution. (There isn't.)
Anyone can post anything in the opinion-sphere.
When you look at legitimate science -- on Science Daily, from the IPCC, at NOAA -- you'll find that the warming trend is accepted, that the predominance of human forcers is accepted, and that the questions on the table now are "How much will it warm on average?", "What will the effects be in the globe's various ecosystems?", and "What can and should we do to try to mitigate it?".
You will not find a current environment of cross-publishing regarding the question of whether the globe is warming or whether human activity is the primary forcer. You will not see research being pursued which uses other scenarios as the basis.
Compare this to other scientific issues, such as the causes of cancer, or the mechanisms of autism. In those fields, regarding those questions, you'll see research based on many different hypotheses, because there's an effort to determine what the causes of cancer are and what the mechanisms of autism are.
That kind of multi-pronged research is going on in climate science to answer the questions "How much warmer?", "What will result?", and "What to do?" -- but not for the questions "Are we warming?" or "Is human activity a primary forcer?"
You will always be able to find crank opinions about anything, whether it's evolution, astronomy, zoology, or climate. The only way to determine whether an op-ed piece is valid or if it's a piece of crank journalism is to go to the legitimate sources.
And the scientists have the real figures, they're doing the real research, and they're agreed that the planet is warming, humans are largely responsible, and things are proceeding faster than we thought they would just a few years ago.
That kind of multi-pronged research is going on in climate science to answer the questions "How much warmer?", "What will result?", and "What to do?" -- but not for the questions "Are we warming?" or "Is human activity a primary forcer?"
Just to add to that point, the "are we warming?" and "is human activity a primary factor?" questions still routinely get answered, but by now these answers are mere byproducts of the research into the more detailed questions that the scientists and policymakers currently care about.
I just like to be specific on that point, because deniers like to accuse the scientists of being blinkered whenever anyone says that AGW is a done deal. Mainstream science moved on from those questions a long time ago, but if AGW was a myth, most of the current research wouldn't actually work.
That’s expected behavior for part of a feedback loop.
All it shows is that CO2 didn’t provide the initial disturbance to the system, but we knew that already because we know Milankovitch cycles cause the initial change in an ice age. We also know Milankovitch cycles far too small a forcing to have the effect it does without a significant positive feedback effect to amplify it.
That’s expected behavior for part of a feedback loop.
Only the low end of that estimate is really disputable. It also ignores the fact that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is influenced by the amount of CO2. (More CO2 warms up the atmosphere and a warmer atmosphere will contain more water vapor)
This would still mean man has a minimum effect of (.3 x .09) and a maximum of (.3 x .26). This is a range of 2.6 % to 7.8 % affect on overall Global Warming.
Non Sequiter. Climate change is caused by changes in forcing not the absolute value of the forcing, which is what you were citing. 100% of the *additional* CO2 in the atmosphere is human in origin. You also omit the water vapor feedback effect I mentioned above.
That’s expected behavior for part of a feedback loop.
All it shows is that CO2 didn’t provide the initial disturbance to the system, but we knew that already because we know Milankovitch cycles cause the initial change in an ice age. We also know Milankovitch cycles far too small a forcing to have the effect it does without a significant positive feedback effect to amplify it.
That’s expected behavior for part of a feedback loop.
No, it really isn’t.
Only the low end of that estimate is really disputable. It also ignores the fact that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is influenced by the amount of CO2. (More CO2 warms up the atmosphere and a warmer atmosphere will contain more water vapor)
Non Sequiter. Climate change is caused by changes in forcing not the absolute value of the forcing, which is what you were citing. 100% of the *additional* CO2 in the atmosphere is human in origin. You also omit the water vapor feedback effect I mentioned above.
And you know, the sad thing is that all of this continual correction and re-correction on the details could be avoided if folks would simply get their information from actual scientists in the field instead of, say, an op-ed piece posted on a local community Web site, or a political blog, or a chain email, or a non-peer reviewed article by a retired scientist in another field, or a former astronaut who supports ID, etc.
It would also help if folks would stop believing this phony notion that "scientists" have some sort of agreed-upon agenda to support a political view or to defend the status-quo.
First of all, there is no single global political philosophy, so scientists in various nations and institutions, and under various administrations, are subject to the whole gamut of political pressure, and they have their own personal political beliefs. (Not to mention, re GW, that the findings have been in contradiction to the dominant political pressures.)
As for defending the status-quo, every scientists dreams of a big breakthrough, of discovering a new paradigm, not of just piling more data on the heap. Look at what happened when it was discovered that universal expansion is accelerating, not slowing. Others quickly jumped in to test it, the conclusions were confirmed, it became accepted, it spawned all sorts of new research, and the astronomers who discovered it got glory and grants.
This notion of a blinkered block of politically motivated scientists defending some rigid set of ideas is simply false.
I responded to your unequivocal and ridiculous claim. A claim that would have meant that the consensus science position is dead wrong.
Maybe you spent years on the goofy math you posted. But it's my bet the time would be measured in minutes. And it never ceases to astound me when internet amateurs spend a few minutes on a complex topics and then blithely pronounce expert scientists as blithering doofuses, which they'd have to be in order for your claim to be correct.
As for defending the status-quo, every scientists dreams of a big breakthrough, of discovering a new paradigm, not of just piling more data on the heap.
Absolutely. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong about things. For example, there was a recent Nature paper claiming that a key parameter in how ozone destruction works had been incorrectly measured in the lab all those years ago. This triggered a feeding frenzy of other scientists trying to replicate the result (last I heard, the jury was still out). In comparison, if AGW was as easy to refute as some make out it to be, there'd have been a scientific backlash the size of which I can't even imagine a long time ago.
Incidentally, in spite of the result, the hole in the ozone layer is still there; the suspect parameter would just mean that the chemists would have to rethink their models slightly.
I responded to your unequivocal and ridiculous claim. A claim that would have meant that the consensus science position is dead wrong.
Maybe you spent years on the goofy math you posted. But it's my bet the time would be measured in minutes. And it never ceases to astound me when internet amateurs spend a few minutes on a complex topics and then blithely pronounce expert scientists as blithering doofuses, which they'd have to be in order for your claim to be correct.
Aussie Thinker, the reason your posts have raised some hackles, like varwoche's for example, is that when you proclaim that AGW is easily refuted, or that the entire global scientific community is missing something obvious, and you support that assertion with information from blogs and political pundits and amateur cranks... think about it... you're dealing a pretty big wholloping insult to the profession, and to the people who practice it.
It's going to tick some people off, and they're going to tell you to go do your homework.
It would be like me going onto, say, an auto racing forum and proclaiming that professional racers and builders don't know how to design or race cars, and here's an editorial in the local church bulletin to prove it.
Absolutely. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong about things. For example, there was a recent Nature paper claiming that a key parameter in how ozone destruction works had been incorrectly measured in the lab all those years ago. This triggered a feeding frenzy of other scientists trying to replicate the result (last I heard, the jury was still out). In comparison, if AGW was as easy to refute as some make out it to be, there'd have been a scientific backlash the size of which I can't even imagine a long time ago.
And we only have to go back thirty or forty years to find the time when there were different opinions on whether AGW would negligible or not, both equally well-founded given the science at the time. (Obviously nobody was questioning the greenhouse effect, just its impact). The science has moved on a great deal, not least because it's become clear that the impact will be far from negligible.
Absolutely. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong about things. For example, there was a recent Nature paper claiming that a key parameter in how ozone destruction works had been incorrectly measured in the lab all those years ago. This triggered a feeding frenzy of other scientists trying to replicate the result (last I heard, the jury was still out). In comparison, if AGW was as easy to refute as some make out it to be, there'd have been a scientific backlash the size of which I can't even imagine a long time ago.
Incidentally, in spite of the result, the hole in the ozone layer is still there; the suspect parameter would just mean that the chemists would have to rethink their models slightly.
The claim that scientists are more likely to get grants for research to support the status quo, consensus, whatever your preferred description, has never convinced me. Surely more research would be funded if a field has genuine, strong, competing theories slugging it out, particularly in a field with such important consequences?
When Richard Black asked for evidence of bias against "sceptical" research he got precious little evidence in response.
The claim that scientists are more likely to get grants for research to support the status quo, consensus, whatever your preferred description, has never convinced me. Surely more research would be funded if a field has genuine, strong, competing theories slugging it out, particularly in a field with such important consequences?
Of course; my mortgage is living proof of that. I specialise in aerosols, which currently happen to be the most uncertain part when it comes to climate forcing effects in the atmosphere. Because of this uncertainty in the science and the big need to address it, business happens to be very brisk right now.
The only problem with his approach is, he is looking at scenarios that occurred when we weren't around. We have the ability to release gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere in what is, in geological terms, the blink of an eye.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
