Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks more red to me, but that would still generally be an amber/red lager!

Guess I need a topical tie-in here, how about this:

News media report:
...Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia....
Don't you worry about your beer Traker. That is handled. The same principles I just got though explaining have been adapted to solve that problem. And yes it was those same Aussies and Kiwis that were having problems that figured it out!
 
The mass of men are not experts. The mass of men typically are suspicious of anyone who makes expert noises…maybe cause the mass of men often get burned by experts, and, for whatever reasons, are more likely to recall the burns than the healing. The mass of men are often just as suspicious of the arguments made by both sides in this monumental debate…cause there’s lots of money around and there’s lots of idiots with borderline religious agenda’s.

What the mass of men typically understand….is that the earth has gone through a bunch of cooling and warming cycles over however many thousands or millions of years…and there were no Hummer’s back then…so WTF!?!?!?!. They also typically recall the science meme of a few decades back that predicted, quite confidently, global cooling.

Some things don’t really add up for the mass of men.

The mass of men simply don’t have the time…or (right or wrong), the interest…in slogging through mountains of science. Not going to happen.

What the mass of men may find useful….are the conclusions reached by one of the largest industry groups in the world. The re-insurance companies. These are the companies that ultimately have to cover the physical on-the-ground in-your-face costs of whatever nature decides to dump on us. It is interesting to note that…almost to a man (or woman)...the folks who run these companies are fully convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a reality (see here for some background on this). They obviously have a very good incentive to get it right.

Money.

If they get it wrong…they stand to lose (and have lost) very large sums…either because the premiums they charge are scaring customers away…or because the premiums they charge do not balance the claims they’re having to cover.

Apparently these companies have some of the most comprehensive databases on these issues in the world and employ significant numbers of specialists whose sole responsibility is to find out what is actually going on….no BS allowed. They’re not beholden to any industry group or political group or social group. They respond to one thing.

Money.

The money says….AGW is a fact!
 
Yes Virginia CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback

For general edification tho it might be above Grade 9 literacy...

CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature
By Andrew Lacis — October 2010

A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.

There is a close analogy to be drawn between the way an ordinary thermostat maintains the temperature of a house, and the way that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) control the global temperature of Earth. The ordinary thermostat produces no heat of its own. Its role is to switch the furnace on and off, depending on whether the house temperature is lower or higher than the thermostat setting. If we were to carefully monitor the temperature of the house, we would see that the temperature does not stay constant at the set value, but rather exhibits a "natural variability" as the house temperature slips below the set value and then overshoots the mark with a time constant of minutes to tens of minutes, because of the thermal inertia of the house and because heating by the furnace (when it is on) is more powerful than the steady heat loss to the outdoors. If the thermostat is suddenly turned to a very high setting, the temperature will begin to rise at a rate dictated by the inertia of the house and strength of the furnace. Turning the thermostat back to normal will stop the heating.

Bar chart of climate feedbacks and forcings
fig1_s.gif

Figure 1. Attribution of individual atmospheric component contributions to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, separated into feedback and forcing categories. Dotted and dashed lines depict the fractional response for single-addition and single-subtraction of individual gases to either an empty or full-component reference atmosphere, respectively. Solid black lines are the scaled averages of the dashed and dotted line fractional response results. The sum of the fractional responses must add up to the total greenhouse effect. The reference model atmosphere is for 1980 conditions.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect. Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. Together with the similar non-linear responses involving the ocean heat capacity, the net effect is the "natural variability" that the climate system exhibits regionally, and on inter-annual and decadal timescales, whether the global equilibrium temperature of the Earth is being kept fixed, or is being forced to re-adjust in response to changes in the level of atmospheric GHGs.

This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
 
Actually I was forced to leave school with only a grade 9 "clear" education

In the 1960's school system there were compulsory subjects like music and French .... I have absolutely no musical talents , the farthest I ever advanced was to draw a solitary treble clef .... and a flaw in my mind convinced me the French language had no value to me.

The subjects I excelled in brought me to an A+ at the grade 12 level but the teachers and principle insisted I spend the next 2 years catching up on .... you guessed it .... music and French.

I begged the school to let me continue thru gr 12 , even without a diploma or paperwork ... simply to allow me to absorb and learn what I was good at. My mother even begged to let me continue but the answer was no.

I was born with a high IQ which is both a blessing and a curse , I can read a book a day , 10 books in 10 days , 100 books in 100 days , my personal library has at least 900 volumes (no fiction).

In 1970 at the age of 19 I walked in off the street and started my own successful business. By age 28 when all my friends were graduation university looking for their first jobs I was already financially secure. I love helicopters so in 1980 at the age of 29 I walked in off the street with $80 grand and got my commercial ticket .... helicopters are more of a hobby passion for me and the extra income is nice.

The fatal flaw in my personality is I refuse to worship at the halls of academia because they think they are smarter than me and think I am just a redneck with a grade 9 education.

I lived through global cooling in the 1970s and followed it closely , I was relieved when the warming trend began and have also followed it closely.

I have no issues with climate change evidence .... my issue and fatal flaw in my personality is I recognize political motivations and anti-prosperity agendas as the underlying motive in the Global warming scare.

It has nothing to do with planet temperatures.

When academia feel they can run my life better than I can do it myself I refuse to allow them the pleasure.

Big oil and fossil fuels are not our enemies , they have been for the most part a blessing for mankind , abused yes , waste , yes , pollution , yes , should we cut back and improve , yes, but doing it by legislation with political motivations is not a solution

So, you're basically a genius and you are terribly good at recognizing everyone's political motivation, and you dislike people with an education because they think they are smarter than you, but you just know they're not.

Well, this is obviously a bunch of truths, and nothing at all like the stories of thousands of other kooks who imagine themselves to be Galileo incarnate.

I was actually born with a super duper high IQ. I went to colledge with a guy called Hawkins, but he copied all my homework and then got me kicked out of school, so now I hate guys in wheelchairs. Instead of graduating, I founded a software company, but I decided that tech jobs were for nerds, so I sold it to a guy called Gates. I hear it's doing very well.

I too have a terrible personality flaw. I make up BS backstories.
:D
 
Last edited:
You are spamming again. You're starting all over again from almost the very same point. And you only are showing how your epistemological hedonism works as that article tells that once upon a time grasslands expanded AND climate cooled, with AND meaning conjunction, and AND not meaning therefore.

Again same mistake made by you once again. From the first paragraph. The paper explain how grassland CAUSED global cooling, not just that they happened by coincidence at the same time. I have posted this same paper multiple times and explained it multiple times and you still haven't even got past the title yet! No wonder you are having a difficult time with this.

The whole rest of your post stems from this false premise and therefore equally false conclusions. So go back and read the damn paper so I can stop needing to post and quote from it. It isn't spam. It is repetitious posting for the particularly slow learners in the class.

Just to catch you up to speed.

Unidirectional, stepwise, long-term climatic cooling, drying, and climatic instability may have been driven not by tectonic forcing but by the coevolution of grasses and grazers.
 
.

There is another solution .... how about we seize the Alberta Oil Sands , shut it down , seize their assets , throw all the executives in jail.

Then do the same with all the big oil companies . Shut the whole works down. Have we not been told they are the enemy ?? At least the rhetoric sure sounds like it to me.

Not only will things cool down , billions of people will freeze and starve ... wouldn't that be cool !!!!
It would also drastically reduce earths population .... lots of folks want that too.

really? why?
 
Ohhhh apologetics....except you're wrong which casts a pall on everything.

There were no "pollitical pressures" in the 50s when the potential for AGW was brought up and thought of as a far distant issue.

There wasn't in 1981 when this projection
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
alarmed only a few climate scientists as the effort was just paying off in deal with both CFCs ( successful ) and S02 ( successful ).

When the risks began to be noticed as substantive in the 90s alarm bells went off ....also in the halls of the fossil fuel interests when their own scientists confirmed the role of fossil fuel use in altering the climate in 1995

Early in the new century many nations took steps to curb C02 emissions as had been done with CFC and SO2...btw the opponents of SO2 abatement were wringing their hands much like you about end of the industrial world.

As it turned out ...it was successful and cost far less.

Even both the Republicans and the Democrats acknowledged the risks of AGW and campaigned on it.

Now the fossil fuel industry, like big tobacco before it felt threatened that they might be held accountable for the consequences of the use of their products - so the hired some of the same PR people that keep tobacco legislation at bay to muddy the waters on fossil fuel and spend hundreds of millions doing so. Sullying climate scientists and pulling the same tactics as Big Tobacco in stalling legislation and spreading disinformation.

The writing however, was on the wall as pressure mounted on the likes of Exxon - even from their own board - to recognize the risk and make their technology available to mitigate it.
The US Miiitary stepped up acknowledging both the risk and the need for the military - the largest single user of fossil fuel on the planet - to get away from dependence on fossil fuel and deal with the geo-political risks that climate change represents over the next decades

So YOU are out of step and wrong.
The fossil fuel companies for the most part have pulled out of the disinformation campaign and some are willing participants in the global effort to cut emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

But do live in your fairy tale....it is amusing...nothing more.

Is the head of Exxon wrong...or are you?
 
Last edited:
I understand the process very well (thank you) ... but I also feel the planet is self regulating by design ... extreme heat will cause extreme evaporation, which will cause extreme cloudiness , which could even cause extreme snowfall , which of course reflects the solar rays and brings cooling.

Obviously I am using terminology similar to how I describe it to my children , but it makes my point nevertheless.

It is elementary knowledge that the planet temperatures are self regulating in the short and medium term .... it is the long term that has us scratching our heads. We are still uncertain what caused the earlier ice ages and we certainly do not know what ended them. Mankind's consumption of fossil fuels was not the culprit back then .

Why should we be so insistent it is now ?

actually, in the last 33 years we had a reduction in cloud cover because of the surface warming, as has been predicted by climate models.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.pdf
 
Actually I was forced to leave school with only a grade 9 "clear" education

In the 1960's school system there were compulsory subjects like music and French .... I have absolutely no musical talents , the farthest I ever advanced was to draw a solitary treble clef .... and a flaw in my mind convinced me the French language had no value to me.

The subjects I excelled in brought me to an A+ at the grade 12 level but the teachers and principle insisted I spend the next 2 years catching up on .... you guessed it .... music and French.

I begged the school to let me continue thru gr 12 , even without a diploma or paperwork ... simply to allow me to absorb and learn what I was good at. My mother even begged to let me continue but the answer was no.

I was born with a high IQ which is both a blessing and a curse , I can read a book a day , 10 books in 10 days , 100 books in 100 days , my personal library has at least 900 volumes (no fiction).

In 1970 at the age of 19 I walked in off the street and started my own successful business. By age 28 when all my friends were graduation university looking for their first jobs I was already financially secure. I love helicopters so in 1980 at the age of 29 I walked in off the street with $80 grand and got my commercial ticket .... helicopters are more of a hobby passion for me and the extra income is nice.

The fatal flaw in my personality is I refuse to worship at the halls of academia because they think they are smarter than me and think I am just a redneck with a grade 9 education.

I lived through global cooling in the 1970s and followed it closely , I was relieved when the warming trend began and have also followed it closely.

I have no issues with climate change evidence .... my issue and fatal flaw in my personality is I recognize political motivations and anti-prosperity agendas as the underlying motive in the Global warming scare.

It has nothing to do with planet temperatures.

When academia feel they can run my life better than I can do it myself I refuse to allow them the pleasure.

Big oil and fossil fuels are not our enemies , they have been for the most part a blessing for mankind , abused yes , waste , yes , pollution , yes , should we cut back and improve , yes, but doing it by legislation with political motivations is not a solution

so, your claim about being a scientis was a lie then.
very telling

and the science of AGW has nothing to do with political ideology. AGW is an observed fact. political ideology comes into play when we talk about solutions. but not about the fact that AGW is happening.
 
What conspiracy theory would that be?
This one??

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks ...
www.theguardian.com › Environment › Climate change scepticism‎
How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups · Share · Tweet this. Email ... The Guardian, Thursday 14 February 2013 08.39 EST. Jump to .... Which fossil fuel companies are most responsible for climate change? .... 20 Dec 2013. Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

It's well documented.....this forum relies on evidence...not the maunderings of a purported chopper pilot or is that a collective lie as well.
 
What conspiracy theory would that be?
This one??



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

It's well documented.....this forum relies on evidence...not the maunderings of a purported chopper pilot or is that a collective lie as well.

Is that just a "Chopper Pilot" to which you refer - or are those your code words for "Black Helicopters"? Seriously man...you need to get on the Alex Jones Show. From there, maybe Jesse Ventura will do a show with ya'.
 
Is that just a "Chopper Pilot" to which you refer - or are those your code words for "Black Helicopters"? Seriously man...you need to get on the Alex Jones Show. From there, maybe Jesse Ventura will do a show with ya'.

so do you think the scientists are misstaken or lying about AGW?
 
I knew you would bite.

Again same mistake made by you once again. From the first paragraph. The paper explain how grassland CAUSED global cooling, ...

What means **** as support for your theories! Did you ever read the paper? I'm telling you s l o w l y for you to understand:

  • the paper talks of long term cooling trends; long term in a context of million of years
  • the carbon sequestration is produced by the relentless accumulation in thick layers; carbon in not accumulated in the first metre of soil, it's sequestered in a long sequence of metres which once were the first metre of soil, each one containing sequestered carbon, all in a long term process
  • you seem to ignore basic information, like the ocean containing much more carbon than the atmosphere and the soils -both organic and inorganic- together; that's why you're unable to understand that the oceans can absorb or replace in the mid-term the carbon lost or gained in excess by the atmosphere, but the relentless formation of new layers of soil would subtract large amounts of carbon in excess of what other geological sources could replace and thus impose in the long term -hundreds of thousand of years- over the oceanic reserve. That is the process described in the paper.
You are using your misinterpretation of the paper to promise that organic farming and holistic management can feed mankind and decisively curbed global warming in a few decades. You have just fooled yourself.

Can you justify in other way how this specific paper relates in a logical way with your fantasy of GW mitigation?

And don't stop there. You have done equally ugly mistakes with other assorted papers you have generously and repetitively drop here and there.

You are an epistemological hedonist, that's why you see in papers what they don't contain.

I haven't read the rest of your post yet, and I'm promising nothing.
 
thus impose in the long term -hundreds of thousand of years- over the oceanic reserve. That is the process described in the paper.

That's also the range of years for weathering to remove carbon from the atmosphere...is this the same processo from a different viewpoint.

Certainly in ocean terms orbital cooling or heating would shift the Co2 in and out
 
Last edited:
.
Listen to what what a renowned Physicist - Professor Pierre Darriulat has to say about the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the document that was drafted by 65 hand-picked IPCC personnel.

Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “cannot be a scientific document.”


When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013...icist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/

Regarding Darriulat's article:

If you read his "The views of an independent physicist" by Professor Pierre DARRIULAT 1 to the Energy and Climate Change Committee's inquiry about the latest conclusions of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review (AR5)", it's clear that he ONLY has issues with the content and construction of the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) itself. He opens it up, reads it, questions why it doesn't contain actual studies at length within its pages, and then concludes that no actual work is being done that fortifies AGW. It is such an intellectually lazy approach that it barely warrants mentioning.

Here are some of his quotes, where he throws out claims but doesn't attempt to document them with sound science: "The AR5/WG1 IPCC report, and particularly the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), conveys an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic C02 emissions that does not properly reflect current scientific knowledge."

A strong allegation that I waded through his paper to find proof for. Not there. Not even a citation to a longer work where he "disproves" AGW. Nothing.


He wrote "Late September the IPCC published Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, a document of over 2200 pages, which will be read by very few people, and an accompanying "Summary for Policymakers" (SPM) of 36 pages, which will be the document that is generally read by politicians, officials and the media. In my opinion the main point to appreciate is that as it has the purpose of addressing policy makers, the SPM can not be a scientific document. When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and must therefore recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions, both in the mechanisms at play and in the available data; or they try to convey what they "consensually" think is the right message but at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter option. The result is they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the scientific message conveys."

Even I can see the fallacy here. This is his chance to prove that the SPM strays from the 2200-page scientific report also by the IPCC in conclusions. He doesn't. He's assigning method and motive to deceive by the authors of the SPM. He's not focusing on the science. Why? What he's doing is the equivalent of trashing the abstract of a paper, ignoring the paper itself.

He wrote "Most scientists who contribute to the IPCC work enjoy the intellectual integrity that is supposed to be inherent to scientific ethic. They are well aware of the high degree of uncertainty that is attached to their predictions. However, one should not have asked them to state what they think is the right message; or at least, one should not have asked them, as scientists, to do so. Doing so is a highly subjective exercise that depends heavily on the weight that one is prepared to give to the principle of precaution. Anyone who has responsibility understands that the principle of precaution is a good thing if it is used wisely. It is not surprising that most IPCC contributors prefer to stay away from the political debate, with which they do not feel at ease; it is natural that they think "I have done my job as a scientist, it is not up to me to take political decisions, but if you really insist, I prefer to be on the safe side because I do not think that it can harm to reduce our C02 emissions, while I cannot exclude that it may harm to increase them to some high level". Of course, they think as scientists and are miles away from realizing that in fact it does harm when it leads to wasting enormous amounts of resources by taking wrong decisions, such as investing billions of dollar in electric cars or in large windmill farms, to quote just two examples. But these are problems of economics, which they consider not to be their business."

Again, he is focusing on the SPM, criticizing it for not being a scientific document. He implies that climate science at this point contains a high-degree of uncertainty, as though the decades of prior work have not come before. His suggestions might have had merit 25 years ago, when this was beginning. Not now. Approaching this from the political angle shows where his bias is.

He suggests that distortions exist in the IPCC's work, but does not tell us where and how he would correct it "What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman) then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work."

He suggests that decisions are being made too quickly and in an atmosphere of panic, that have clouded judgment, but again, doesn't show which methodologies are wrong, nor how to correct them "It is wise to pay attention to the possible damage that anthropogenic C02 emissions may imply for humanity. We have become conscious over half a century of the fragility of the planetary equilibrium that is necessary for our survival. Actions that may be necessary cannot· be decided in an atmosphere of panic and under the pressure of urgency. They require deep thinking and take time. In particular, they are strongly interconnected with other important issues of relevance, such as energy policy at the planetary scale and economic, financial, social and geopolitical considerations that are in constant evolution."


He plays fast and loose with the facts here when he says "It is sensible to ask for a scientific summary of the IPCC work, not addressing policy makers but as objective as possible a summary of the present status of our knowledge and ignorance about climate science. Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions onglobal warming. Statistical uncertainties, inasmuch as they are normally distributed, can be quantified with precision and it can make sense to distinguish between a 90% and a 95% probability, for example in calculating the probability of getting more than ten aces when throwing a die more than 10 times. In most physical problems, however, and particularly in climate science, statistical uncertainties are largely irrelevant. What matters are systematic uncertainties that result in a large part from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play, and also in part from the lack of relevant data. In quantifying such ignorance the way they have done it, the SPM authors have lcist credibility with many scientists. Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions."

Is this the very same 2200 page document he admits exists at the beginning of his article?

Another lie, when he claims to be neutral. He's not neutral, as this VERY article demonstrates! "As a neutral scientist observing the climate debate, I regret the harm that it does to the image of science with the general public. I recognise the existence of a significant number of competent and knowledgeable climate scientists, who refuse to have their results misused by irrational propaganda. I note that they mostly express themselves with integrity and have to face unacceptable aggressiveness, including insults and ad hominem attacks, by those who· consider that they know better than them what the right message should be. While being by conviction a supporter of the precautionary principle and a defender of the preservation of the environment of the planet, I am shocked by the unscientific attitude that prevails in green interpretations of the IPCC work. In such a context, I consider that the IPCC scientists should feel morally compelled to produce a scientific summary of their work while refraining from giving the world a message."


Then, finally he dumps some bullet points for digestion.

"• that climate models predict warming that has not occurred at all: atmospheric (>0. 3° over the past 15 years), oceanic (>0.2° since 2000), tropospheric (hot spot) and south-polar in the late twentieth century

• that they assume a sensitivity of 3° for a doubling of CO, above pre-industrial values while at most 1o is observed

• that they underestimate by a factor of 3 surface evaporation caused by increased·
temperature


• that they wrongly assume the whole temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution to have resulted from human co, emissions

• that they ignore internal oceanic climate oscillations such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal
Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nif\o/La Nina)

• that they ignore the incidence of the solar cycle on the cosmic ray flux and the resulting formation of clouds

• that they inadequately model cloud formation and aerosol induced changes. Now to answer specifically the questions the Committee:-
How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report?

Have the IPCC adequately addressed criticisms of previous reports? How much scope is there to question of the report's conclusions?

The AR5 report reviews a large amount of valuable work, including a significant part of which has been produced after the publication of the 2007 AR4 report. Its conclusions, as expressed in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), -are far from robust; address only partly criticisms of previous reports; and give a distorted view of the full report itself."


He asks these questions like they've never been asked before. His biggest mistake is that he poses these questions to amateur readers - i.e. the general public - instead of climate scientists and IPCC authors. He's playing word games, implying that the questions HAVEN'T been asked, because they would look bad politically for all climate studies. Does he prove it? Nope. Apparently, that's not his gig, baby.

This section shows more of his primary concern - Dr. Physics - is economics, not physics!

Pure, political bunk!
 
That's also the range of years for weathering to remove carbon from the atmosphere...is this the same processo from a different viewpoint.

Certainly in ocean terms orbital cooling or heating would shift the Co2 in and out

What the paper suggests is that the set of grasslands and grazers created a machinery to bury carbon more efficient than previous schemes, that together with the very long term -100,000s years to notice- added an important element to the cooling process. Weathering and other factors would remain the same, I think. And the whole process would feedback itself as cooler temperatures and dryer seasons favour the soil gaining carbon but not as much as oceans absorbing carbon. It's the old denialist argument, CO2 lags temperature: They use the natural process to tell the artificial process -humans vomiting 200 times the carbon they exhale- cannot be the cause of warming. Our pseudo-denialist uses it to tell the story of grasslands saving mankind in the course of one generation if his ideas are accepted and financed.
 
What did you guys think about the scandal at east Anglia University where the Climate Scientists got caught "hiding the decline" in Global Temps, telling lies about their research, and smearing the good names of anyone who dared disagree with them?

The "decline" you refer to is speaking of a decline of northern tree-rings, not temperatures, and is discussed here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm It was also discussed openly in the literature.
 
What the paper suggests is that the set of grasslands and grazers created a machinery to bury carbon more efficient than previous schemes, that together with the very long term -100,000s years to notice- added an important element to the cooling process. Weathering and other factors would remain the same, I think. And the whole process would feedback itself as cooler temperatures and dryer seasons favour the soil gaining carbon but not as much as oceans absorbing carbon. It's the old denialist argument, CO2 lags temperature: They use the natural process to tell the artificial process -humans vomiting 200 times the carbon they exhale- cannot be the cause of warming. Our pseudo-denialist uses it to tell the story of grasslands saving mankind in the course of one generation if his ideas are accepted and financed.
Strawman. I am arguing the exact opposite. That biology in large part drives the climate and humans have changed the biology on the planet, not in 100s of thousands of years, but very rapidly. That's why it is called AGW. We did it, and it is our responsibility to fix it. The only one using denialist arguments here on this thread is you. You are denying the impact humans have had on the biosphere, and the effect that impact has on climate.
 
Actually, I heard about it through a local newspaper. Specifically, it was a University of East Anglia expert making the claim that the earth was on a long-term cooling trend and not on the verge of an ice-age like some climate alarmists suggested.

Yep...those were the days when the East Anglia University climate research people were still honest and didn't engage in alarmism. Couldn't find the newspaper I took at the time, but I did find another newspaper that had the article: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ew ice age coming hubert lamb&pg=4365,2786655

It's always something with you Climate Alarmists. First there's an Ice Age a-comming....then there's the Great Ozone Hole from Outer Space....and now there is the haunting spectre of Global Warming. What's your next panic?
To quote Prof Lamb, "The full impact of an Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years", which, in the normal run of things, it wouldn't be. There was no "Ice Age Cometh" alarmism from the CRU (althugh there is now from deniers).

As it happens, I was at UEA in the mid-70's and the silly-season press reports were an annoyance to climate researchers. It spammed every conversation in the bar for months; they didn't quite take to wearing "There is no imminent Ice Age" t-shirts but it came close. The real advances being made in understanding climate and climate change didn't make the news.

There was discussion of AGW, and the general view was a very conservative one (that was also my opinion, for what it was worth; events changed my opinion by the mid-90's, for obvious reasons). The environmental issue of the day was acid rain, which was addressed despite a denial campaign. The ozone problem emerged later, as I recall, and was also addressed despite a denial campaign. Presumably AGW will be addresssed, despite the denial campaign.
 
The "decline" you refer to is speaking of a decline of northern tree-rings, not temperatures, and is discussed here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm It was also discussed openly in the literature.
The email Jules Galen depends on for his lie was sent, as I recall, in 1999, when there had most certainly not been a decline in global temperatures.

SlimeItGate will never go away while the likes of Jules Galen survive. It is, after all, pretty much all that deniers have to work with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom