Global warming discussion III

[ClarkMag]

The books written 200 years ago about agriculture made climate change were by Daniel Webster, Joseph Fourier, and others.

I am going to predict that now the hoaxers have faked temp data, they will be forced to fake ocean level data or give up the contrived climate issue. Per ocean levels, we seem to be in a period of almost no climate change. It is going to be a chore, as we have concrete bulkheads and old photographs, but liberals will never stop. The will ruin everything if good men do not resist the liberals.

The hoaxers MUST fix the ocean level data with more liberal first, scientist second, peer reviewed papers.

There is an excellent lecture on the topic of peer reviewed papers on fisheries are nearly worthless, because of who reviews them, by Ray Hilborn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frfOi2P0wIo

 

[Caper]

Is there any truth to this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

[Caper]

I don't have a passionate opinion one way or the other concerning global warming. I simply don't know enough. I used to just assume it was happening...really because I witnessed my own climate changing. The winters I remembered as a kid (say 1980 to 1990) simply were not as bad as I got older... the snow never stayed more then a few days and you'd get some freakishly warm weather... from like 1997 to 2012 it just seemed winter was no where near as lethal as I remembered. You could not snowmobile near as much, the massive banks that built up in the gully by our home never developed.

But the last 2 years.... the winter I remember is back and I am wondering why. Maybe it's more cyclical then anything else, I don't know.

I know I'm not presenting evidence of any sort... I'm just posting what I'm observing locally.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think we'll be hearing more of the following, which is presumably what Haig is referring to via the useful filter of WattsUpMyButt :

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3231

Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years—and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses—apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels--may help trigger natural climate swings. Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

It hits a lot of the right notes, such as "models might have to be adjusted", "may alter climate" and natural cycles.

I haven't read the full paper but the cycles referred to appear to be the Milankovich cycles and a tidally-induced two-week cycle.

Volcanically active mid-ocean ridges crisscross earth’s seafloors like stitching on a baseball, stretching some 37,000 miles. They are the growing edges of giant tectonic plates; as lavas push out, they form new areas of seafloor, which comprise some 80 percent of the planet’s crust. Conventional wisdom holds that they erupt at a fairly constant rate--but Tolstoy finds that the ridges are actually now in a languid phase. Even at that, they produce maybe eight times more lava annually than land volcanoes. Due to the chemistry of their magmas, the carbon dioxide they are thought to emit is currently about the same as, or perhaps a little less than, from land volcanoes—about 88 million metric tons a year.

About 88 million metric tons; for comparison we put out about 30 billion tons a year, as I recall. But (well, there's always a but)

... were the undersea chains to stir even a little bit more, their CO2 output would shoot up, says Tolstoy.

Perhaps 10 times to 880 million tons? Versus 30 billion tons or so. Make of that what you will. And you can make even more of it if it actually happens.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is there any truth to this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Not a shred.

 

[a_unique_person]

Is there any truth to this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

The short answer is "no". The adjustments are described and documented publicly. He has "discovered" nothing. This is pure conspiracy theory. Think about it. How do you get the scientists from the peak scientific bodies around the globe to all agree to not only create stuck a massive fraud, but to keep it secret this long.

The BEST project was a collaboration of "skeptics" and some regular scientists to build a completely independent temperature record purely from raw data. Their final result was a shock to the Skeptics as it validated the pre existing temperature records.

 

[logger]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01...le-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/

 

[bit_pattern]

We're in reverse vampire territory now.

 

[logger]

We're in reverse vampire territory now.

Yes, and that's a really cool new avatar you have.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes, and that's a really cool new avatar you have.

Thanks, but I doubt you get the reference.

 

[ehcks]

We're in reverse vampire territory now.

I'm not sure what that means. It makes you drink its blood and then it un-dies?

 

[bit_pattern]

Is there any truth to this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

I think you'll find the following short video a very succinct debunking of this particular conspiracy theory

But the last 2 years.... the winter I remember is back and I am wondering why. Maybe it's more cyclical then anything else, I don't know.

Climate doesn't operate at the scale of a year or two, it's about long term trends. And it's also global, not local - just because you might be experiencing some cold weather doesn't tell us much about whether the planet as a whole is warming.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not sure what that means. It makes you drink its blood and then it un-dies?

It's a Simpsons reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grampa_vs._Sexual_Inadequacy

Bart and friends attempt to figure out why all of the adults disappear after they buy the "Simpson and Son's Tonic". They come up with a few conspiracy theories, none of which have to do with the tonic. Lisa, a skeptic, sarcastically offers up the possibility of all the adults being "reverse vampires" and having to be home before dark, which frightens the rest of the children more than their serious ideas.

 

[Pixel42]

Whenever a new piece (or often, as in this case, a rehash of an old piece) of ignorant denier nonsense makes the rounds we get a slew of driveby posts of arrogant cluelessness (I really must thank Coolsceptic for that phrase, it sums it up beautifully). The posters responsible are never going to read the replies - indeed they never read the thread at all, which is why they don't notice when they're the third or fourth poster to deposit the same turd - so I find the best thing to do is just ignore them. Sensible conversation can resume in a day or two.

 

[bit_pattern]

Whenever a new piece (or often, as in this case, a rehash of an old piece) of ignorant denier nonsense makes the rounds we get a slew of driveby posts of arrogant cluelessness (I really must thank Coolsceptic for that phrase, it sums it up beautifully). The posters responsible are never going to read the replies - indeed they never read the thread at all, which is why they don't notice when they're the third or fourth poster to deposit the same turd - so I find the best thing to do is just ignore them. Sensible conversation can resume in a day it two.

Agree wholeheartedly but I do tend to think Caper at least is asking in good faith and is worthy of a good faith answer.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think we'll be hearing more of the following, which is presumably what Haig is referring to via the useful filter of WattsUpMyButt :

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3231

Indeed. The issue popped up in my Twitters the other day, which makes sense now.

 

[Pixel42]

Agree wholeheartedly but I do tend to think Caper at least is asking in good faith and is worthy of a good faith answer.

I'd like to think so but they were the third person to post that link, so they obviously hadn't bothered to read even the last few posts before doing so. If they had they would have seen Mikemcc's excellent reply to the first person who posted it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Climate

I figured it catches the point pretty well, and Douglas Adams is awesome, so it's a perfect match.

But seriously, the ocean is really, really big, and really, really deep. Ice takes up more space then liquid water. The ice caps only exist at the poles, and at the surface of the ocean. Yes, I know the majority of icebergs are below the water line, but relative to the depth of the ocean, it's still at the surface. When they melt, they're added to the entirety of the volume of the ocean. The total volume of liquid water in all of the polar caps is a very small percentage of the volume of all the oceans on the planet. The effective change in high-level-mark is subsequently pretty small.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You sit on the beach, or even more so in a boat, and look out on the sea and you think it's big, like really big. And then you realise that's just the top.

Exactly!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Mass of the Earth's oceans is 1.4 x 10²¹ kg.
Mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 x 10¹⁸ kg.

Given this, it is not suppressing that we have screwed up the atmosphere more than the oceans.

It doesn't seem like mass would be a particularly good comparative measure here, given that one is liquid and the other is gas. The mass of a cubic foot of atmosphere is very small compared to the mass of a cubic foot of water.