• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
There should be threads left unmoved in every section of JREForum. Yet at least, create a separate forum here where unlimited threads can occur. But no. One catch-all thread, bouncing around in this forum.

Just appalling, this policy. Everyone should be discussing this, everywhere. Doing it the way you're doing it, JREForum? Out of sight, out of mind. Nice.
You should understand that this is not a climate change advocacy site; JREF is a critical thinking advocacy foundation. Prior to the current policy there were a few individuals throwing up garbage threads by the dozen, abandoning them after a few hours, then coming back around with the same old twaddle. It was making a mockery of the Forum - which is about science in the light of critical thinking.

Frankly, dictating what everybody should be doing about AGW plays into the hands of those who try to portray us all as shrill zealots. Which, in the main, we aren't.

Of course since you've gone let's just consider that an open letter.
 
"Reformation in the Church of Global Warming"​

"Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency."

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/22/reformation-in-the-church-of-global-warming/

Blatant lies there about the NASA personnel.

Were you aware that they were lies when you posted this?

If not, why not?
 
Originally Posted by bobwtfomg View Post

here's another paper showing if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions we could hit 4 deg C by 2070
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...9/1934/67.full

Ah! And it was 2100, not 2070.

Did you actually read the paper?

The evidence available from new simulations with the HadCM3 GCM and the MAGICC SCM, along with existing results presented in the IPCC AR4, suggests that the A1FI emissions scenario would lead to a rise in global mean temperature of between approximately 3°C and 7°C by the 2090s relative to pre-industrial, with best estimates being around 5°C. Our best estimate is that a temperature rise of 4°C would be reached in the 2070s, and if carbon-cycle feedbacks are strong, then 4°C could be reached in the early 2060s—this latter projection appears to be consistent with the upper end of the IPCC’s likely range of warming for the A1FI scenario.
 
Especially the last line as to why the green movement has failed. I blamed the well oiled denial machine first and foremost but from the tone of the piece it sounds as if he thinks its a problem with the movement itself.
Someone of my age has to take great exception to the headline - the green movement has not been an abject failure. I remember what it was like before that movement, conditions in which the green movement was spawned, and it has been a remarkable success.

In the case of CFC's it was a success. Without the green movement there'd have been scientists muttering into their shoes about this problem against the great inertia of government. Matters would not have turned out so well.

In the case of AGW the task was impossible. Climate talks haven't failed to produce any goods because of the denialist freak-show outside the chamber, they just don't work out because nobody's ever worked out something like this before. The CFC success was one thing, but going from that to fossil-fuels and the all-too-common atmosphere is like going from Lego to the Taj Mahal.

No blame. We're just not set up for this kind of thing yet. Perhaps after the crisis (which will, of course, be multi-faceted) we will be, but the worn-out nation-state model we're still working to will have to go first, in my opinion. That is what tends to happen at times of crisis : political and diplomatic models that have outlived their usefulness but not their power get fed into the mills of modernity. Then the whole process begins again ...

The green movement is looking very healthy, what with 350.org and old Greenpeace still afloat (all these years later, who'da thunk it?), while the denier movement has the ravaged aspect of a mid-Western cornfield. It was somebody's stroke of genius to have PBS broadcasting The Dust Bowl now. Next up : a remake of Of Mice And Men. Mark my words :).

Compare that with the Heatland billboards which sent its own limbs scurrying to distance themselves and you'll see where I'm coming from.
 
Did you actually read the paper?

Yes, very quickly, like scanning (I told you 3-5 minutes, didn't I?). Take a look to figure 8. For some unexplained reason a paper published just two years ago draws conclusions from many ensembles that show a great dispersion of values from the very beginning of the runs (I know they want to compare with other runs in AR4). The dispersion has a range of 1.2 or 1.4 °C by the time of the paper's publication. Also the typical model resolution is 2° x 3° or so -and the problem is that the assumptions about processes are as coarse as the resolutions-. So I simply dismissed it all. Can you explain clearly why I shouldn't?

Also, the analysis is on A1F1 emissions, which not only reach 110 GT CO2 by 2100 but also has an (almost?) constant yearly increment of 1.2% during the period 2050-2100. So, it's all set to get a disaster, and not surprisingly a disaster is what they get :rolleyes:.
 
Seeking opinion on this gloomy prognosis:

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/soci...as-been-an-abject-failure-20121204-2at7t.html

Especially the last line as to why the green movement has failed. I blamed the well oiled denial machine first and foremost but from the tone of the piece it sounds as if he thinks its a problem with the movement itself.

OK first the 4-6 degrees by the end of the century is only if we don't do any mitigation at all so it should be a wake up call to all politicians and buisness leaders that we really need to cut our carbon emissions starting now, but this article with it's talk of runaway climate change sounds a bit like a counsel of despair that implies "hey we've left it too late to do anything about it so why bother" then " but hey we could fix it with some geo-engineering (which doesn't actually exist yet) if only it weren't for those stupid greenies"
This whole article is really annoying, he recognizes (and possibly overstates) the problem of AGW but then blames the people who've been trying to get something done about it for the fact that nothing's been done, and completely ignores the concerted opposition they've faced from powerful vested interests.
 
Yes, very quickly, like scanning (I told you 3-5 minutes, didn't I?). Take a look to figure 8. For some unexplained reason a paper published just two years ago draws conclusions from many ensembles that show a great dispersion of values from the very beginning of the runs (I know they want to compare with other runs in AR4). The dispersion has a range of 1.2 or 1.4 °C by the time of the paper's publication. Also the typical model resolution is 2° x 3° or so -and the problem is that the assumptions about processes are as coarse as the resolutions-. So I simply dismissed it all. Can you explain clearly why I shouldn't?

Also, the analysis is on A1F1 emissions, which not only reach 110 GT CO2 by 2100 but also has an (almost?) constant yearly increment of 1.2% during the period 2050-2100. So, it's all set to get a disaster, and not surprisingly a disaster is what they get :rolleyes:.

Wow you can understand all that and totally dismiss a peer reviewed paper in 3-5 mins, your genius talents are really wasted here you should be at least editor in chief of a top science journal or maybe run the IPCC, in fact I'm surprised you haven't come up with a solution to all the worlds problems with your vastly superior intelect.
 
Blatant lies there about the NASA personnel.

Were you aware that they were lies when you posted this?

If not, why not?

Something I've noticed particularly over the last year or so is just how re-cycled and half-hearted denier efforts have become, even in their own clubhouses let alone in this thread.

The arc of the denier movement hit its peak very hard in 2012, and is in a steep decline which cannot be recovered from, and all by chance. All the things which happened in North America this last year worked against them. There are only so many things you cannot directly attribute to AGW before the line gets old. Then it's "Look, Antarctica!" or some other such drivel.

It might not have been this way. We could easily predict the general arc of the denial movement from first principles (they're on a loser) and previous examples (there ain't no ozone hole and it's good for you). The specific realisation was, of course, unpredictable, and to stress that point I draw attention to the emergence from nowhere of the swivel-eyed Viscount Monckton. Proof, were it ever needed, that nobody can cover every possible scenario.

The first visible sign of the arc was the involvement of Fred Singer, but one knows from experience that he only arrives when the vested interests have satisfied themselves that the problem is real. They hire scientists to find that out for them. They hire Fred Singer when those scientists confirm the problem. I think of him as a stormcrow.

We could predict, from useful models, that a decade or even more of little surface warming was quite possible : we couldn't predict that such a period would occur between the '98 El Nino and 2011. That was good luck for deniers. Their Golden Decade. 2012 was our Year of Doom, and it took them down like flypaper.

Of course it wasn't just the year, but it was one heck of a crescendo. The events in North America didn't depend directly on each other, and didn't depend directly on AGW (in that they could all have happened without it), they were all simply more likely.

Things could have happened differently and the arc of denial would have taken a different shape, its triumph less hubristic, its decline less percipitate, but this is how it worked out. And I'd like to say how many people I've enjoyed watching it all work out with over the years. Too many to name but I'm sure you know who you are.

Cut. Lights out. Clear the set.
 
Oh, my goodness! Let's analyse bit by bit -as Jack the Ripper used to say-. The oceans are not the main source of radiation back to the space, I mean, more that being the 70% of the total surface.

Is that not enough? Ocean albedo is higher than land average as well, which means the surface mixed layer gets more solar input to start with.

The role of the oceans in moving heat to places from which it is lost to space is a tad more esoteric. The comparable role of land is clearly zero, though.
 
The oceans are not the main source of radiation back to the space, I mean, more that being the 70% of the total surface.

sorry if my elision confuses you - my uni prof complained as well :rolleyes:-
sw from solar captured in the ocean and turned to lw and the ocean re-radiates to the atmosphere which has been somewhat dented in it's role as conduit back out into space..... a given situation since there is no ocean space interface. But you knew that. :D
 
Last edited:
The first visible sign of the arc was the involvement of Fred Singer, but one knows from experience that he only arrives when the vested interests have satisfied themselves that the problem is real. They hire scientists to find that out for them. They hire Fred Singer when those scientists confirm the problem. I think of him as a stormcrow.
Singer was in on the very first of these arcs, namely, the formulation and implementation of the Tobacco Strategy. Very loosely it goes: deny the problem, deny the implications, deny the solution. Used on tobacco->lung cancer. Second hand smoke->lung cancer. CFCs->acid rain damage. And several others. Not surprisingly, Singer shows up often. He is a vile person.
 
Oh, my goodness! Let's analyse bit by bit -as Jack the Ripper used to say-. The oceans are not the main source of radiation back to the space, I mean, more that being the 70% of the total surface.

It's also difficult to conceive an ocean that has 10 or 20°C at the surface, in contact with the atmosphere and in optimal conditions to radiate into space and yet having waters at -3000m at 1, 2 or 3°C that would be cold because they radiate heat into space passing through a thick layer of cloudy and warmer waters? This doesn't pass the most simple reality check we can do. [Homer: «Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!»]

About all the circulations and the reference, you are basically speaking of the 0-400m layer, so it's another subject.

Let me explain as, if you don't know, probably most participants here also don't know.

The origin of so low temperature in deep waters lies mostly in both polar sea ice areas. Every year some 32,000 km3 of ice are formed -by surface water and the atmosphere radiating heat into space when they are in the dark or almost in the dark- and as a result some 20,000 km3 of brine at -2°C are created. A brine that has all the salts of 52,000 km3 of sea water, so it's cold, it's extremely heavy and it's going down quickly in virtual columns similar to pipes. Of course this heavily concentrated brine takes some of the already cold polar winter waters and the concentration decreases, but not enough to stop the process of an increasing volume reaching the sea bottom. Some roughly 100,000 km3 reach the bottom every year. Let say, for the sake of our arithmetic, that 100,000 km3 or "sea water" at -1°C reaches the bottom. This mass has to neutralize the heat of the crust. How much is it? Almost all the geothermal energy reaches the oceans, so, let say 40 terawatt have to be absorbed by those 100 teratons of chilly water, what gives us a temperature of +2°C.

The question is, how many years does the Earth need to have -700m-to-bottom waters at this temperature if it started today? About 10,000 years! That's a lot of time. What does that say? First, this is a permanent feature of the planet, a much needed anchor. Second, temperatures are as average a few degrees above that figure, so some ocean mixing has occurred, but not much [This is the right/wrong supposition that has put deep oceans in a marginal climatic role]

This answers much roughly my first question. My second question goes towards that ocean mixing and why temperatures are not raising as "expected".
But the geothermal energy is an energy flow (the energy from that component is essentially in equilibrium - what transfers into the ocean also leaves it), the input from geothermal energy has essentially been constant for longer than we care to think about. We are more concerned with the the energy components that are changing, such as the arctic summer melt adding more cold brine to the circulatory flows that you mention
 
You really need to be a skeptic and do some research about what you cite. Otherwise it looks like you are just parroting non-science that you find on the Internet - which that letter is :eye-poppi!
NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Salient points missed out in your citation:
  • former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees
  • written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise
  • over 18,000 people currently work for NASA and we have former employees signing the letter!
    "Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people."
  • A demand to muzzle scientific statements in press releases.
  • No examples of what they want to be censored!
The main point:
Let's be explicit about our choice here.
  • On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.
  • On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.
 
so much for ice increase in Antarctica....nother denier nattering point shot down in flames.....

EcoAlert: Forty-Seven ESA/NASA Experts Warn of Increasing Ice Melt & Rising Sea Levels

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef017d3e6a3a5a970c-pi

Thinning in the ice steam and surrounding ice sheet is also evident. After two decades of satellite observations, an international team of experts brought together by ESA and NASA has produced the most accurate assessment of ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland to date. This study finds that the combined rate of ice sheet melting is increasing. The image above shows the Kangerdlugssuaq glacier in eastern Greenland from 1992 and 2011 from the ERS mission. The ice stream’s calving front retreated by five kilometres over 19 years.
The new research shows that melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has added 11.1 mm to global sea levels since 1992. This amounts to about 20% of all sea-level rise over the survey period. About two thirds of the ice loss was from Greenland, and the remainder was from Antarctica.

Although the ice sheet losses fall within the range reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the spread of the estimate at that time was so broad that it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking.The new estimates are a vast improvement – more than twice as accurate – thanks to the inclusion of more satellite data, and confirm that both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.

The study also shows that the combined rate of ice sheet melting has increased over time and, altogether, Greenland and Antarctica are now losing more than three times as much ice, equivalent to 0.95 mm of sea-level rise per year, as they were in the 1990s, equivalent to 0.27 mm of sea level rise per year.

more
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...f-increasing-ice-melt-rising-sea-levels-.html
 
So, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, 350.org must be just figments of my imagination.

So

guys trying to promote switching from coal to nuke to avoid AGW + guys trying to ban nukes to keep the planet fresh clean = "environmental movement" ?

guys trying to promote keeping the most of natural woodlands, tropical forests and wetlands + guys trying to ban transgenic crops and use of herbicides = "environmental movement" ?

C'mon!!! Don't equal having different ends, methodologies and opinions to having fixed ideas and a FU the rest of you attitude. Environmental movement, my derrière!

The denunciation in that blog post is as generic as saying "the world democratic movement failed the peoples of the world because this, that and more chitchat" with "democratic" ranging from a Swiss canton to the Democratic Republic of Korea and its leader Monsieur Fat-so, so, why does that deserve further analysis? Are there truths in that post? Of course. Truisms too. Again, how can we address "the democratic movement failed because of the fraudulent election in Northern Acanoestán"? And "the democratic movement failed because 50 countries have more than 50% of their populations bellow the poverty level"?
 
So Alec nothing you state is new - it still boils down to equilibrium and the atmosphere is far more transient and therefore subject to spikes than the ocean - even than the ocean surface.

It only takes a few extra days of dry or hot or flooded weather to destroy a crop or an ecosystem even if the average temps are not particularly higher, and the night time temperature records are something that is not being sufficiently focused on and that of all places with where the effect of C02 is clearly seen - the IR is simply not getting out to space and that warming in the night impacts dew points as well which have a variety of ecological impacts for many plants and a some animals.

The deep ocean is indeed a long term buffer and I do suspect from a variety of sources that there is more rapid turn over.

As to the pause......you are correct in the polar importance but what about the impact of the 3x release of freshwater on the poles.

This level of lighter fresh water has to impact the thermohaline in addition to spreading a mantle of near freezing water around each pole.

Then this is in play as well...

The enthalpy of fusion is the change in enthalpy resulting from heating one mole of a substance to change its state from a solid to a liquid. The temperature at which this occurs is the melting point.
The 'enthalpy' of fusion is a latent heat, because during melting the introduction of heat cannot be observed as a temperature change, as the temperature remains constant during the process. The latent heat of fusion is the enthalpy change of any amount of substance when it melts. When the heat of fusion is referenced to a unit of mass, it is usually called the specific heat of fusion, while the molar heat of fusion refers to the enthalpy change per amount of substance in moles.
The liquid phase has a higher internal energy than the solid phase. This means energy must be supplied to a solid in order to melt it and energy is released from a liquid when it freezes, because the molecules in the liquid experience weaker intermolecular forces and have a larger potential energy.

The melting is pulling a lot of energy and the lighter fresh water is staying on the surface rather than being pulled deep into the circulation.
This is seemingly a negative feedback which will last as long as the ice supply and buffers rapid change.

The level of energies to increase that melt three x is rather astounding.

Some evidence of this may be the increasing ocean surface ice in Antarctica as fresh water freezes more easily so even tho the internal glaciers are losing mass overall and thinning this cap of fresh water spreads from the melt to the surrounding ocean.

I know changing circulation patterns of winds in the Souther Ocean have a play in the ice formation as well but don't enough to connect those dots.

Good article on the thermohaline and the impact of AGW

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom