Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 Next
Comments 10301 to 10350:
-
Wffrantz at 01:41 AM on 7 July 2019The HadSST4 Sea Surface Temperature dataset
Quite interesting.
Unfortunate that the data doesn't go back to the end of the little ice age (1870). If we had that, then we could make assessments about the ocean heat sink. As an object is being cooled (ocean), heat transfer is from its surface between water-air and water-earth. But, unlike a solid object, oceans can mix deep water with surface water faster than heat transfer allows through vertical currents.
Scenario. The ocean cools during the little ice age (1300 - 1870), creating a huge heat sink after 570 years. Afterwards, surface air heats up. If surface air to water has a U value of say 5 to 30, then it will have litte effect on ocean surface temperature relative to water core to water surface because of the large difference between surface and core temperatures (the core being about 17 C cooler than the surface) and the much higher U value of heat transfer between water and water that is 30+ or so times greater. This would allow air surface temperatures to rise while ocean surface temperatures still drop. If we saw a lag in ocean temps after the little ice age, that might confirm the above scenario.
-
michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 6 July 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Letchim,
The video you link would be deleted as a post at SkS because they make many unsupported claims that are transparently false. They dismiss the peer reviewed literature in favor of their unsupported personal opinions.
Schillenberger states at the end that nuclear waste is not a problem because no-one is killed by it. He does not mention the widespread problems of nuclear waste like the Hanford site in Washington state and dismisses the concern that the waste must be stored for longer than civilization has existed.
Hansen and Schillenberger suggest that new designs manufactured in factories will make nuclear "cheaper than coal". Big deal. They answer none of Abbotts questions. If their new designs work out as planned, a first for the nuclear industry, the manufactured units will not be available until 2040. That is too late to help.
Hansen damages his credibility with obviously false claims about nuclear.
-
MA Rodger at 20:29 PM on 6 July 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Penguin @370,
Adding more detail to michael sweet @372, you are asking about a 6,000 word article from 2018 entitled "CO2 is Not Driving Global Warming" written by...Well we do not learn the name of the "NARTE certified electromagnetic compliance engineer with more than 30 years practical experience" who is also "a systems engineer with plenty of experience in software design and development" with the "lifetime fascination with astronomy and cosmology." That is never a good sign - to flaunt your qualifications without naming yourself.
Whoever he is, it took him from 2006 (the Al Gore flim) until 2018 to decide to present this grand revelation to the world, even though he had "alarm bells ringing" in 2006. A second bad sign.
And he asserts that the theory underpinning AGW is no more that a CO2/GlobalTemperature correlation which is nonsense. A third bad sign.
The entirety is un-referenced which is fine when it is discussing widely understood subjects but when it begins to dip into fantasy, the lack of referencing becomes entirely unscientific and fatal for the presented thesis. Thus CO2 contributes roughly 16% to the greenhouse effect and would unassisted provide 25% of the greenhouse effect. I can say that un-referenced without much controversy. But within an un-referencing article, the assertion that CO2 is "responsible for more than 2.8% of greenhouse gas warming" is the beginning of the end for this grand thesis.
A few paragraphs later he asserts that CO2 absorbtion is IR is multiply-counted (a bit like double-counted but many more times) thus "cumulatively contributing to atmospheric warming." Such an idea is nonsensical. And nobody has spotted this alleged eggregious error? That would require some very good explanation. (The assertion "CO2 will not radiate more infrared energy than it absorbs if it’s at the same temperature as its surroundings" appears fundamental to the poor understanding of the author. It is precisely because it is the gas temperture that defines the CO2 IR emissions (and thus not the levels of absorbed-IR as he asserts) which creates the power of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Thus the comment "Increasing CO2 concentrations ... would mean that the greenhouse effect of CO2 will be concentrated at lower altitudes" is back-to-front.)The guts of his unsupported assertions run:-
"[CO2] is plainly saturated. Adding more CO2 to the system will not result in any less energy being radiated into space at those frequencies"
"The other misstatement in this [AGW] argument is that, “... it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance.” This is incorrect. The temperature of the upper layers of the atmosphere has no effect on the IR radiation if that atmosphere is transparent to the IR radiation. If the transmissivity of the atmosphere is at or near one, the IR radiation will simply pass through it with no interaction. If it were otherwise, then IR radiation simply wouldn’t propagate through the atmosphere at all. Since there is little to no water vapor at high altitudes where the atmospheric temperature are claimed to be a factor, the atmosphere is completely transparent to IR radiation across most of the spectrum." [My bold]
He is effectively saying 'Once the IR has a clear shot at space, the temperature of the atmosphere it is passing through doesn't matter.' The fool (and he is surely that) misinterprets "the layers from which" for "the layers through which". It is the temperature of gas from where the IR is shot into space that is crutial to the amount of IR energy cooling the planet. -
Letchim at 19:41 PM on 6 July 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I don't have peer-reviewed articles but this video has some food for thought
James Hansen & Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?
-
michael sweet at 10:43 AM on 6 July 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Penguin,
Your article claims that the concern about AGW started with Al Gore's movie An Inconvienent Truth in 2006. He apparently missed James Hansen's Senate testimony in 1989 that AGW was an incoming disaster. Lindon Johnson asked the National Academy of Science if AGW was a problem in 1965 and they replied that it would be a problem in 40 years or so. The first IPCC report was written in 1990!
The article claims that the CO2 absorbtion band is saturated. The probem here is the writer does not understand how the greenhouse effect works. At the surface the absorbtion band is saturated, everyone knows that. That does not matter. About 10 km up in the sky (30,000 feet) is the important area. At this height there is no water, only CO2. This is the escape altitude. Increased CO2 increases the escape altitude which warms the Earth. Read the OP for more information.
This dribble has been debunked many times. The author admits his ignorance when he claims no-one cared about AGW before 2006. The first IPCC report was written in 1990!!
-
Penguin17935 at 07:54 AM on 6 July 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Sorry - first post :-) didn't insert as link.. https://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2018/04/co2-is-not-driving-global-warming.html#comment-form
Thanks!
-
Penguin17935 at 07:51 AM on 6 July 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
What is the response to this article[ https://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2018/04/co2-is-not-driving-global-warming.html#comment-form ] reasoning that climate models do not correctly recognise the effects of increasing CO2 conentrations and that CO2 is not the main driver of climate changes?
-
Wffrantz at 04:45 AM on 6 July 2019Models are unreliable
How reliable are IPCC 5th Assessment Predictions? Were they smarter than a 5th grader?
First the IPCC--Predictions are based on the assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of earth surface air temperatures. Because it has been extremely easy to to predict CO2 levels going forward from 2006, the baseline year for the IPCC 5th, the predictions would not have significantly changed if 12 years later, the actual CO2 levels were inserted (no assumptions) and the predictions recast. Given that, the average IPCC error from 2007 through 2018 was .14 degrees C.
5th Grader: Let's pick a panel of 5th grader that is smart enough to know that they have no clue as to what next years global earth temperature is going to be. So they decide to guess the prior years temperature. Given that, the average 5th Grader error from 2007 through 2018 was .07 degrees C--twice as accurate as the IPCC Model.
Here is the data.
IPCC 5th Model Errors Avg Abs Errors
Avg Err 0.072 0.145
Temperature Model Errors
Yr NASA IPCC No Idea Model
1970 (0.13)
…
2006 0.48 0.572007 0.44 0.58 0.04 0.14
2008 0.38 0.59 0.06 0.21
2009 0.47 0.62 0.08 0.15
2010 0.53 0.64 0.06 0.11
2011 0.45 0.65 0.08 0.20
2012 0.48 0.68 0.03 0.20
2013 0.50 0.74 0.02 0.23
2014 0.59 0.76 0.09 0.16
2015 0.71 0.75 0.12 0.05
2016 0.82 0.79 0.12 0.04
2017 0.72 0.80 0.11 0.09
2018 0.65 0.81 0.07 0.16
2019 0.83
Can it be argued that the 5th graders cheated by reassessing every year. Sure. But two facts do not change.
1) IPCC could have used actual CO2 data and not improved accuracy.
2) If physics is at all understood, any model based on sound physics should be able to beat the static forecast (e.g., a ball being thrown with elevation above ground being predicted).
Moderator Response:[DB] "Predictions are based on the assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of earth surface air temperatures"
You clearly didn't read the post. Models are built using physics and observations; predictions coming from them are an outgrowth of that. While imperfect, they are demonstrably reliable. The radiative physics of greenhouse gases like CO2 are well-researched, well-established and accepted by every international science body of note and by the petroleum extraction companies themselves.Simply making things, as you do, up is unhelpful. Please cite sources for claims, per the Comments Policy.
Inflammatory snipped.
Please limit image widths to 450.
-
swampfoxh at 01:43 AM on 6 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
John Hartz. Well then, I take it all back. I did think it odd when you snipped my comment about AOC saying nothing new that hasn't been said by people with more gray hair. Since I don't have a party affiliation...the best that might be said is that I am a radical environmentalist, but I do find it odd that people fawn over this person who clearly offers northing new "under the sun". If that means to you I am trying to score political points, I would wonder whether you see that as points in favor of the Republicans or in the favor of the Democrats. Neither party appeals to me and I probably should add that I teach a class entitled "Origins of the American System of Government" at a colloge here in Central Virginia, and do so alongside the climate lecture titled: Climate Change: Impact of an Outlaw Species...one can quickly imagine whom is the outlaw species. Also, your management of this site has never been an issue for me, I was only growing tired of lengthly tomes of rhetoric that often seem not to tie the science with the solutions. My use of the term, Liberal Arts, to enclose non-science materials should not be viewed as pejorative, it might be that at my age, 75, I'm reflecting how we used to view much college curricula. Finally, the New Climate Research weekly listing are the best around and I thank you for those. You can imagine the flack I receive for my Climate Lecture...but those listings are "fingertip" rebuttals for some of the Denier materials I see every day. Thank You.
Moderator Response:[JH] For the record, DB snipped your comment about AOC saying nothing new that hasn't been said by people with more gray hair. He may snip it again. FWIW, I will celebrate my 76th birthday next week.
-
campcarl at 00:14 AM on 6 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I thought two of the authors were of a more reliable sort for quality work.
-
kingster at 23:47 PM on 5 July 2019Where to find big ideas for addressing climate change
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
bjchip at 16:24 PM on 5 July 2019Where to find big ideas for addressing climate change
I found this TED talk rather interesting in that context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Alan Savory has a notion about stopping desertification. Looks useful.
Needs work to get it to happen though.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:52 AM on 5 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
Agree with KR.
-
KR at 11:08 AM on 5 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
campcarl - According to the abstract of that paper, they:
...investigate how introducing a potential iris feedback, the cloud-climate feedback introduced by parameterizing Cp to increase with surface temperature, affects future climate simulations within a slab-ocean configuration of the Community Earth System Model...
So they are running simulations with a postulated but unsupported iris feedback, a mechanism postulated by Lindzen many years ago in a series of debunked papers, and seeing how that affects a simplistic climate model.
I really don't see how that's particularly newsworthy.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:04 AM on 5 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
According to the abstract, new modeling suggests that the precipitation efficiency in a higher temperature regime may be higher than has been assessed so far, and that a corresponding decrease in cirrus (high altitude, ice clouds) shielding of downwelling SW radiation could be a consequence of that, providing a positive feedback that could be significant, but it is a very tentative finding. The abstract concludes:
"These results suggest a potentially strong but highly uncertain connection between convective precipitation, detrained anvil cirrus, and the high cloud feedback in a climate forced by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations."
-
campcarl at 07:16 AM on 5 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
"A Positive Iris Feedback: Insights from Climate Simulations with Temperature Sensitive Cloud-Rain Conversion"
This paper---which has topnotch authors---appears to have real importance to the public understanding of our climate future, and is thus newsworthy. Who is going to write a good review, that gives the full story and what it means?
-
Jonas at 09:37 AM on 4 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
Thanks again to the SkS team to continue the research list!!
I also like bringing the "opener" to the main SkS theme:
Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism ..
The categories bring interesting new aspects of viewing ..I highly value this hard work of viewing, filtering, prioritizing,
categorizing, doing .. this list is unique in the internet, afaik.
Deep bowing (will continue to donate/advertise as much
as possible/useful .. finite money/attention of people ..).Virtual hug to the whole team.
-
John Hartz at 01:54 AM on 4 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Swampfox: If you are indeed looking for the latest information about the scientific research findings about climate science to to keep your lectures current, the SkS New Climate Research weekly listings are made to order. Given the content of your posts, I suspect that you are more interested in scoring politicl points than in learning about new scientific research.
-
John Hartz at 01:43 AM on 4 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Swampfox: As clearly stated in the green box of the OP, the Weekly News Roundup is "a chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week." Because the SkS FB page is a social media platform, I select of a variety of articles from around the world to post links to. Some articles focus on climate science and other articles focus on climate policy. I personally chose the articles to be linked to without oversight by the SkS volunteer team. Likewise, I personally select the article to be fetured as the "Editor's Pick."
-
John Hartz at 01:29 AM on 4 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Recommended supplemental reading:
Meet generation Greta: young climate activists around the world by Anna Turns, Environment, Guardian, June 28, 2019
-
nigelj at 07:17 AM on 3 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
swampfoxh @19 and 21, I always like reading your comments, but I get annoyed when people imply I'm making "liberal arts comments". I made some political comments at post 1 because the article covered political issues! Doh! How else can one respond if not politically? I based my comments on facts and what polls are telling us.
My main interest is the science and the technology of mitigation, but politics is embedded in the climate issue whether we like it or not. It seems artificial to put such issues off limits. This website was set up to expose denialist trickery, its not atmospheric physics 101, so I think there is room for rational political articles and discussion on occasion.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:38 AM on 3 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
Solved, thanks.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:13 AM on 3 July 2019Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019
Has the site's certificate expired? I'm getting an alert message to that effect. Hope it's not an attempt at hacking again.
Moderator Response:[DB] You may need to flush your browser's cache.
-
ianw01 at 03:04 AM on 3 July 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
Ah ha! Perhaps "this nation" is one not mentioned in your post.
But even so, taking a path through solving war to get to the solution of our CO2 issues seems like an even bigger challenge.
-
ianw01 at 02:15 AM on 3 July 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
@Saliance #2: You state
"The Pentagon ...generates more than 70 percent of this nation's total greenhouse gas emissions."
According to the World Bank, US defence spending in recent years has been about 3 to 4% of GDP. The claim of 70% is not believeable without more supporting info, and frankly undermines the credbility of the rest of your post. Please explain.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for noting that. The claimant has been challenged to support that claim.
-
ilfark2 at 01:48 AM on 3 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
At this point (unless someone on this site can fully dis-prove the catastrophists (tm), which they sort of addressed but didn't really disprove... yes, I know the research is scanty but Sharkova and some others point to real possibility of us being in abrupt climate change) it's very possible we have several years to change society if we want to avoid an ag-system induced collapse.
The IPCC has been way behind the science (understandably so), and if they say 11 years and note a bio-diversity collapse, that points to the real possibility things are going very bad very quickly.
So it's time for scientists and engineers to read some history, sociology, anthropology, and, ok poli-sci, to understand how this problem must be approached.
This also means they need to start understanding what is going on in the body politic, if they are going to talk about solutions.
A very large part of the skepticism has now been morphed into, "oh, we can't do that" or "we can't do that that quickly"...
This is where historical data comes in.
I.e., WWII mobilization in for the market oriented, centrally planned model and Free Catalonia of the 1930s for the non-market model.
Not saying we have to copy those (sure there are other examples) but if scientists want to be a part of the solution, they have to understand how to implement solutions in society.
E.g., the shortcomings of carbon taxes should alert scientitst and others this is dead end. Yet many of them seem to think "ah, if we implement it correctly..." point is, with oligopolies in power, policies will always be subverted, sooner or later. And we very likely don't have time for that nonsense.
Another one is divestment. Some scientists seem to think it toppled the Aparteid regime. It likely helped, but it was the people there that did it along with many other factors.
Even the WWII mobilization in the US was very messy and non-linear, though it was likely the most effective one on the planet. But there were many factors unique to that time an place as well as factors still here today.
It seems likely we'll have to do the WWII version, which means people need to understand how it was done.
First and foremost, money is no object when you own the printing press. You just have to ensure you let it chase the wrong stuff (WWII war mobilization involved 30-40% created money and inflation was kept at 7-10%)... see Stephani Kelton and the MMTers for a full break down.
But anyone that understands Keynsianism or even resever banking understands you can create money from thin air. The MMTers went so far as to outline how the Romans created money then markets (see Graeber's "Debt: First 5k...."
Given that and current tech we could change the whole economy in 3 - 5 yrs... as long as society is willing (as for WWII mobilization) to do it.
But we need politicians like the Great Savior of Capitalism FDR who said things like "I want 5000 destroyers by May 15...", "But sir, we don't have the capacity..." "well build the capacity..." and many of the "pie in the sky impossible" targets were met.
And most of that was accomplished by governemnt owned and operated shipyards who were more productive and efficient than the private ones.
So, yes, we can get to 0 emissions in a matter of a decade or less, but we have to understand market systems left alone or anything other than commandeered (as in the US WWII production) fully or by coercion ain't going to get us there in any reasonable time scale.
Unless we have 50 to 100 years to mess around with, in which case I'm just a silly alarmist. And it's not clear whether or not we do have that time (unless I missed a post on it), so it would seem better to get to negative emissions ASAP (which is likely materially possible in a few years but politically impossible).
-
swampfoxh at 01:23 AM on 3 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
I've been attached to Skep/Sci for about the last 5 years, maybe six. I've noticed an increasing presence of contributors who talk a lot and take up a lot of space doing what I'm going to call, Liberal Arts "stuff". I'm beginning to think the people who run this site, perhaps, ought to screen out this material, somehow. I need to keep up with the plight of phytoplankton in the ocean, or the methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost...Liberal Arts stuff really gets in the way.
Moderator Response:[DB] Feel free to submit a relevant science- and evidence-based article of your own for consideration.
-
swampfoxh at 01:08 AM on 3 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Wow. Think I opened a big cam of worms on this thread. AOC says nothing new that hasn't been said a hundred times before, and by people with the gray hair to elaborate on it. I too, wanted to have a site like this one in order to keep up with my climate lectures...I can get politics stuff anywhere. Political opinions are as numerous as anal openings, everybody's got one and they aren't all exactly the same. Science is conspicuously different and you actually learn something useful, so how about we all refrain from introducing political rhetoric into this place so there remains room left for peer-reviewed science to help us save the future? Eh?
Moderator Response:[DB] Political rhetoric snipped.
-
MA Rodger at 00:40 AM on 3 July 2019They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
HelloThere @34,
The difference between your plot & the plot in the OP is the "corpus" searched. You use 'Corpus15' = "English" while the OP uses 'Corpus5' = "American English 2009" although there is little difference using 'Corpus17' = "American English". (The OP also uses a smooting of 3 while you use 5, but that is of no significance.)
-
HelloThere at 22:31 PM on 2 July 2019They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Hi,
Thank you for your work. Could you give the details of your Google plot please ? I failed to replicate it, I obtained this graphic. which sadly, though it does not show a decrease in the use of Global Warming, still could be interpreted by some (probably including the person I am trying to convince) as a decoupling of the two. This can probably be justified as Global Warming is only one of the aspects of Climate Change and maybe the news focused more on the other consequences after 1995, but I think to avoid accusations of bad faith maybe it would be better to have access to the steps to replicate this.
Cheers
Moderator Response:[JH] The graphic linked to exceeded page width limit of 350 pixels. I embedded it into the word "graphic".
-
Tom Dayton at 13:15 PM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
After getting a BA from Florida’s honors college, New College, I worked as a night janitor while I figured out what to do next, then did the work needed to do that. It is a chronic “problem” for New College’s “success” criteria submitted to the state of Florida. Ended up with a PhD, post doc at IBM’s Watson Research Center, Bellcore, and so on. Not actually a problem.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:37 AM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
AOC working as bartender after graduation proves nothing at all. The first job one finds after college is more of a reflection of their willingness to work than anything else. Has the conservative ideology changed so much that one should now be expected to sit on their butt until they find the perfect fit to their education level intheir area of study, counting on society to provide for their needs until that happens? That'd be new one.
-
John Hartz at 06:54 AM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's response to the attacks made on her employment record by the Republican/Tea Party echo chamber including jjworld #12...
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:24 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Since the peak temperatures of the Holocene 7,000 years ago, global temperatures naturally cooled 0.8 C.
Over the past 100 years, the warming from human activities has warmed the globe 0.8 C, utterly erasing that natural 7,000-year cooling.
With plenty more warming to come.
Bigger image here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:21 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Current peak global temperatures have already exceeded those of the Eemian OR the Holocene, looking at the land station data (red):
-
ilfark2 at 06:18 AM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Global Warming is inherently political if you take the view we have to implement a WWII scale mobilization.
BTB, "socialism" originally meant "for society", while "capitalism" meant "for capital".
The Paris Commune, Free Catalonia of the 1930s, Mondragon to the extent worker owned/operated enteriprises can do so in a sea of Capitalism, Rojova (last I checked, maybe gone by now), the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico) among many others through space and time democratized resources. I.e., means of production, food, shelter, education, healthcare.
And yes, under these systems you own your home (everyone gets one you can't get evicted from), and everyone gets a say in all the things that affect you per the amount they affect you. E.g., you have ane equal say in the operation of your work place. Means of production are democratically owned and operated.
Stalinism, Maoism along with any other system that destroyed democracy at any levels of life shold not be considered socialism by a reasonable person.
A nice intro to some of the history of various sorts of systems "for society", can be had in "It's not over..." by Dolak.
There's also a website called ZComm (google "Z Communications").
Among others doubtless.
-
TVC15 at 06:10 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
@ 756 Daniel Bailey
Thank you!
Is our current Holoceen cooler than previous interglacial periods...thus there is nothing to worry about? A denialist posted this.
From my understanding we should be in a cooling era but as we all know we are in a warming era.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:52 AM on 2 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Jjworld,
You have a severe reading comprehension problem. I did not call you, Morano, or anyone ignorant or worthless. I called Morano's comment ignorant and worthless, and I stand by that statement. There is plenty of scientific literature to justify calling it that, literature that you have declined to discover, despite being repeatedly pointed toward it. Now if you want to have your little feelings all hurt and be a snowflake by proxy of an inanimate thing like a comment, be my guest.
You say "I think the site is arguing that Morano is not including heat retained by convection." You think wrong. The site does not mention convection a single time. I read it again, the word convection does not appear in the OP. You pulled it out of thin air, showed that you do not understand what it means, then argued about it. That pathetic attempt at spreading the confusion raging i your mind is evident here too: "the convection story does NOT invalidate the saturation argument." There is no convection story othe than what you made up.
jjworld " I do have concerns with the calculations that attempt to explain the amount of heat trapped by convection." I am not aware of any atmospheric dynamics that can accomplish that, you must cite scientific works including such calculations and expose where you believe the weaknesses are.
Further "convection delivery molecule". What in the world is that? How do molecules deliver convection?
"The thread quotes Hulburt." No, it does not. Where is the quote? Who the heck is Hulburt, why is it relevant? The name, or a quote from the person does not figure anywhere in the OP.
"The error rate is so large" talking about the diagrams at the top of this page. What is the error rate? Where is the error rate in the diagrams? These diagrams have no other purpose than to explain concepts in a graphic way to a lay audience; as such they do not contain any numbers. They are not graphs of exact data, they are not calculations, they are not from scientific publications, so your attack of "who would want to publish that" is once again BS, completely removed from any reality. Nothing but hot air.
"When the climate moves the molecules around we have tremendous negative feedback." SO the climate moves molecules around? I would have thought that weather does that. In any case, there is an immense scientific literature on feedbacks, positive and negative. Your arguments seems to be that negative feedbacks prevail; it is again, nothing but hot air if not supported by scientific work, where are the citations?
"we don't even know if CO2 molecules are the primary convection vehicle or just a secondary heat transport." What in the world could this possibly mean other than that you do not have any grasp of the subject?
This funny one " I think we are both agreeing that Morano is correct if we are only talking about radiative heat." So grotesque, it truly falls within the not even wrong category. We do not agree at all, and Morano is so far from being correct that he would need a super fast "vehicle" (of convection or other) to make it back to relelvance within his lifetime.
This "If CO2 can possibly hold more heat through convection, it can possibly not hold enough heat to explain the temperature anomalies." comes in response to being pointed to the fact that having the central part of the radiation spectrum of CO2 saturated does not preclude the possibility of absorbing more heat, namely in the wings of the spectrum. In a sort of lawyer fashion, you latch on the word possibility and attempt to sow confusion, as if it meant probability, when in this case, it means capability. The gas does absorb more, that can be demonstrated by both experiment and calculation.
This gem is priceless "I just wish we could be intellectually honest about what we don't know" and then a suggestion that Morano is a scientist, and "incomplete." I'll let readers appreciate the supreme irony.
You have been pointed in the right direction and have refused to engage with that. You have attributed fantasy-like concepts to the OP, and a careful read shows that it is all pure invention on your part. You have been asked repeatedly to support you extremely wide-ranging and bold assertions with references, and the only one you mustered does not accomplish anything close to that.
You have contributed thousands of words to this thread, and so far they amount to little more than technical sounding word salad.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:01 AM on 2 July 2019Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
Wiffrantz, it appears you did not read this post that you commented on. Please do.
If you really were a statistician, you would be acutely aware that finding a correlation between just one of several causes of an effect requires isolating that one cause, for example by multiple correlation analysis. See the post "CO2 is main driver of climate," and note that it is not the only driver.
If you really were a statistician, you would be aware of the time dependence of bidirectional causality. Over very long periods, warming oceans have released CO2 and so increased atmospheric levels after the warming. In other cases, CO2 has been released by other sources, thereby causing warming after the CO2 releases. In the past 150 years, humans have caused increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which has then caused warming.
-
Wffrantz at 03:42 AM on 2 July 2019Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
If CO2 was a primary factor in global heat forcing, then we'd expect to see easy-to-find correlations between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
For example, we know that from the laws of heat transfer that the thermal output from a blow torch has an impact on the temperature of the object at which the blow torch is heating. The greater the temperature of the flame relative to the temperature of the object, the faster that the temperature of the object increases.
We also know that correlations can be found in unlikely pairs. For example, World-Wide Noncommercial Space Launches is highly correlated with the number of US Sociology Doctorates awarded in the US. If statistics are done well, conclusions like that can be avoided.
So let's assume that greenhouse gases are real (they are) and that they have a direct impact on global earth temperatures (clearly yes, but is the relationship strong or the strongest as in the case of the blow torch?). Read "As I turn up the blow torch output in heat, the temperature of the object will rise. If I correlate the temperature delta between the torch flame and object to the temperature change of the object, I'll find a 99%+ correlation."
Clearly we don't expect to find that size of correlation when considering a system as complex as global earth temperatures.
But be honest. Before you read farther, what would you expect the correlation to be? 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%?
My question is this. When I correlated 400K years of Vostok CO2 and temperature changes sliced into 100 year blocks, the correlation was only 7%. And when trying to predict the next 100 years of temperature change from change in CO2, the correlation dropped in half. Yet when doing the same to the Milankovich data, the predictive correlation was higher than the time-aligned correlation. If CO2 is a primary factor, then
1) Why is the correlation so low?
2) With CO2 levels at record highs (thermal forcing should be at its max), why was 2018 cooler than the prior four years?
As a statitician, I've learned that it is:
- easy to model the past (e.g., the stock market).
- one cannot use a modeling fit of the past to make assumptions about model accuracy in the future. That is a dangerous assumption.
- the only way to do the later is to:
... evaluate the model in the future using a Kalman filter that has an overall control loop to dampen the prediction if predictions are not accurate.
... changes to a model in time starts from scratch when trying to predict the future (a model must earn its accuracy in real time).
... evaluate delta changes, not absolute values (screens out false positives). We are talking physics. If their is a predictive correlation in absolute value then there will be the same correlation in deltas.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:43 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Here's those details and links on vineyards then vs now:
While England had 42 vineyards at the time of the Domesday Book, as is well known, there are now over 300 commercial English vineyards today. So the climate today in England is much more conducive to wine-making than during the Roman occupation of England.http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
"It is generally agreed that the Romans introduced the vine to Britain. It has also been inferred that the climate in Britain at that time was warmer. At the end of the first century AD, however, the writer Tacitus declared that our climate was “objectionable”, and not at all suitable for growing vines.
Today, there are vineyards in nearly every county of England and Wales, and there are vines now planted in Scotland. Much of the acreage and vineyards lie in the southern part of England, and more specifically Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. Those few hundred acres first planted has now grown to over 5,000. In the last ten years alone, the acreage planted has more than doubled, and nearly tripled since 2000. Last year, around 1 million vines were planted – the highest planting in a single year, and perhaps a higher volume is set to be planted in 2018. All of this will lead to some substantial increases in production."
Emphasis and underlining added.
https://www.winegb.co.uk/visitors/background-info/history-of-the-industry/
By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. The website of the English wine producers suggests that at present extent of vineyards in Britain probably surpasses that of the Medieval Warm Period between circa 900 AD to 1300 AD.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/
https://www.eh-resources.org/historical-climatology/
In case anyone was wondering about Vikings and vineyards:“Let me…assure you that the last wine plants to grow in Greenland were those that grew…60 million years ago.”
-
TVC15 at 00:48 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
@ [PS] LOL that's a new one on me. I had never heard of it so it must be a desperate attempt by this denier!
@753 Philippe Chantreau
I thought the same thing...what the heck does wine making in England have to do with anything. Glad to be able to expose this denier as he's been commanding the stage for quite some time as if he's some sort of expert! *rolled eyes*
@ 754 Daniel Bailey
Agree his house of cards has been slowly tumbling down since I arrived to "educate" him.
Thanks everyone I've been learning a lot from you all!
-
Kevin C at 20:55 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Part of the purpose of Skeptical Science is to equip science communciators to better communicate science into science-hostile environments. From my perspective, anything that Greta Thunberg says or does is something I want to read about, because she is someone from whom I as a climate scientist have a lot to learn. And while politicians are an incomprehensible alien species, I am interested in how they interact with scientists and advocates for science.
The Thunberg article and the PPI article would be my top two picks. -
nigelj at 19:27 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
jjworld @12, I understand where you are coming from, but editors choice just means its an interesting article. This doesn't mean the website endorses OCS's views and this should be obvious. I would publish the article, but I only half agree with her views on the GND.
Working as a bar tender after graduating doesn't change the quality of her degree or her judgement. Maybe she wanted some time out. Have you thought of that? Plenty of good people do that.
Your claim that she tanked the Amazon deal is just your opinion. About 30% of people blamed her for tanking the Amazon deal in some poll which isn't exactly an in depth analysis of what tanked the deal. Maybe her concerns about the tax breaks were well principled concerns. Donald Trump tanked plenty of deals, and many of his companies went bankrupt. The point I'm making is many people make mistakes, if she made a mitake, and its absurd to judge them on one deal.
What I find very annoying is you are personally denigrating OCR's judgement, rather than by talking about the points she raises on the issues and how we best mitigate climate change.I agree we dont want to have to be discussing politicial issues, it frustrates me as well, but its impossible to avoid political discussion because the science and mitigation has become politicised. Its possible to discuss politics rationally and if anyone can do this scientists can because of their training.
"The article was clearly meant to invoke an emotional reaction since she was meeting with a young climate activist. For a science site, the bar should be higher."
I don't believe they are trying to invoke an emotional reaction. The interview just happened to be with a young person, and young people have a right to be heard on the climate issue, and ironically Greta comes across as cool headed and with her emotions well under control.
-
Eclectic at 19:12 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
JjWorld :
As a reader of this thread, permit me to make the observation that your posts present you as highly confused about the physical realities of the Earth's atmosphere.
Perhaps part of your problem is that you are using neologisms (such as "CO2 convection" ~ a term which is, at face value, meaningless) and you are failing to use the precise terminology of science. And this failing gives the strong (but perhaps unjustified?) impression that you have not grasped the essential basics of the situation. Once you attain an understanding of the physics, then you will be able to apply your mathematical skills.
But to talk of mathematical ideas of error margins etc before you understand the the underlying science of what is happening with the radiation, the molecules, the heat/energy transfers . . . is to put the cart before the horse, and risks you embarrassing yourself even further.
It might help, if you gave indications of the source of your misinformation ~ for it is clear that you have not used physics textbooks or genuinely scientific formal websites such as the N.A.S., the U.K. Royal Society, the A.A.A.S., or the more informal ones like RealClimate, S.O.D., SkepticalScience, etcetera.
# FYI, Mr Morano is not a scientist but a propagandist (with a long track record of giving misinformation and disinformation to the general public). Nor has he redeemed himself, in the matter of CO2 "saturation".
-
MA Rodger at 17:06 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
jjworld,
You do spout a lot of nonsense. If you are genuinely hoping to understand the science of the greenhouse effect, you will need to stop spouting and take on board that science being presented to you, but probably in small bits.
And note that @521 you write "I don't know why my questions have produced such ire." yet you don't actually present any questions; just bold unsupported assertions.
Your assertion that there is some sort of convective effect attached to the greenhouse effect is unsupported by anything anywhere in these threads. Convection is discussed as the mechanisms of heat transfer through the upper troposphere include convection, there being large convective circulations throughout the troposphere. The other mechanism is radiation and for that you need greenhouse gases. 99.95% of the upper troposphere is transparent to radiation. Only 0.05% is radiatively active. These gases are directly responsible for a quarter of the +35ºC greenhouse effect and indirectly responsible for the other three-quarters.
I hope this reply to your various comments begins to be helpful.
-
jjworld at 16:29 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Maybe I misunderstood. I see "Editor's Pick" at the top of the article. That sounds like an endorsement.
"She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics." So she has rather good credentials to grasp concepts."
Really? She worked as a bartender after graduating. That doesn't sound like she leveraged those credentials very well. And she clearly doesn't understand economics since she tanked the Amazon deal which cost her constituency dearly. She thinks being rich is evil on its face as evidenced by her numerous statements on the topic.
If the Editor's Choice title didn't come from Skeptical Science than I'll back off. But the article was clearly meant to invoke an emotional reaction since she was meeting with a young climate activist. For a science site, the bar should be higher.
-
jjworld at 16:15 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Well no, I think we are both agreeing that Morano is correct if we are only talking about radiative heat.
Perhaps I don't understand the thread, but I think the site is arguing that Morano is not including heat retained by convection. That doesn't make Morano ignorant or worthless. It makes him accurate but incomplete. There's a huge difference to those of us trying to understand the issues. You can't call him wrong when he is actually correct. The rebuttal in the post suggests there is more to the greenhouse effect than just radiative heat. I agree. So Morano's statement is incomplete but it puts a greater burden on other methods of heat retention such as trapped convection. This is a tremendously important concept since most climate change sites don't mention anything about how the heat is stored other than radiative heat captured by CO2 molecules. It's an oversimplification that is repeated on many climate energy budget graphics.
I don't have evidence refuting or supporting Morano. I do have concerns with the calculations that attempt to explain the amount of heat trapped by convection. As I explained in a prior post, the IPCC math is complicated but not impossible to follow. I just wish sites like this one would give a little on how much we DON'T know. Billions in research and we have little more than guesswork on precisely how much heat is being convected through CO2.
So, I put it back to you. I agree that Morano is incomplete. But the only hard evidence that he is incomplete, is a suspicion that heat is being convected which cools the surface but heats the atmosphere. OK, we know some of that is happening because it has to. But we don't actually know that CO2 is the primary convection delivery molecule. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. CO2 certainly is NOT the most efficient of the GHGs at convecting heat. And water vapor is far more abundant but pretty easy to measure.
The premise of this thread is that Morano is wrong because he's leaving out convection. The bulk of the responses focus on CO2 alone. We're being beat over the head that CO2 is the key.
We all agree that CO2 radiated heat is saturated and not responsible for the temperature increases. The top of the thread states that "... the saturation of the absorption at the central frequency does not preclude the POSSIBILITY to absorb more energy." OK, so is Morano wrong or is he possibly wrong? I don't see the myth here. Morano is correct about part of the story. If CO2 can possibly hold more heat through convection, it can possibly not hold enough heat to explain the temperature anomalies.
The thread quotes Hulburt and he hedges his conclusion: "Apparently the uncertainties and omissions have conspired to counteract each other to some extent." I agree entirely.
So how does the fact that heat is stored in CO2 across a wider band than previously considered 100 years ago change the fact that CO2 can only hold a certain amount of energy for a limited amount of time? In order for the recent temperature records to be modeled, a tremendous variability has to be answered. I just don't think the math works without assuming too much. Again, I'm not talking about the lab coefficients of CO2. I'm talking about the global scenario Morano explores. When the climate moves the molecules around we have tremendous negative feedback. Heat is absorbed all over the planet and it escapes all over the upper atmosphere. None of this changes the fact that Morano is at least paritally correct and we have no idea where the heat goes. We know where large portions go but when the portions are added together we end up with too much heat or not enough depending on the IPCC model that is chosen.
I don't know why my questions have produced such ire. We know what I'm saying is correct by nature of the number of climate models that are currently in the works. I'm in California and there are 18 models just in Northern California that attempt to predict precipitation: http://climate.calcommons.org/article/why-so-many-climate-models
These models are off topic but look at the graphic at the top of the article. Would any mathematician actually agree to consider any of this worth publishing? The error rate is so large that we might as well just stop spending money on models and admit we don't know.
That's my only premise: Morano is correct but probably incomplete. We don't know where the heat goes and we don't even know if CO2 molecules are the primary convection vehicle or just a secondary heat transport. They might be, but nobody has proven it yet. And since CO2 concentrations fluctuate so much across the planet and year, we aren't likely to prove or disprove anything soon.
I just wish we could be intellectually honest about what we don't know and how much variability that lack of knowledge causes before we slam scientists for being incomplete.
Moderator Response:[PS] Your statements here are causing concern because you are making assertions based on you dont know and assuming that science dont know either. You do not appear to be reading material commentators have pointed you to and continue to postulate an incorrect version of how atmospheric physics work.
It would not be intellectually honest to say we dont know about that things that are perfectly well understood in theory and confirmed by numerous observations and experiments.
If you want to continue this argument, asserting science is wrong or incomplete, then first you cite the science statements that you beleive is incorrect (eg from the IPCC report). Then you cite the evidence that you believe contradicts the science. You cannot get anywhere postulating the science is based on your bizarre ideas about the role of CO2 molecules in "convective" heat transport. This is nonsense and if that is what the science did postulate, then you would have a point. Take Phillipe's advice and learn what the actual physics is. I recommend Science of Doom's excellent series for the basics. And throw away your own preconceptions for starters.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
"Convection via CO2" is nonsense. CO2 does not cause by its presence changes to convection. Convection can not act as a forcing. Additional energy in the system can alter convection patterns, different thing altogether. You clearly lack an understanding that would allow you to formulate an cogent, well informed opinion. The article you linked does not support your position at all, read it more carefully. You also need to read the RC posts on the saturated argument.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:50 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Marc Morano's comment indicates his lack of understanding of the science, showing ignorance. It leads to a conclusions that's entirely wrong, so it is also worthless. These are objective facts. Calling it anything else wouldn't do it justice.
Prev 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 Next
