Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

gunnut,

We should conserve for conservation's sake, rather than conserve to save the planet.

The planet doesn't care about increased temperature. It's not going anywhere. It'll find a way to not blow up due to some human activities.

What we absolutely shouldn't do is to commit to drastic actions that alter our lifestyles.

that's a pretty good observation. i think to this i should like to add, though-

so far we have not really proved that human activity contributes to climate change, but neither have we disproved it, either. in any case, i think the environmentalists would do better focusing on aspects of human activity that DO have a very direct, measurable change in the environment, such as air/water pollution. why vilify CO2 when far more deadly carcinogenic chemicals heighten incidences of asthma and cancer?

i think what humans CAN do is find mutually beneficial activities that both promote environmentalism and free-market principles. for example, raising efficiency makes energy production (among other things) cleaner, but also raises the bottom line. developing cleaner and lighter jet engine frames certainly reduces CO2 emissions (among other things, and for whatever that's worth) but also allows for fuel savings (and that's worth a lot). what i do disagree with are the idiots, for example, who stand outside heathrow protesting air travel.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

What exactly caused you to change your position?

Looking closely at the energy transfer and energy balance estimates. Finally, I did a lot of work looking at net GHG flux, the isotropic signatures of that flux, and the basic physics behind CO2 and other GHG reemission characteristics. Next, I investigated the claims in the contra- camp relating to H2o heat retention and the relationship of H2O in the energy cycle.

Finally I looked at closely at the energy transfer and energy balance estimates.

What I also found interesting were how many claims that the skeptics (and I, at one time) used, were not necessarily indicative of the the entire mechanism. Truthful in whole, yet obfuscating in use.

And, quite frankly, the recent satellite data showing prototypical warming of the atmosphere as it is predicted to occur in a CO2 and other GHG warming manner was eye-opening.

Finally, most of the recent studies involving solar irradiance convinced me that while the sun could be responsible for portions, (see the Osanski study above which is being used as evidence of "sun only", where the authors state that that cannot be the case, or the Lockwood study that just came out), there is not nearly enough energy irradiance in the solar record to hold accountable all the warming effects we see here.

I said earlier:

"naysayer"

I find your choice of words here interesting, particularly coming from someone who claims to have been a skeptic.

My bad. I have strived to use the term "skeptic" as much as I could.

So what exactly were your pertinent reasons for not subscribing to AGW theory?

I thought the scientific record had too many significant shortcomings. Several items in the last two to three years had made up sufficient shortcomings to convince me. Finally, my personal trail through the energy flux question detailed above, and reading a *lot* of items on both the pro- and the con- side, and a heaping helping of scientific papers, led me to believe that there is a significant CO2 based component in that energy flux imbalance. The isotropic fingerprints of the net carbon flux shows sufficient fingerprints of anthro origin to lead me to believe that the amount of anthro CO2 is a pretty good first order approximation of the net flux.

Finally, I realized that the "water is a greenhouse gas" argument, while true, is not indicative of the true nature of the problem. Water vapor is a feedback mechanism, not a forcing. Further the H2O is greenhouse gas argument overlooks some very basic mechanics of the CO2 forcing effect. And, as I indicated, the warming signature is very much in line with what one would expect with AGHG effects.

I will readily admit that all these items are not "perfect", nothing in science ever is. But the items were enough to overcome my "it can't in any way shape or form be AGHG", and further it overcame my "we don't know enough about it to call it" level.

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Does it insult you that I would believe ideas other than yours?

Not at all sickle. Your comment about "puffheaded numbers" did. If you have a differing idea, that is absolutely your right. If you want to bring up opposing viewpoints, bring them up.

In a scientific talk, I will expect you to back general statements up. If those are presented in a respectful way, they will be shown a respectful response.

And when you call someone else's facts, evidence, studies, and/or data "puffheaded numbers", expect your more generalized statements and incorrect items to be treated with the corresponding amount of respect that your "puffheaded numbers" statement shows (which is none, by the way.)

And when you make the statement of "Your scientific number crunching sounds pretty persuasive only for those not thinking", I will treat any mistake or generalization even more harshly, since again, that shows a fairly significant lack of respect. And further, when you basically accuse me of using numbers to lie (which is what you are doing above), I will definitely show lapses in a reasoning process in a very harsh manner.

So before you get all bent out of shape over my tone to you, please consider your tone to me on your initial reponse, which was fairly disrespectful and (quite honestly) downright rude.

So if you want my respect in comments to you sickle, I would expect at least the same from you. So, sickle, do you wish to start over on a clean slate here?

Pari: I mentioned the IPCC report. There has been 3 reports released. The
4th will not be released until November of this year, but I read the summary of the highlights of it last night. Further, I have read the previous 3.

Now, all of your arguments are taking all of you in circles until you establish a few ground rules as to facts and figures.

First, what each of you have to establish is what reports are acceptable to you. There are some conclusions of researchers that have been proven politically motivated as well as bank-rolled. This is also mentioned in the IPCC reports. A variance of past, present, as well as future models were used in each report. Facts were ascertained in each report based upon each model. HOWEVER, the results, and what caused them, can not be proven 100%.

I stipulate, in my opinion, that the earth is warming, since facts have proven such. However, the CAUSATION, is the main question to be answered. Does the warming coincide with the 100 year cycle, concluding a natural occurrence......or, is it warmng at a more rapid rate, and deviating from the 100-year cycle?

I'm particularly interested in the stratosphere findings.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Actually we can measure mars's temperature quite well.

Then perhaps you will point us to the voluminous studies on Mars warming that you rely on.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Unfortunately you can't seem to even write a full sentence reply without resorting to being snarky. How unfortunate.

Oh, please. You want to drip snot on us from your lofty heights in your first few posts here and when someone treats you in kind they are suddenly "snarky"? Was your skin this thin on the old GF? Probably.

Btw, what *is* my religion? Or, are you simply debating by supposition and generalization here?

Based on your posts here so far I'm assuming you're a believer in Anthro Global Warming.

Now back to the subject:



and you say you have a scientific background? Im sorry your statment above does not give me confidence in the depth of that. This is as good as saying "Antarians did it".... lol.

Yep. Scientific background. I know it's hard to believe because I'm not as big of a horse's a$$ as you are, but beliee it or not one can have a scientific background without being a tremendous tool. You should try it some time.

Perhaps you need to read some "Notes" in the scientific rags. Funny thing, last time I wrote in one,

OOoooooooo, you are published, OOoooooooo! And sure, I can always use a brush-up.

when one asserted a thesis, one had to back that up. In this vein, if I were state that my thesis was "Global warming is caused by anthropogenic GHG" without any backing, that should be thrown out. The reviewers (like you) are absolutely proper in stating (like you do) "prove it."

Correspondingly when one states in response a reason why a thesis is wrong (i.e. AGW is wrong because of (some general-ass statment), the onus is on the one asserting the (unsupported) counter thesis to back it with facts or evidence.

Sure, and if this forum were a peer-reviewed journal then you'd be perfectly correct in demanding such backing. Now, we've given it to you anyway, but you have to remember that this isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Rather, it's more like a peer-reviewed bull session on common sense.

Funny thing, that is how the scientific principle works. Funny thing, that seems to be what you are disclaiming. Hopefully you will correct me if I have somehow misinterpreted your (somewhat snarky) diatribe.

Funny thing, I notice you don't even quote my whole post here, especially the parts where I identify the weak parts of my own position. So I have no doubt you've misinterpreted my snarky diatribe, assuming you've even read it.

If not, I suggest that you bone up a little on the scientific method when talking about, discussing, or debating a scientific theory.

Hmm. Scientific Method. I've heard of that! Yaaayyyyy for Dale! How about this version:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

So where in there is the part where the guy who has the new theory about anthro GW can ignore counters about orbital mechanics and the Sun's radiance unless the people asking use Tanqy-approved methods?

Incorrect. I suggest that you actually read the studies and evidence at the links I posted in response to Gun. I know it might take some time to actually look at it some evidence, but many of the studies and evidence make this statement of yours somewhat specious. Perhaps you should write The Royal Society and pen an errata saying how Dr. Lockwood of Oxford and Dr. Frohlich of PMOD of the World Radiation Center are obviously wrong.

Maybe I should.

For the third time today:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
Quote:


(This is like playing whack-a-mole.....)

Sure, if you insist upon making it a contest.

You kinda get into some allusion that there could be some weird "spooky-action at a distance" via "photons that crash into the earth fifty years ago", and I would *really* like to see you flesh this out...... But, if you don't know the mechanics of such a thing, simply state that you are pulling it out of thin air and that it is unsubstantiated.

I have NO idea to what you are referring here.

Hmmm.... the "belief" that Mars is warming is based almost exclusively on nothing more than photos of the South Pole.... yeah...... that's a real strong scientific.

As opposed to photos of our North Pole? And what about Pluto? And Triton?

With no idea what the mechanism may be, nor any study that supports your coentntion that it is increased solar activity, nor any evidence that supports your implied conjecture. Sorry Dale, that effort would get you a D- in the class I teach.....

As I've said before, O Great One, I have posted links to articles referencing solar data on the other threads before. And I'm sure the D- I would get in your class would have far more to do with me refusing to be cowed by your towering ego more than any effort or non-effort on my part. I've met plenty of scientists and profs like you before.

(As an interesting aside, do you see just a *little* hypocrisy when you demand PROOF of the cause of terrestrial GW, but automatically assume increased solar irradiance as the causation of supposed "warming" on Mars? Further, its a "warming" that hasn't really even been substantiated.)

Do you see any hypocrisy in the fact that you question my efforts at, and ability to, understand this topic with every other sentence of your posts, and yet you don't even acknowledge that I've already addressed the particular weaknesses or shortfalls of my position? The JunkScience page I linked to has a nice summation that itself explains how Solar activity is probably responsible for no more than half of any currently-observed warming? I may or may not agree with that conclusion, but I'm not hiding from it, and I went out of my way to point it out.

Well, you have started out on general "sun" thesis, now you have drifted into a general panopy calling of some AGW proponents. What *are* you talking about?

Dunno. I can't understand your last sentence here.

-dale

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Then perhaps you will point us to the voluminous studies on Mars warming that you rely on.

What causes the huge clouds over Venus? Why is it so hot on Venus and so cold on say Neptune. If there is increased warming on Mars, well then why?
Do you belong to the 'Flat Earth Society'? If the Sun increase its radiance by 25% what would the Earths temperature be and why? You get it?

Don't complicate the obvious and expect us all to take a radical change because you would perfer Al Gore as Emperor of socialist America. When the obvious out weighs unproved headiness and pomp I will choose the obvious because as history has shown science is not always right. And living by pop-science can cause death. Inter Diet and nutritional science for one. Forrestry for another.


IVAN

Global Warming Fast Facts

I would like to throw in a question which never comes up in discussions on global warming.

We know that the earth's atmosphere is not heated directly by the sun, but rather by the earth via longwave radition, conduction and latent heat from evaporating water which are all the product of solar radiation. But we also have at the core of the earth molten rock.

Assuming that molten rock contributes to the heating of the surface of the earth and hence the atmosphere, and assuming that such heat reaches the surface faster in some regions of the earth's surface than in others due to the varying material consistency of the earth between the molten zone and the earth's surface--here is my question--could removal of large underground seas of oil from the earth cause more heat to escape from the earth's core in the form of increased longwave radiation?

Now jumping ahead: If the absense of former oil deposits causes the earth to pump out more heat these days, more than the sun's radiation accounts for, then can we say the the earth is cooling more rapidly than usual? And if it is cooling faster, won't a point be reached when its heat LOSS begins to decrease, thereby lowering its contribution to atmospheric warming? Perhaps current global warming is the prelude to global cooling, solving one problem for man and creating another, namely an new ice age. burrr.

Originally Posted by brokensickle

What causes the huge clouds over Venus? Why is it so hot on Venus and so cold on say Neptune. If there is increased warming on Mars, well then why?
Do you belong to the 'Flat Earth Society'? If the Sun increase its radiance by 25% what would the Earths temperature be and why? You get it?

Don't complicate the obvious and expect us all to take a radical change because you would perfer Al Gore as Emperor of socialist America. When the obvious out weighs unproved headiness and pomp I will choose the obvious because as history has shown science is not always right. And living by pop-science can cause death. Inter Diet and nutritional science for one. Forrestry for another.


IVAN

He's not advocating pop science. He is trying to stomp out what he sees as a non-productive, non-professional, and ultimately threatening style of lay scientific inquiry. He wants to keep scientific thinking in the hands of the scientists, that's all.

Imagine a highly-trained soldier listening in on a bunch of us civvy dorks yakking about which home defense plan is best, or which caliber is good for which job. If such a soldier couldn't control his ego and see the discussion for what it was, the reaction might be similar.

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Global Warming Fast Facts

I would like to throw in a question which never comes up in discussions on global warming.

We know that the earth's atmosphere is not heated directly by the sun, but rather by the earth via longwave radition, conduction and latent heat from evaporating water which are all the product of solar radiation. But we also have at the core of the earth molten rock.

Assuming that molten rock contributes to the heating of the surface of the earth and hence the atmosphere, and assuming that such heat reaches the surface faster in some regions of the earth's surface than in others due to the varying material consistency of the earth between the molten zone and the earth's surface--here is my question--could removal of large underground seas of oil from the earth cause more heat to escape from the earth's core in the form of increased longwave radiation?

Now jumping ahead: If the absense of former oil deposits causes the earth to pump out more heat these days, more than the sun's radiation accounts for, then can we say the the earth is cooling more rapidly than usual? And if it is cooling faster, won't a point be reached when its heat LOSS begins to decrease, thereby lowering its contribution to atmospheric warming? Perhaps current global warming is the prelude to global cooling, solving one problem for man and creating another, namely an new ice age. burrr.

Of course the atmosphere is directly heated by the Sun. The heat is trapped at the surface in part by the Greenhouse Effect. The Earth is not a radiative body.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Oh, please. You want to drip snot on us from your lofty heights in your first few posts here and when someone treats you in kind they are suddenly "snarky"? Was your skin this thin on the old GF? Probably.

I see. Introducing facts into a discussion is "drip snot ... from lofty heights". Interesting take.... not horribly enlightened, but very interesting. Perhaps instead of characterizing the "dripping snot" you *may* want to actually address the points presented.

I could some choice nouns and adjectives for that behavior. I choose not to use them based on respect and potentially making a gross over-generalization. I mean I have already been taken to task for referring to critics of AGW (i.e. those who do not think that AGW is a viable theory) as a "naysayer." Based on your last two ad-hom laced posts, I was stupid for apologizing for that action.

Yep. Scientific background. I know it's hard to believe because I'm not as big of a horse's a$$ as you are, but beliee it or not one can have a scientific background without being a tremendous tool. You should try it some time.

I'm saying that you should attempt to to talk about a scientific subject at least somewhat within the confines of the scientific method. Your paragraph postulates that to understand the current energy balance of the Earth, you have to go "all the way back centuries and eons and integrate all the effects of all the photons" to reach a reasonable approximation about the current flux. Next, you say that we *have* to have all the information about the sun going back all those eons. In effect, you are proposing "action from photons across centuries and centuries", and since you dont have that data, you throw up your hands and say "what's the use"

The interesting thing about this concept is that solar flux into the system is the important concept in the energy balance equations, not the combined effects of "everything that has happened centuries ago". The important solar readings are the ones not from "over the last few centuries" but the ones from the time of the increased excess energy. The current ones do not show any high readings in the time during the energy buildup, and in the skeptic's best case in the recent studies, at most solar irradiance accounts for only 20-30% of the increases.

OOoooooooo, you are published, OOoooooooo! And sure, I can always use a brush-up.

It does appear that way.

Sure, and if this forum were a peer-reviewed journal then you'd be perfectly correct in demanding such backing. ... but you have to remember that this isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Rather, it's more like a peer-reviewed bull session on common sense.

Well interestingly you want to opine on science and science matters. Yet you clearly disdain using the method backing science to do that. Seems rather disingenuous.

Too bad most of the "proofs" I have seen here are limited to one phrase utterances of "Mars attacks" and "the sun". But, when someone has the temerity to state an opposing thesis, you spout "prove it". No offense Dale, but that is hypocritical as all h*ll.

Now, we've given (cites) to you anyway

Bull$it. All you have said is "the sun" interspersed with "Mars is warming". Oh, someone *did* post a newpaper story that somewhat misquoted and mischaracterized a study.

Par actually has, by posting on online correlation study by Ahlbeck (not peer reviewed, though)

Hmm. Scientific Method. I've heard of that! Yaaayyyyy for Dale! How about this version:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

You forget the other portions.

6. state the hypothesis
7. allow others to replicate
8. others should be able to state a cogent reason *why* the author's reasoning is not correct. But, this step 8 is also step 2, where the critic is now the person who has the onus to prove their counter.

That is when you utter a single phrase answer of "mars is warming" utterly fails.

So where in there is the part where the guy who has the new theory about anthro GW can ignore counters about orbital mechanics and the Sun's radiance unless the people asking use Tanqy-approved methods?

When they are pulled out of thin air with no backing. See the method above. Funny thing is that you feel the driving urge to opine on science, yet feel the compulsion to ignore the basic mechanics of the science. Interesting.... I guess......

And what about Pluto? And Triton?

I suggest you first pull up a study of "Mars Attacks", or "Mars is warming", or whatever the hell you are obliquely referencing here. Show me a study saying that over the same time frame as the Earth, that Mars as a whole has warmed x degrees. Not some spurious conclusions basd on localized climate on Mars, limited to localized conditions upon Mars, or on a series of photos that show (horrors) melting (like the wicked witch of the North) of the south pole there.

Funny thing there is precious little evidence of global warming on Mars. You seemingly want to jsut gloss over that fact.... well to be precise, that lack of facts.

Finally, since you are so convinced that Mars is warming due to solar irradiance, find me unequivocal data that ties the solar mechanism to that warming.

Dale, what I am saying is that you do the same steps that you demand of others. Or, don't. If you fail to do that, your "its the sun" or "its the Mars warming" assertions are as specious as you call the "correlators" in the AGW debate. Or did you fail to realize that?

You want Pluto? Okay, lets look at the what I see as the available data from Pluto. The "only" evidence on termperature on Pluto is a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart.

(sarcasm mode on)Yah..... that nails it..... (sarcasm mode off)

If you have any more, please feel to add. But, all I think at this point the only thing one will get from you is your pithy "Mars is warming", "its the sun", followed by your demand for proof from anyone else who has the temerity to state anything else.... or perhaps I will be called a horse's a$$ for bothering to look at the vaunted "studies of Pluto"

-------------

If you want to have a discussion on the science, that's great. If you want to disaprage talk about the science and evidence on the same as ""drip(ping) snot ... from lofty heights", well that is your right as well. And if you want to devolve your talk on science into one line pithy proofs, while demanding much more from others, I find that hypocritical.

And I would find that fairly humorous coming from someone who seemed to excel and demand that others do that one time...... (but apparently not now.)

On a side note, I hope your modeling hobby is doing well for you.

[QUOTE=JAD_333;400126]

Assuming that molten rock contributes to the heating of the surface of the earth and hence the atmosphere, and assuming that such heat reaches the surface faster in some regions of the earth's surface than in others due to the varying material consistency of the earth between the molten zone and the earth's surface--

Shouldn't think so, dear heart. A desert that is almost unbearably hot by day can actually be very cold at night. The only exception I have found was in Aden (now South Yemen) where the lowest recorded temperature during my 13 month tour was 93 degrees Fahrenheit. (The highest daytime temperature was 154 degrees in the Wadi Tyme!)

Originally Posted by brokensickle

What causes the huge clouds over Venus? Why is it so hot on Venus and so cold on say Neptune. If there is increased warming on Mars, well then why?
Do you belong to the 'Flat Earth Society'? If the Sun increase its radiance by 25% what would the Earths temperature be and why? You get it?

Don't complicate the obvious and expect us all to take a radical change because you would perfer Al Gore as Emperor of socialist America. When the obvious out weighs unproved headiness and pomp I will choose the obvious because as history has shown science is not always right. And living by pop-science can cause death. Inter Diet and nutritional science for one. Forrestry for another.


IVAN

I will take that diatribe as an indication that you can't come up with a study of warming on Mars. You could have just said so in one sentence, you know.

Don't complicate the obvious

So asking for a backing that the global climate on Mars (that is aside from a National Enquirer article) is "complicat[ing] the obvious." Interesting point of view......

don't ... expect us all to take a radical change

Trust me, I doubt that you could effectuate any change.

because you would perfer Al Gore as Emperor of socialist America.

Oh goody..... debate by gross generalization. Very becoming. (see the point above)

I will choose the obvious

I can readily see that, trust me.

living by pop-science can cause death.

Funny quote from someone who calls readily ascertainable evidence "puffheaded numbers"......

[QUOTE=glyn;400133]

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Assuming that molten rock contributes to the heating of the surface of the earth and hence the atmosphere, and assuming that such heat reaches the surface faster in some regions of the earth's surface than in others due to the varying material consistency of the earth between the molten zone and the earth's surface--

Shouldn't think so, dear heart. A desert that is almost unbearably hot by day can actually be very cold at night. The only exception I have found was in Aden (now South Yemen) where the lowest recorded temperature during my 13 month tour was 93 degrees Fahrenheit. (The highest daytime temperature was 154 degrees in the Wadi Tyme!)

The earth (as I am sure that geologist Dale will verify) is an extraordinarily good thermal insulator.