Global ""Warming""

[Paratus]

For the life of me I can't understand where you're coming from or the point you're trying to make.

I do but I will not play the game.

That's not very relevant though. You need to show that those natural factors have been increasing during the current period. If I remember correctly, overall natural variations in recent years have actually provided a net cooling effect.

Regardless, that's what he's asking you for: Name the specific natural variations that have happened in recent years that you believe account for the increased heat.

Not really a game. But basically what eskimospy said. If I could understand what the framework through which you view how variances effect the climates and compare it to the one most climate scientists use I might understand your point of view better.

I've got to work so it will have to wait for later for me.

 

[Jaskalas]

We cannot account for natural factors, and neither can you.
Without those fully accounted for, you cannot tell us what percentage is man-made. Your 100% claim is beyond ridiculous.

The question of the Little Ice Age works against anyone claiming settled science on Climate.

 

[dphantom]

A couple links to very current information regarding climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/michaelstestimony.pdf

There is so much new study published and available in climate science. If we do not keep up with current science, we end up falling into the trap of out dated, inaccurate information and assume a "science is settled" mind set.

What may have been understood to be true in 1980, 1990, 2000 or 2010 may not be so now. Unless we devote time to reviewing current literature, we risk arguing for a position that has been superseded.

 

[Moonbeam]

A couple links to very current information regarding climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/michaelstestimony.pdf

There is so much new study published and available in climate science. If we do not keep up with current science, we end up falling into the trap of out dated, inaccurate information and assume a "science is settled" mind set.

What may have been understood to be true in 1980, 1990, 2000 or 2010 may not be so now. Unless we devote time to reviewing current literature, we risk arguing for a position that has been superseded.

I remember the time when the jet I was flying in suddenly lost 30000 feet of altitude do to the loss of two engines and all the way down I sat in my chair furiously calculating to prove the theory of gravity wrong.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I remember the time when the jet I was flying in suddenly lost 30000 feet of altitude do to the loss of two engines and all the way down I sat in my chair furiously calculating to prove the theory of gravity wrong.

Glad to hear that your strategy worked. :biggrin:

 

[dphantom]

I remember the time when the jet I was flying in suddenly lost 30000 feet of altitude do to the loss of two engines and all the way down I sat in my chair furiously calculating to prove the theory of gravity wrong.

Which goes to show you did not read either of the documents listed. Both support a warming climate due in some part to CO2 and other GHGs. The questions are how much and once determined, is it of significant concern?

Even newton is wrong or rather not completely accurate when we get to relativistic effects. Thank goodness we did not say then regarding Newton that the science is settled. We may never have had an Einstein or Hawking.

 

[Chiropteran]

I remember the time when the jet I was flying in suddenly lost 30000 feet of altitude do to the loss of two engines and all the way down I sat in my chair furiously calculating to prove the theory of gravity wrong.

I remember the time when climate change resulted in direct loss of human life, similar to an airplane crash. Oh wait, no I don't, because it has never happened - despite the "scientists" who furiously scream that they have proof the world is ending unless we immediately switch to product X which is environmentally friendly and just happens to be produced by a corporation that also provides 90% of their funding.

 

[Moonbeam]

Which goes to show you did not read either of the documents listed. Both support a warming climate due in some part to CO2 and other GHGs. The questions are how much and once determined, is it of significant concern?

Even newton is wrong or rather not completely accurate when we get to relativistic effects. Thank goodness we did not say then regarding Newton that the science is settled. We may never have had an Einstein or Hawking.

Did you understand that my point was that in another 7000 foot drop in altitude my efforts to discover the real laws of gravity would have been wasted and I could have better used my time looking for a parachute. I do not have your unconscious motivations to deny the need for action on climate change. I go with what all the lunatic scientists think is happening. I have never felt any need to create a brick wall out of thin air or ignore people who can see that one is there. I see climate deniers as folk who have a defective ability to assess risk. I see nothing at all but endless asses with their heads in the sand.

The upsides to the elimination of CO2 production on a massive scale by burning fossil fuels are enormous.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you understand that my point was that in another 7000 foot drop in altitude my efforts to discover the real laws of gravity would have been wasted and I could have better used my time looking for a parachute. I do not have your unconscious motivations to deny the need for action on climate change. I go with what all the lunatic scientists think is happening. I have never felt any need to create a brick wall out of thin air or ignore people who can see that one is there. I see climate deniers as folk who have a defective ability to assess risk. I see nothing at all but endless asses with their heads in the sand.

The upsides to the elimination of CO2 production on a massive scale by burning fossil fuels are enormous.

Nuclear is the parachute...but some folks seem more interested in saving themselves by screaming of impending doom while looking for boxes of shoes with springs attached. Good luck with that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nuclear is the parachute...but some folks seem more interested in saving themselves by screaming of impending doom while looking for boxes of shoes with springs attached. Good luck with that.

You see what you see because of the information you have absorbed. There is what you know and what you know you don't know but there is what you don't know you don't know. That what I know because I know I don't know anything.

The answer, of course, is the gagblogliduct which weighs three ounces and delivers infinite power.

PS: It also does not create any deadly poisons that last for a million years.

 

[bshole]

I go with what all the lunatic scientists think is happening.

Unquestioning conformance to exterior authorities. Noice. You do remember that the settled science of eugenics backed the extermination regime of the Nazis don't you? The settled science of global warming is creating policies that are increasing death and starvation in the world today. Global warming policies are INTENTIONALLY driving up the cost of food production. You should own the totality of global warmist policies. Say it with me.... I AM OK WITH MORE PEOPLE DYING AND STARVING IN 3rd WORLD NATIONS RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW, AS LONG AS the modellers tell me that it will prevent x Deg C increase in temperature 100 years from now.

 

[CZroe]

...But, there does seem to be actual Global Warming.



Another link - on how 2014 was trumped by 2015 as the hottest year; http://www.climatecentral.org/news/june-record-warm-19264

Opponents to AGW do not argue that the Earth is not warming, they argue that the "A" part of "AGW" (Anthropogenic AKA "man-caused") is incorrect and that the Earth is warming because the sun is increasingly more active.

And just to get it out of our systems: Moving goal posts! Strawman! Changing the argument! CBD! Stupid dumb dumb head!

 

[dank69]

Opponents to AGW do not argue that the Earth is not warming, they argue that the "A" part of "AGW" (Anthropogenic AKA "man-caused") is incorrect and that the Earth is warming because the sun is increasingly more active.

And just to get it out of our systems: Moving goal posts! Strawman! Changing the argument! CBD! Stupid dumb dumb head!

The only opponents that still argue that are ignorant of the fact that the sun is not "more active," whatever you think you mean by that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Opponents to AGW do not argue that the Earth is not warming, they argue that the "A" part of "AGW" (Anthropogenic AKA "man-caused") is incorrect and that the Earth is warming because the sun is increasingly more active.

And just to get it out of our systems: Moving goal posts! Strawman! Changing the argument! CBD! Stupid dumb dumb head!

I don't see anyone arguing that point except for your stupid strawman. Too funny!

 

[Jaskalas]

Opponents to AGW do not argue that the Earth is not warming, they argue that the "A" part of "AGW" (Anthropogenic AKA "man-caused") is incorrect and that the Earth is warming because the sun is increasingly more active.

The only opponents that still argue that are ignorant of the fact that the sun is not "more active," whatever you think you mean by that.

The sun WAS more active... and the Satellite data correctly shows the pause coinciding with unusually low solar activity. Give it another cycle or two (decades) and a Maunder Minimum may be upon us.

 

[CZroe]

The only opponents that still argue that are ignorant of the fact that the sun is not "more active," whatever you think you mean by that.

I'm talking about a more direct correlation than the hockey stick: Documented sunspot activity. It is an excellent indicator of overall solar activity. Like it or not, the sun has been increasingly active over hundreds of years and absolutely no one argues otherwise. If it has trailed off recently, it has yet to cancel the previous trend going hundreds of years.

I don't see anyone arguing that point except for your stupid strawman. Too funny!

Huh? There are two different things: Natural warming and man-made warming. The Earth is unquestionably warmer that it was a hundred years ago and a hundred years before that, so the only argument is about the cause (natural or anthropogenic). The commercial automobile didn't even exist for most of that time.

The strawman is pretending that AGW-deniers are also denying natural warming and making the incorrect conclusions I quoted him making based on that false assumption.

The sun WAS more active... and the Satellite data correctly shows the pause coinciding with unusually low solar activity. Give it another cycle or two (decades) and a Maunder Minimum may be upon us.

That's right: a pause. It hasn't gone full-reverse. Even if it never increases further and the pause becomes permanent, it takes time for the oceans/atmosphere/planet to reach equilibrium and it will continue warming and setting records until things stabilize decades from now. It doesn't change the natural versus man-made part of this.

 

[dank69]

I'm talking about a more direct correlation than the hockey stick: Documented sunspot activity. It is an excellent indicator of overall solar activity. Like it or not, the sun has been increasingly active over hundreds of years and absolutely no one argues otherwise. If it has trailed off recently, it has yet to cancel the previous trend going hundreds of years.



Huh? There are two different things: Natural warming and man-made warming. The Earth is unquestionably warmer that it was a hundred years ago and a hundred years before that, so the only argument is about the cause (natural or anthropogenic). The commercial automobile didn't even exist for most of that time.

The strawman is pretending that AGW-deniers are also denying natural warming and making the incorrect conclusions I quoted him making based on that false assumption.



That's right: a pause. It hasn't gone full-reverse. Even if it never increases further and the pause becomes permanent, it takes time for the oceans/atmosphere/planet to reach equilibrium and it will continue warming and setting records until things stabilize decades from now. It doesn't change the natural versus man-made part of this.

A) Jaskalas and others have been arguing in many current threads that the temperature record is manipulated to show more warming than is actually occurring.

B) Paratus has posted data in several recent threads showing the measured solar output (and other natural factors) vs. the warming trend showing that ONLY man can be the cause of the current trend.

 

[ctbaars]

I'm all for increasing efficiency and reducing pollution.

 

[CZroe]

A) Jaskalas and others have been arguing in many current threads that the temperature record is manipulated to show more warming than is actually occurring.

B) Paratus has posted data in several recent threads showing the measured solar output (and other natural factors) vs. the warming trend showing that ONLY man can be the cause of the current trend.

Doesn't matter. I'm saying that the OP's base conclusion about deniers was incorrect and, thus, his follow-up conclusion that relied on it was useless.

I'm all for increasing efficiency and reducing pollution.

Me too.

 

[Paratus]

You can see since the late 70's incident solar radiation has been basically steady or maybe slightly negative. (This also lines up with the 15 years I spent pointing large solar arrays at the sun.)

Per our energy balance:

That suggests we should see neither an increase or decrease in energy retention on the planet. The way to check that is to look at the temperatures and/or energy stored at the earths surface, the various layers of the atmosphere and the various layers of the oceans over the same time period.

Satellite measurements of the the stratosphere, troposphere and surface temperature:

Surface Temperature:

0-2000m Ocean Heat:

As you can see while the stratosphere and upper troposphere have cooled a bit. The lower atmosphere and surface temperature have continued to rise, if a bit more slowly in the last 20 years.

However the ocean thermal content has continued to increase sharply.

Our energy balance based on the first law of thermodynamics says the system must be retaining heat from somewhere as the excess is not coming from the sun.

Measuring the outgoing long wave radiation shows an ~.6W/m^2 imbalance in total.

Direct measurements in addition to models of the atmosphere supports CO2 being the primary cause.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/

The so called "pause" supposedly supported by satellite readings from a portion of the atmosphere doesn't exist. Heat may move around in the system and the portion of the system measured by the RSS and UAH data in no way offsets the overall heat gain in the system. Their measurements do help explain how heat moves in the system.

The sun has not been driving warming for this time period either.

The energy balance is based on thermodynamics which is settled science.

Natural forcings and man-made forcings are inherently knowable and subject to science. Certain posters ignorance of those subjects changes nothing.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm all for increasing efficiency and reducing pollution.

Me too.

To what extent?

1. Ensure Natural Gas overtakes Coal.
2. Start a National Nuclear Project, to immediately build dozens of modern plants.
3. Provide R&D into Solar with the intent of mass production later this century.
4. Provide R&D into Fusion with the hope and a prayer of mass production sometime next century.

At a minimum we have to do steps 1-3. Simply cutting our CO2 emissions by half or even three fourths will do _nothing_ to address Climate Change, as radiative forcing would still be increasing non-stop.

 

[shira]

If the globe warms enough, is it possible that Canada might become habitable?

Higher temperatures don't mean that there's sufficient sunlight at higher latitudes to sustain the same crop yields formerly achieved at lower latitudes.

 

[shira]

To what extent?

1. Ensure Natural Gas overtakes Coal.
2. Start a National Nuclear Project, to immediately build dozens of modern plants.
3. Provide R&D into Solar with the intent of mass production later this century.
4. Provide R&D into Fusion with the hope and a prayer of mass production sometime next century.

At a minimum we have to do steps 1-3. Simply cutting our CO2 emissions by half or even three fourths will do _nothing_ to address Climate Change, as radiative forcing would still be increasing non-stop.

Photovoltaics are increasing exponentially. IEA predictions of the share of global electricity generation produced in 2050 by PV has grown 5 percentage points in just four years:

This updated roadmap envisions PV's share of global electricity rising up to 16% by 2050, compared with 11% in the 2010 roadmap.

We can't put the fossil fuel industry out of business soon enough to suit me.

 

[Paratus]

Higher temperatures don't mean that there's sufficient sunlight at higher latitudes to sustain the same crop yields formerly achieved at lower latitudes.

That's true. Power (sunlight) from the sun falls off with the cosine of the angle to the sun.

You get 1000+ w/m2 at the tropics and near 0 at the poles.

 

[bshole]

Surface Temperature:

See this chart makes no kind of sense. The warming rate between 1900-1940 is roughly the same as the warming rate between 1960-2000 even though the amount of carbon increase was tiny between 1900-1940. In addition, what is with the flat region between 1940-1960? Since man controls the climate apparently, it appears that all we have to do is repeat that time period.