• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
Check my edit. If you want to defend him, feel free. At least you know where I stand. But I would be careful questioning other's technical abilities. Mine keeps me living quite comfortably, thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Obama is living quite comfortably but I doubt you'd take that as a qualification of his technical ability.


I just don't understand how you can't identify an absolute, couldn't understand how a source can be determined to not be dominant without first identifying the actual dominant source, and think eliminating possible sources is equivalent to wizardry (proving a negative). On top of that, you think easily falsifiable facts are not falsifiable.

Never mind, I do understand. It's that famous CBD on display. Using that intellect for the rationalizations again.
 
dank69 said:
I'm sure Obama is living quite comfortably but I doubt you'd take that as a qualification of his technical ability.


I just don't understand how you can't identify an absolute, couldn't understand how a source can be determined to not be dominant without first identifying the actual dominant source, and think eliminating possible sources is equivalent to wizardry (proving a negative). On top of that, you think easily falsifiable facts are not falsifiable.

Never mind, I do understand. It's that famous CBD on display. Using that intellect for the rationalizations again.
Click to expand...

Bolded your problem. Now go fix it yourself.

LOL @ bringing Obama into this. I think we are done here. The gutter has been reached.
 
Gravity is a funny thing. The gravity of the earth changes and varies from time to time. During times of what is sometimes referred to a "Magnetic Polar Flip" gravity decreases. So during these times does the gravity of the Moon become more significant?
 
World Ends; Women and Minorities Hardest Hit

The much-anticipated end of the world arrived today, causing disruption in the financial markets and throwing into doubt any resumption of bipartisan congressional negotiations ...”

President Obama has scheduled an End of Days speech and press conference for 11:00 pm Eastern Time. A White House spokesmen said that the President will use the occasion to unveil his plan for turning the End into “an uplifting occasion of renewal as Americans gather in true equality and prosperity to face the future with optimism and new resolve.” The spokesman refused to comment on speculation that Mr. Obama’s “Apocalypse Now” plan would include additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

After his speech the President plans to take Air Force One and fly ahead of the midnight line to his birthplace in Hawaii, where he will await the End with a reduced staff of 6,000.

Although still too early for meaningful results, exit polls in Brisbane, Canberra, Seoul, Manila, and Tokyo indicate that women, minorities, the poor, the elderly, and children with medical problems have been hardest hit by the End. Gays and transgenders also report that the Apocalypse will have a disproportionate impact on their lifestyles.

A spokesman for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation blamed “Crusaders and Zionists” for the End, but said, “Even so, the hearts of faithful Muslims will never waver in their dedication to jihad in the cause of Allah. We await our imminent arrival in Paradise with great anticipation.”
Click to expand...
 
xBiffx said:
Heat by volcanoes. Of course we could calculate, or rather measure, the amount of ice that is melted with relative certainty. How can you calculate let alone measure the heat released by all the volcanoes?
Click to expand...

The minimum average heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is 114 milliwatts per square meter (or per about 10 square feet) with some areas giving off 200 milliwatts per square meter or more, the researchers report today (June 9) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Volcanic hot spot area) (A milliwatt is one-thousandth of a watt.) In comparison, the average heat flow of the rest of the continents is 65 milliwatts per square meter.

I believe they do this by asking the continent to put the thermometer under its tongue.
 
Paratus said:
Feels like the sharks are circling. 😀

Well I did say about 100% and I meant greater than 95%. There just doesn't seem to be any natural forcings that could have caused the signature in the data we see at the time we saw it.

The IPCC agrees but says it a little differently:

But basically in the last 60 years they are 95% certain man is the primary cause AND natural forcings were basically -0.1C to 0.1C range.
Click to expand...

Exactly... "the last 60 years".
50s, flat.
60s, flat.
70s, slight warming.
80s, rapid warming.
90s, rapid warming.
00s, flat.
10s, flat.

Natural forcing created a pause for the majority of the period, yielding for ~20 years while the PDO and AMO phased positive, or "warm" near the land masses. Global temperatures responded to, are controlled by, a simple ocean cycle.

That warm phase has ended, and the oceans have caused another pause in temperature. Are you telling us that which overwhelms the warming signal cannot also turn around and cause a majority of it?

The earth is nothing if not a history of change, climate and all. To claim 95-100%, "almost all" the observed change is man made is to deny 95-100% of history. To ignore the data.

CO2 is unusually high, true.
Temperature IS NOT!

The previous interglacial was warmer, with devastated ice sheets and higher sea levels. We are not yet as warm as the Eemian and there is no reason to think nature cannot simply repeat itself and yield equally high temperatures as before. To proclaim that CO2 is solely responsible is as terrible a crime against science as denying the physical properties of CO2.

The foretells of rapid warming are based on a linear extrapolation of the ~20 years of warming and do not represent the reality of climate sensitivity to CO2. Politics has put the cart before the horse and decided it was a fine excuse to seize control of industry.

Unless it starts warming during a negative PDO + AMO, the alarmist theory of run-away warming is ruined.
 
Subyman said:
So you believe ever increasing CO2 will never affect temperature?
Click to expand...

I learn towards thinking we've experienced say, at most 0.2c of warming by increasing CO2 from 300-400ppm. I expect around 0.6c of warming when we double CO2 from 300-600ppm.

I do not expect it'll be run-away with 2-4c.
 
Jaskalas said:
Exactly... "the last 60 years".
50s, flat.
60s, flat.
70s, slight warming.
80s, rapid warming.
90s, rapid warming.
00s, flat.
10s, flat.

Natural forcing created a pause for the majority of the period, yielding for ~20 years while the PDO and AMO phased positive, or "warm" near the land masses. Global temperatures responded to, are controlled by, a simple ocean cycle.

That warm phase has ended, and the oceans have caused another pause in temperature. Are you telling us that which overwhelms the warming signal cannot also turn around and cause a majority of it?

The earth is nothing if not a history of change, climate and all. To claim 95-100%, "almost all" the observed change is man made is to deny 95-100% of history. To ignore the data.

CO2 is unusually high, true.
Temperature IS NOT!

The previous interglacial was warmer, with devastated ice sheets and higher sea levels. We are not yet as warm as the Eemian and there is no reason to think nature cannot simply repeat itself and yield equally high temperatures as before. To proclaim that CO2 is solely responsible is as terrible a crime against science as denying the physical properties of CO2.

The foretells of rapid warming are based on a linear extrapolation of the ~20 years of warming and do not represent the reality of climate sensitivity to CO2. Politics has put the cart before the horse and decided it was a fine excuse to seize control of industry.

Unless it starts warming during a negative PDO + AMO, the alarmist theory of run-away warming is ruined.
Click to expand...

Global temperatures are NOT controlled by ocean currents. Global temperature is the sum of the thermal energy of the ocean, atmosphere, and land. PDO and AMO affect Global Atmospheric Temperatures. and they should affect ocean temperatures.

If you were right Jasklas and if I understand your point, for every positive phase that heats the atmosphere we should see a corresponding drop in ocean temperature due to conservation of energy. During the negative phases the atmosphere should cool and the ocean should warm.

Except you yourself just pointed out in the last 60 years there has been no year over year cooling of the atmosphere nor the ocean. Neither has there been in the 90 years before that to the best of our data. By conservation of energy that means energy must have been added to the system in the last 60 years. It could not have come from the oceans as the oceans only store heat they do not create it.

This says to me the increase in temperature and energy of the Ocean/Atmosphere system is being driven by another effect and NOT the PDO or AMO. It does suggest that the PDO and AMO in conjuncture with this other effect produce the "stair step" signature you pointed out.

I've already gone through my rationale on why the other effect is almost certain to be CO2 and some methane.

As for the other pre-industrial pre-human times when the temperature was higher, those were caused by natural effects. No one who follows the science of MMGW is saying natural causes can't produce higher temperatures than we see today. What we are saying is they are not causing it now.
 
piasabird said:
Gravity is a funny thing. The gravity of the earth changes and varies from time to time. During times of what is sometimes referred to a "Magnetic Polar Flip" gravity decreases. So during these times does the gravity of the Moon become more significant?
Click to expand...
This must be where that stupid commercial got the idea that we'd all go weightless when the magnetic field flips... as if the planet would suddenly lose all its mass because MAGNETISM! 🙄

It was some kind of financial or investments commercial, IIRC. Traditional animation. Mostly line art on a white background but I think there were dashes of color. Anyone know more details so I can search?
 
Paratus said:
Except you yourself just pointed out in the last 60 years there has been no year over year cooling of the atmosphere nor the ocean.
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways of looking at that, but I'll try to keep it focused. The Little Ice Age. Why did it stop? For all we know the warming that took us out of the Little Ice Age is still ongoing. Why must there be cooling if our temperature is still within the normal bounds of previous interglacial periods?

Without a higher temperature or higher sea level than the Eemain, what exactly is unnatural about our current temperature?

Paratus said:
Neither has there been in the 90 years before that to the best of our data. By conservation of energy that means energy must have been added to the system in the last 60 years. It could not have come from the oceans as the oceans only store heat they do not create it.

This says to me the increase in temperature and energy of the Ocean/Atmosphere system is being driven by another effect...
Click to expand...

Yes, but why is the temperature rise explicitly originating from CO2? Is it simply because we have no other answer?

The correlation of CO2 and temperature rise in the 20th century is not enough to determine Sensitivity. I could very well point to motor vehicles and our mass production of paved surfaces absorbing more solar energy and heating our planet through UHI. Would that effect really be too small to matter next to CO2 absorption?

Paratus said:
As for the other pre-industrial pre-human times when the temperature was higher, those were caused by natural effects. No one who follows the science of MMGW is saying natural causes can't produce higher temperatures than we see today. What we are saying is they are not causing it now.
Click to expand...

I'd like to understand how there is confidence in this. Simple correlation? Our inability to fully account for natural factors? Because when it comes down to it alternative theories just don't compete?
 
The true heroes of climate science!

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil
Click to expand...
 
Interesting report regarding solar irradiance. In a nutshell, much is unknown over the sun's effect on climate. This was a workshop and the paper at the link below summarizes each presenters session. As the overview mentioned, there was much lively discussion over the effect of the sun. From my reading, it looks like the consensus view at this time is about 15% effect on climate with much variability. The link below provides access to a free PDF download.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13519/the-effects-of-solar-variability-on-earths-climate-a-workshop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top