Climate change

Discussions on the interactions between components of the environment and their effects on all types of organisms.

Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2020, 6:49 am 

davidm wrote:Hey, here is a cool thing that Heartland, financier of Idso, did, per Wiki! This is right good science, this is! And so honest!

On Thursday May 3, 2012, Heartland launched an advertising campaign in the Chicago area, and put up digital billboards along the Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois, featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others, asking the question, "I still believe in global warming, do you?" They withdrew the billboards a day later.[70][71] The Institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. The Institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”


Just catch that last quote. These people are the most egregious, contemptible liars imaginable! They make Goebbels look like Abe Lincoln!

Ido’s pay from Heartland: $11,600 per month (!)


I had a look at that site of climate misinformation by Craig Idso in your first post davidm. It just mentioned 3 so-called short statements attributable to Craig Idso (not Sherwood). It just listed them as having been used once each, and did not mention the context in which they were used.

That statement about Al Gore sounds as if it was made by a son of Sherwood Idso. So?

Whoever it was, he did not like what Al Gore had to say about his father. Anybody may have said the same under the same circumstances.

So the Heartland Institute does not like the IPCC position and have cited some work of Idso's.

So, my hypothetical again -- "What if Idso is correct?"

I can't comment on the two 'Heartland' posts davidm. I've never heard of them. Their stand on tobacco sounds way out.

Most of your arguments have been ad hominem davidm. I would have much preferred to see some evidenced-based comments on Idso's science.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 29th, 2020, 1:58 pm 

The science that consists of stripping other researcher's data of context, leaving out various feedback factors, and then aligning yourself both financially and ideologically with the fossil fuel industry? I think the lack of discussion is similar to the lack of discussion on the theories of "credentialed" experts who insist that we never landed anyone on the moon. Life is short. As I said before, Sagan's Law is relevant here.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 29th, 2020, 3:00 pm 

I had a look at that site of climate misinformation by Craig Idso in your first post davidm. It just mentioned 3 so-called short statements attributable to Craig Idso (not Sherwood). It just listed them as having been used once each, and did not mention the context in which they were used.


Did you click on the links to read the full rebuttals?

That statement about Al Gore sounds as if it was made by a son of Sherwood Idso. So?


So, the son admits that the whole reason he got into his fraudulent climate denialism was not because of a devotion to peer-reviewed impartial science, but rather because of a personal grudge. Of course, I give him too much “credit” here. It’s obvious that the other main reason he got into it — and perhaps the main reason — was because it has proven lucrative — from odious Heartland alone, he collects about 110 grand smackers a year. Nice work, if you can get it! This is not even to mention all his other payoffs from the actual fossil-fuel industry.

So, my hypothetical again -- “What if Idso is correct?”


When I was a kid, my dad used to tell me, “Santa Claus exists.” So, my hypothetical: What if my dad was correct? Bear in my mind, my dad never took any money from the elf industry, or the Arctic Heartland Institute, either.

Most of your arguments have been ad hominem davidm. I would have much preferred to see some evidenced-based comments on Idso's science.


Evidence-based refutations of Idso’s claims have been given to you. My arguments have not been ad hom. It is not ad hom to point out conflicts of interest. Ad hom would have been to argue that Idso is wrong only because he takes money from liars. But his argument have been independently refuted — pointing out his connections to Heartland and Big Oil and Coal is only to point out his motives for fudging or ignoring the science.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 29th, 2020, 3:15 pm 

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on January 29th, 2020, 3:47 pm 

doogles -- So, my hypothetical again -- "What if Idso is correct?"

All right. What if ?
How would it change our current situation?
How would it affect our experience, our thinking and planning?
What would it mean, in practical terms, going forward?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 29th, 2020, 6:42 pm 

What if the earth were flat? In the case, cats would have knocked everything off of it by now.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
TheVatSerpent liked this post


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on January 29th, 2020, 7:34 pm 

I was trying to find out what alternative strategy Doogles at al would suggest.
Smart, dedicated people, people I admire, are out there every day, working their tails off for mitigation, fighting for better government policies, putting their safety and freedom on the line for their conviction that anthropogenic climate-change is the greatest existential threat to us all.
If they're wrong, they're wasting all that energy and hardship.
What should they be doing instead?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 30th, 2020, 5:51 am 

TheVat, thanks again. You say "The science that consists of stripping other researcher's data of context, leaving out various feedback factors ... " I do not believe Idso has "stripped other researchers' data of context." I'll explain why when I strip Experiments 4 and 8 down to their most simplistic levels in my answer to Serpent.

Yes davidm. I looked at the links associated with the 3 short bits of so-called 'climate myths by Craig Idso'. They were taken out of context and therefore meant nothing. The links associated with those 3 short bits did not go to their source, but to generalisations made by other sceptics, and the 'refutations' were along the line of IPCC policies.

Why do you say "Evidence-based refutations of Idso’s claims have been given to you.", when at the moment, I'm beseeching anybody to give me evidence-based refutations of the very important paper by Sherwood Idso, without any success. Maybe your interpretation of 'evidence-based' differs from mine

Your link -- https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... rt-claims/ -- is to a statement by Craig Idso and two others stating "Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability." This opens up a whole field for discussion which I would like to be involved in. But that's another topic. I'm having difficulty getting members to comment specifically on Sherwood's paper, so I'll have to leave that for now.

Serpent, if you don't mind, I'll try to explain Experiments 4 and 8 by Idso in simple terms, and then I'll better explain "All right. What if ?"

In Experiment 4, Idso simply uses two pieces of data -- one of 33.6 degrees C for what the average annual temperature of our surface would be without any atmosphere. Currently it's 15 odd degrees C and without an atmosphere it would be -18 degrees C. The solar radiation that would reach our surface if there was no atmosphere would be 348 Wm-2. Hence with simple arithmetic, 1degree C equates to 33.6/348 W/m-2 which represents a Surface Air Temperature Sensitivity (SATS) factor of 0.097 degrees C per Wm-2. This is for the whole atmosphere which includes the GHGs and everything else (including N and O according to other evidence in this thread) that has an effect. There is general consensus that a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm would produce a surface radiative forcing of 4 Wm-2 at the surface. This equates to no more than an increase in temperature of 0.4 degrees C.

TheVat rightly made the point that complicated factors within the dynamics of the atmosphere could modify the surface radiation, but in this case, the 4Wm-2 figure for a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm was calculated allowing for all of those factors.

In Experiment 8, Idso again does not use his own data but that of Lubin et al (1994) who performed experiments over the Pacific Ocean. With direct measurements they found that an increase in downwards-directed radiation of 14 Wm-2 was associated with a 1 degree C rise in sea surface temperature. Simply divide the latter by the former and you come up with 0.071 degrees C per Wm-2. His 8 experiments in toto show a slightly different SATS factor, depending on location, but they are all less than 0.18 degrees C per Wm-2. I can't see where that data was taken out of context.

At face value, I can't see a problem with any of these calculations. So I ask others to tell me what I am missing.

So how would it change our current situation? To my mind, it would mean that carbon dioxide is a minor player in the increasing average near surface global temperatures. The current contribution of carbon dioxide to radiative forcing is generally agreed to be 1.6 Wm-2. If we multiply that by a high land SATS factor of say 0.17, we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures.

So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything. It would also mean that we can forget about the current use of fossil fuels. Mind you, there will be a time in the future when fossil fuels run out, so the development of renewables is a wise move to some extent.

Serpent asked "How would it affect our experience, our thinking and planning? How would it change our current situation? How would it affect our experience, our thinking and planning? What would it mean, in practical terms, going forward?"

I'd like to repeat a good piece of advice he shared with John D in another thread "Fact of the matter is we all need to discuss every aspect of what is and what needs to be done and see about setting up steps for action to be realised."

To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible causes for the current increases in Average Near Surface Global Temperature increases, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open.

I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about Idso's figures before changing the current context of this thread. I believe his paper is too important to just flip over.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 30th, 2020, 11:04 am 

There is general consensus that a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm would produce a surface radiative forcing of 4 Wm-2 at the surface. This equates to no more than an increase in temperature of 0.4 degrees C.


It's not just the surface. It's the whole column of air. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are multiple feedback effects, as well as deep-water thermal storage of the added heat, that Idso does not factor in. Idso Senior is not an atmospheric scientist. His "bio-climatology" credentials are self-appointed.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 30th, 2020, 12:53 pm 

To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible causes for celestial appearances, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open.

I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about Ptolemy’s epicycles before changing the current context of this thread. I believe his work is too important to just flip over.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on January 30th, 2020, 1:24 pm 

doogles » January 30th, 2020, 4:51 am wrote:
Serpent, if you don't mind, I'll try to explain Experiments 4 and 8 by Idso in simple terms, and then I'll better explain

I'm no physicist. Is he saying that doubling the carbon dioxide, particulates and methane in the atmosphere wouldn't raise the temperature significantly, either of air or ocean?
Over what period?

we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures.

So, burning fossil fuels for constantly increasing energy consumption is OK? And forests are supposed to burn anyway, so it's all right?

So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything.

I cannot see that a single global target has ever been met, so how could you tell? Even without factoring in that the targets they set have, in the main, been laughably inadequate, very few countries have met their own pledges. India really seems to be trying and Europe is making slow progress, but the total amount of crud, including CO2, CH4 and N2O in the air keeps rising.

It would also mean that we can forget about the current use of fossil fuels.

I see. This would vindicate Exxon, Peabody and Heartland.

Mind you, there will be a time in the future when fossil fuels run out, so the development of renewables is a wise move to some extent.

On the assumption that everything - economy, geography, political power distribution, living conditions - remains stable over the next 30-40 years? Meantime, keep drilling the ocean floor and fracking Ohio and strip-mining Mongolia?

[Serpent -- How would it affect our experience, our thinking and planning?]

To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible causes for the current increases in Average Near Surface Global Temperature increases, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open.
[/quote]
Reboot? Dump 100 years of 100,000,000 people's meticulous work and start with just this one...
...which apparently suggests that we do nothing?
Sounds about as right as the anti-vaxxers' advice: Pray, cry, pray.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
davidm liked this post


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on January 30th, 2020, 1:29 pm 

davidm » January 30th, 2020, 11:53 am wrote:I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about Ptolemy’s epicycles before changing the current context of this thread. I believe his work is too important to just flip over.

Sir! Sir! I know this one!
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 30th, 2020, 1:55 pm 

To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible solutions for gun violence, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open.

I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about thoughts and prayers as a solution to gun violence before changing the current context of this thread. I believe thinking and praying are too important to just flip over.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 30th, 2020, 2:12 pm 

So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything.


From NASA:

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is currently at nearly 412 parts per million (ppm) and rising. This represents a 48 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm. Crisp points out that scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. A relative decline in the amount of heavy carbon-13 isotopes in the atmosphere points to fossil fuel sources. Burning fossil fuels also depletes oxygen and lowers the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere.


Bold mine.

So, pray, what carbon targets have we, according to you, met, that have failed to achieve anything?

We have not met any carbon targets — on the contrary, the targets to meet are becoming more remote and unobtainable as time goes on and we continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere.

An 11 percent increase since 2000, holy hell!

Sure, here and there, locally, carbon reductions may have occurred, but this is far from meeting the global targets we will need to meet to avert catastrophe. At best, all these local successes mean is that negligibly less carbon has been put into the atmosphere than would have been done otherwise, and thus are totally meaningless as far as the global mitigation that is needed.

So when you clain that we HAVE met targets, and they have achieved nothing, this is pure codswallop. We have not met ANY global reduction targets, which can be the only measure of success or failure. In fact, things are getting FAR WORSE.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 31st, 2020, 6:26 am 

You are quite correct TheVat, that radiative forcing is a figure for a column effect through the whole atmosphere, but there is an association between this figure and surface temperatures, if I am interpreting the literature correctly. The IPCC has a take on the association between the figure for radiative forcing and near surface temperatures on this site -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... TAR-06.pdf -- see Executive Summary, Page 351.

"Radiative forcing continues to be a useful tool to estimate, to a first order, the relative climate impacts (viz., relative global mean surface temperature responses) due to radiatively induced perturbations. The practical appeal of the radiative forcing concept is due, in the main, to the assumption that there exists a general relationship between the global mean forcing and the global mean equilibrium surface temperature response (i.e.,the global mean climate sensitivity parameter (λ) which is similar for all the different types of forcings. Model investigations of responses to many of the relevant forcings indicate an approximate near invariance of λ (to about 25%). There is some evidence from model studies, however, that λ can be substantially different for certain forcing types. Reiterating the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996a) (hereafter SAR), the global mean forcing estimates are not necessarily indicators of the detailed aspects of the potential climate responses (e.g., regional climate change)." ]Idso has produced variable factors for land and sea variations.

Just off hand, I think that the IPCCs global mean climate sensitivity parameter factor (λ) is about 0.8 degrees C per Wm-2, which means that a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 would increase the average near surface global temperatures by about 3.2 degrees C (4Wm-2 * 0.8 degrees C per Wm-2).

The figures that Idso used in Experiment 4 are based on the effects of the atmosphere in its entirety, which includes ALL of the possible GHGs as well as every other atmospheric factor, and as you can see, he came up with a figure of 0.097 degrees C per Wm-2.

Have I misinterpreted the IPCCs statement about radiative forcing and the mean global surface temperature response?

Serpent and davidm have not made any objective comments about the science in Idso's paper that I can respond to. They have merely nitpicked MY statements and even in that endeavour, davidm has badly misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything" into "So when you clain that we HAVE met targets, and they have achieved nothing, this is pure codswallop."

Obviously I am disappointed that the best they could do is to make a mockery of things I said without making a single constructive criticism of Idso's science. Then again, I suppose the only way that people can get their 'jollies' is at someone else's expense.

The purport of the 8 experiments suggests a possible 8-fold difference between Idso's calculations and the maybe an 0.8 degrees C per Wm-2 of the IPCC. I was hoping for some sensible assistance on the issue, as distinct from attacks on the authors.

My intent now will be to research the literature as far as I can to see where the IPCC got their figure of 0.8 degrees C per Wm-2. I would still appreciate any constructive input to that from anybody.

I'll be heading west to do a couple of days work in the sun, so may not be able to respond for a day or two.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on January 31st, 2020, 10:35 am 

doogles » January 31st, 2020, 5:26 am wrote:Serpent and davidm have not made any objective comments about the science in Idso's paper that I can respond to.

Speaking for myself only, I cannot make any objective comments on Idso's paper, because I don't understand a word of it. That is why I asked you to interpret, and I didn't understand that, either. So I asked for a summary of what it means in practical terms, and I understood your response as: "Do nothing; burn coal; talk more." which I found unsatisfactory.

They have merely nitpicked MY statements

It's your statements I was responding to. Not some guy with questionable credentials, suspect affiliations and incomprehensible (to me - a bunch of actual scientists seem to have understood and discounted it) conclusions. And I wouldn't characterize my response as nitpicking: I don't get the details at all; my issue is with the central message. And I'm still puzzled as to your intent.
Not just about this particular series of papers, but the whole time-consuming excavation and passionate advocacy of obscure scientific - or thereabouts - literature to refute the consensus that 98% of the established scientific community has so diligently compiled over decades of data-collection, analysis, calculation and modelling.
I just don't get why it's so important to you that the fossil fuel industry be exxonerated.

and even in that endeavour, davidm has badly misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything" into "So when you clain that we HAVE met targets, and they have achieved nothing, this is pure codswallop."

Where is the misrepresentation? In the statement
"So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything."
is the assumption that some target has been met so that the effect of what it has achieved could be assessed -
and as I also pointed out, this is not the case. This, in fact, is very far from being the case.

Then again, I suppose the only way that people can get their 'jollies' is at someone else's expense.

Ya, it's been a blast.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
TheVat liked this post


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 31st, 2020, 11:49 am 

This seems to be a default charge against me by some people here — that I misrepresent what they say. I wonder if this is a pattern among those who say stupid stuff, and then resent getting called out for their own words?

Reg said I misrepresented him as an ID believer — but I did NOT so misrepresent him. I merely pointed out, correctly, that he was using ID’s exact talking points to attack evolution.

The poster talking about the work he so admired of someone who believed that motor molecules that “walk” are displaying sentience, claims that I misrepresented both him and the guy he quoted — but I did not do so! I merely quoted the guy’s own words.

Now doogles claims that I have misrepresented him. How?? I quoted your own words — "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything” — and pointed out, correctly, that your statement is, in fact, codswallop, since no such carbon targets have been met, and therefore it is bogus to look for even “one single positive indication” from meeting a target, when no target has been met! I agreed that maybe local targets have been met, but that is NOT what the scientific community means by “meeting targets” — it means meeting global reduction targets, and NONE of those have been met — which was my whole point. IF those targets had been met, AND climate change were still accelerating, THEN you may have a point. But they have NOT been met!

So, doogles, pray, how have I misrepresented you, or your argument?

I asked the same question of my other interlocutors who claimed that I had misrepresented them, and got no reply. I wonder why? Hmm!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 31st, 2020, 2:18 pm 

Idso still discounts feedback loops in his calculations. I've pointed this "forcing, plus feedback" out enough times. Interested parties can do their own research.

Also worth asking - does Idso really factor in NOx properly? The two main oxides of nitrogen are a far more potent GHG than CO2. And they also comes from tailpipes and stacks. Achieving ANY carbon targets will also mitigate NOx release, and mitigate water vapor feedback looping, and (in the many fossil fuel extraction and transport operations where methane leaks into the air) mitigate methane, another very potent GHG. Mitigating carbon is a trifecta of GHG mitigations.


There are plenty of reasons that most climatologists find bias in Idso's work. If you open a gallon of milk and the first swallow is sour, you don't have to drink the whole jug to know it's bad.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 6:18 am 

Serpent, davidm and TheVat, I can see now where you have possibly all misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything." I made an assumption that you would all be aware that we have had a Kyoto Protocol, a Marrakesh Accord, and a Paris Agreement under which, participating nations of the world virtually pledge to meet specifically allotted carbon reduction targets within given time periods. I can't see where these attempts to meet carbon reduction targets are achieving anything. There are zilch figures on the board indicating improvement for carbon emission reduction or for global mean temperatures. Obviously you have all somehow interpreted this to mean "We have met our targets and it hasn't achieved anything."

Serpent, my main answer to you was "So how would it change our current situation? To my mind, it would mean that carbon dioxide is a minor player in the increasing average near surface global temperatures. The current contribution of carbon dioxide to radiative forcing is generally agreed to be 1.6 Wm-2. If we multiply that by a high land SATS factor of Idso's, say 0.17, we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures."

And then explained why I would delay a comprehensive answer. I said -- " To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible causes for the current increases in Average Near Surface Global Temperature increases, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open. ... I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about Idso's figures before changing the current context of this thread. I believe his paper is too important to just flip over." Instead of being constructive about this, you admit " Ya, it's been a blast."

I'm reminded of a statement made by Serpent on Friday Aug 19 at 12.25 AM in a thread titled How to solve our problems? -- "We can't. Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced." In this case it's not so much being silenced as avoidance of dicussion of the issue, which results in the same thing. You were correct then Serpent. By the way davidm, you may be interested in that particular thread because it has quite an amount of discussion on population issues, which I note that you brought up recently in another thread.

Anyhow I wish to move on with the science aspect, so will ignore any responses that require an "I said;you said; yes I did; no you didn't" discussion.

Even if the carbon science is 100% correct, the application of it seems to be achieving nothing, so common sense suggests we need to have plans A, B and C as back-ups.

I'm still keen to discuss the options about other possible causes and other solutions to the increasing average near surface global temperature increases, but as I said, I would have liked to have seen some more discussion on the data in Idso's paper. TheVat has made several broad statements about Idso's science in general, and I appreciate that.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 6:30 am 

TheVat -- "Idso still discounts feedback loops in his calculations. I've pointed this "forcing, plus feedback" out enough times. Interested parties can do their own research. Also worth asking - does Idso really factor in NOx properly? The two main oxides of nitrogen are a far more potent GHG than CO2. And they also comes from tailpipes and stacks. Achieving ANY carbon targets will also mitigate NOx release, and mitigate water vapor feedback looping, and (in the many fossil fuel extraction and transport operations where methane leaks into the air) mitigate methane, another very potent GHG. Mitigating carbon is a trifecta of GHG mitigations. There are plenty of reasons that most climatologists find bias in Idso's work. If you open a gallon of milk and the first swallow is sour, you don't have to drink the whole jug to know it's bad."

I thought that the very simple maths in Experiment 4 incorporated the whole 'atmosphere' and everything in it, including all of the elements and dynamic factors -- forcings and feedbacks. That's why I believed it came down to the mathematics of a simple division. As usual, I could be wrong, but I think the treatment of the 'atmosphere' as a working entity has taken everything into account.

It would be hard to believe that Idso was naive about forcings and feebacks. In 1984, 35 years, ago he published a paper titled An Empirical Evaluation of Earth's Surface Air Temperature Response to Radiative Forcing, Including Feedback, as Applied to the CO2-Climate Problem in ARCHIVES FOR METEOROLOGY, GEOPHYSICS, AND BIOCLIMATOLOGY. This was in the early days of the development of climate science, so in one way, he was a part of the pioneerng research on forcings and feedbacks.

You said "His "bio-climatology" credentials are self-appointed. He shows bias"

Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias. These are just a few of the papers from the reference list at the end of the paper I have been discussing by Idso

1982 Boundary-Layer Meteorology https://www.springer.com/journal/10546/ ... guidelines (Peer-reviewed)
1980 Science (Peer-reviewed)
1982 Water Resources Research Journal - https://www.agu.org/Publish-with-AGU/Publish/ (Peer-reviewed)
1981 Atmospheric Environment - https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review (Peer-reviewed)

If you type 'SB Idso' into Google Scholar, it comes up with hundreds of publications in peer-reviewed Journals.

Surely the peer-review system would have detected bias over the last 40 years, and I believe that the sheer number of peer-reviewed publications over the years makes a statement that he is a 'self-appointed' bioclimatologist, somewhat questionable.

I'm starting to wonder if my hypothetical may be correct.

In any case it wouldn't do any harm to research how the mainstream of climate science has established its surface temperature sensitivity factor, and to compare their methodology with Idso's.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 7:39 am 

Idso has used real world situations not for one or two, but for 8 Experiments which all came up with surface temperature sensitivity factors ranging from 0.72 to 0.097 degrees C depending on whether it was for land or sea surfaces.

If you look at this site -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity --
you will see that the Wikipedia researcher has discussed the various ways that mainstream climate science has determined the factor. As you can see, instead of real world situations, they have used
Observations taken in the industrial age
Data from the Earth's past, and
Modelling

So, on that point alone, I tend to favour Idso's figures; he has used data pertaining to the planet NOW.

The Wikipedia researcher summarised the IPCC position -- "The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report reverted to the earlier range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (high confidence) because some estimates using industrial-age data came out low.[6] They also stated that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C (1.8 °F) (high confidence), and is very unlikely to be greater than 6 °C (11 °F) (medium confidence). These values are estimated by combining the available data with expert judgement." So their values for climate sensitivity (Temperature from a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm), figures are based on Industrial era data, modelling and palaeontological data and vary anywhere from 1 to 6 degrees C.

I would like to insert a graph here, but for some reason now, my computer has lost the capacity to upload images.

There is a graph plotting the various climate sensitivities obtained by 19 different studies against a time scale from 2002 to 2014. A linear regression shows a declining slope from approximately 4.5 degrees C for papers in 2002 to 1.7 degrees C by Lewis and Curry in 2014. Idso came up with 0.4 degrees C.

Naturally I was prompted to check the references at the lower end of the scale by Lewis and Curry (2014) on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response. On this site -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2342-y -- Lewis and Curry claim that they used data from 1750 to 2011 and compared the changes from the data of 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period. There was a paywall, so I could not check their working of the data. I'd like to know if they had allowed for the recovery from the Little Ice Age which is generally regarded as having commenced to decline from the 1850s. I'm guessing that allowance should have been made for 'warming' due to that recovery more so than from carbon dioxide changes. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, we had the 1940s to 1970s drop in temperature of about 0.5 degrees C.

Judith Curry, by the way, who has had over 100 papers published in Climate Science, seems to be more objective than most about the IPCC position. In this paper -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0180-z -- where she states "A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself." On the reliability of consensus, I would like to comment that the governments of the entire globe consensually agreed to celebrate the arrival of the 3rd millennium at the commencement, rather than the end of the year 2000.

So who do we believe? One group has used Industrial Age data, theoretical modelling, and age-old data, and Idso has produced figures from real life situations, not once, but 8 times.

In any case, as I said, I believe that the IPCC should be investing time and money on back-up plans A, B and maybe C.

If I can get past what I have written so far, I would like to see some discussion on alternatives, no matter how silly they sound.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2020, 10:06 am 

doogles » February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 am wrote:Serpent, davidm and TheVat, I can see now where you have possibly all misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything." I made an assumption that you would all be aware that we have had a Kyoto Protocol, a Marrakesh Accord, and a Paris Agreement under which, participating nations of the world virtually pledge to meet specifically allotted carbon reduction targets within given time periods. I can't see where these attempts to meet carbon reduction targets are achieving anything. There are zilch figures on the board indicating improvement for carbon emission reduction or for global mean temperatures. Obviously you have all somehow interpreted this to mean "We have met our targets and it hasn't achieved anything."

OK. Governments haven't met their commitment to one kind of accord.
Therefore, they should start discussions all over again, and in ten or twenty years, make a new agreement, and that time, they will keep their promises?
Maybe - if the new accord requires them to keep doing what they were doing.
Since the permafrost and icecaps and glaciers will have melted away by then, SFW?

And then explained why I would delay a comprehensive answer.

Yes, I heard. Talk more, burn coal, do nothing.
I believe his paper is too important to just flip over.

I have no choice: I do not understand it, or your explanation of it, or your cleaving to it to the exclusion of all others.
Instead of being constructive about this, you admit " Ya, it's been a blast."

That was in response to
I suppose the only way that people can get their 'jollies' is at someone else's expense.

not Idso, not science, not the 0.2 degrees global temperature rise (over you still didn't say what period) caused by CO2 - continuing to ignore methane and nitrous oxide, never mind all the other toxins and water pollution incidental to the fossil-fuel based economy.
Right.
So: clean slate. Square one. Ignore everyone but Idso.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 3rd, 2020, 12:35 pm 

Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias.


This statement would seem to lend support to the findings of those thousands of IPCC members who have published so many papers in peer reviewed journals.

There seems to a logical inconsistency between your appraisal of IPCC research and Sherman Idso's. If the paper is from Idso, you don't see how there can be bias (even after evidence is provided that he and his whole clan are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry). But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias.

Doogles, I am not here to referee every climatology paper written, or provide definitive proof on the degree to which each GHG warms the planet. I'm just saying, as I said before, that my first sip from the Idso milk jugs was sour, and I see little point in drinking the rest. Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results. And don't get regular checks from Exxon and Peabody.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 6:39 am 

Serpent, re the 0.2 degrees c, you are apparently asking me to clarify my paragraph "So how would it change our current situation? To my mind, it would mean that carbon dioxide is a minor player in the increasing average near surface global temperatures. The current contribution of carbon dioxide to radiative forcing is generally agreed to be 1.6 Wm-2. If we multiply that by a high land SATS factor of say 0.17, we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures."

It is generally agreed that there has been an increase in average near-surface global temperatures of between 1 and 1.4 degrees C over the last hundred years. The current orthodox climate science position seems to be that this is all due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If Idso is correct (and I'm still checking on this), then as above, carbon dioxide is only responsible for 0.2 degrees C of that rise over those 100 years. As TheVat keeps pointing out, there are other GHGs and altogether they add up to a radiative forcing at the surface of approximately 4.3 Wm-2.

The breakdown is something like CO2 1.6, CH4 0.8, CFCs 0.4, N20 0.2, TROP 03, BLACK CARBON 0.8. So if I use Idso's land SATS factor of 0.17 degrees C per Wm-2, then the rise in GHGs in toto accounts for approximately 0.73 degrees C of the warming over the last 100 years. So carbon dioxide becomes a minor rather than a major player in the drama IF Idso is correct.

I've course we have to subtract the negative effects of reflective aerosols, cloud changes and volcanic aerosols. These total about 2.9 Wm-2 and account for about 0.5 degrees C. this means we have to account for 0.8 to 1.2 degrees C of the warming in the last 100 years. It's fairly rough maths, but I think there are other multiple causes of the warming.

I'm still quite open-minded about everything. I've just been perusing the latest IPCC papers, and the whole thrust of action appears to be aimed at reducing the carbon footprint and I can't see any results on the board after a generation.

So the next thing is to identify the factors responsible for the other 0.3 to 0.7 degrees of the warming.

Now I did my best to identify how the orthodox school of climate science achieved it surface air temperature sensitivity factor, and as you can see from my last post, they used old Industrial period data, paleaontology data and modelling, versus Idso's real world data available now.

I had a close look at Lewis and Curry's 2014 work because they achieved a lowish figure of about 1.7 degrees C per Wm-2 using Industrial Period data that could have been flawed by 1) the natural return to normal from the mini-Ice Age, and 2) by the decrease of 0.5 degree C drop in global temps between 1940 and 1970.

When you say "So: clean slate. Square one. Ignore everyone but Idso.", is that fair, considering I've just had a look at how the orthodox school of climate science achieved its climate sensitivity figures. I always aim to be objective. At least I'm doing something constructive. Maybe we don't have any members in the forum who can look at Idso's figures. But so far I've only received claims that his science couldn't be correct because he is now receiving funding from oil companies or climate deniers, and that the IPCC could not be wrong because there are thousands of scientists involved in the studies used by the IPCC.

I expect flack, because as you said yourself "We can't (Solve problems - my insert). Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced."
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 6:51 am 

TheVat » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:35 am wrote:
Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias.


This statement would seem to lend support to the findings of those thousands of IPCC members who have published so many papers in peer reviewed journals.

There seems to a logical inconsistency between your appraisal of IPCC research and Sherman Idso's. If the paper is from Idso, you don't see how there can be bias (even after evidence is provided that he and his whole clan are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry). But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias.

Doogles, I am not here to referee every climatology paper written, or provide definitive proof on the degree to which each GHG warms the planet. I'm just saying, as I said before, that my first sip from the Idso milk jugs was sour, and I see little point in drinking the rest. Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results. And don't get regular checks from Exxon and Peabody.


I would have to agree with your first statement. But you must admit that the orthodox climate science has been based on shaky grounds. I still haven't seen a repeat of the quantitative work of Tyndall's on GHGs. Citations within papers all go back to Tyndall.

You claimed "But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias." Are you sure I said that. It would be against my principles. I look at the science and try to judge it objectively the best way I can. I did cite a statement by a climate scientist -- "Judith Curry, by the way, who has had over 100 papers published in Climate Science, seems to be more objective than most about the IPCC position. In this paper -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0180-z -- where she states "A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself." She virtually said that the IPCC should try to eliminate bias from the consensus process itself.

You said "Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results." Yes, but how would you stack up the use of real world data in the present world by Idso against data from the Industrial Age, Paleaontological data and Modelling?

You have used the funding of Idso by oil companies as a reason for him to be biased in his science. It would be interesting if you could establish when that commenced. As I posted recently, Idso has had hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed Journals, which suggests that he wasn't accused of bias or treated as a pariah for quite a long time. My earlier 'hypothetical' may just be correct.

Now don't mistake what I say next as a statement that the orthodox climate science consensus body is biased.

But just to put your claims about oil company funding into perspective, many people are making much money out of the 'global warming' industry. Those in the renewables manufacturing business must be quite happy, and many of those working in the science itself could be doing quite well.

I'm not sure of the source of this or its authenticity, but it's a statement from a skeptics site " ... what about this "Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem?
$540 million from charitable foundations
Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defence Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous?"


Just a thought and an attempt to keep a balance in the non-science part of this thread.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 7:07 am 

I see reasons for thinking about alternatives to the carbon dioxide momentum. Firstly it is my opinion that it is not achieving anything, and we need a Plan B at least. I see cloud engineering as a field of investigation worth exploring.

In their 2013 AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, there is a Section 7 about Clouds and Aerosols -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... INAL-1.pdf.

I found a large amount of interpretation of science from all over the world. There were many conflicting interpretations, but some passages made sense eg:

"Thick high clouds efficiently reflect sunlight, and both thick and thin high clouds strongly reduce the amount of infrared light that the atmosphere and surface emit to space. The compensation between these two effects makes the surface temperature somewhat less sensitive to changes in high cloud amount than to changes in low cloud amount. ... Low clouds reflect a lot of sunlight back to space but, for a given state of the atmosphere and surface, they have only a weak effect on the infrared light that is emitted to space by the Earth. As a result, they have a net cooling effect on the present climate; to a lesser extent, the same holds for mid-level clouds ... "


"A subset of aerosol particles acts as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) (see Table 7.2). The ability of an aerosol particle to take up water and subsequently activate, thereby acting as a CCN at a given supersaturation, is determined by its size and composition. Common CCN in the atmosphere are composed of sea salt, sulphates and sulphuric acid, nitrate and nitric acid and some organics. The uptake of water vapour by hygroscopic aerosols strongly affects their RFari."

"7.7.2.2 Cloud Brightening
Boundary layer clouds act to cool the planet, and relatively small changes in albedo or areal extent of low cloud can have profound effects on the Earth’s radiation budget (Section 7.2.1). Theoretical, modelling and observational studies show that the albedo of these types of cloud systems are susceptible to changes in their droplet concentrations, but the detection and quantification of RF attributable to such effects is difficult to separate from meteorological variability (Section 7.4.3.2). Nonetheless, by systematically introducing CCN into the marine boundary layer, it should be possible to locally increase boundary layer cloud albedo as discussed in Section 7.4.2. These ideas underpin the method of cloud brightening, for instance through the direct injection (seeding) of sea-spray particles into cloud-forming air masses (Latham, 1990). An indirect cloud brightening mechanism through enhanced DMS production has also been proposed (Wingenter et al., 2007) but the efficacy of the DMS mechanism is disputed (Vogt et al., 2008; Woodhouse et al., 2008).


Some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods propose increasing the amount of stratospheric aerosol to produce a cooling effect like that observed after strong explosive volcanic eruptions (Budyko, 1974; Crutzen, 2006). Recent studies have used numerical simulations and/or natural analogues to explore the possibility of forming sulphuric acid aerosols by injecting sulphur-containing gases into the stratosphere (Rasch et al., 2008b). Because aerosols eventually sediment out of the stratosphere (within roughly a year or less), these methods require replenishment to maintain a given level of RF. Research has also begun to explore the efficacy of other types of aerosol particles (Crutzen, 2006; Keith, 2010; Ferraro et al., 2011; Kravitz et al., 2012) but the literature is much more limited and not assessed here.

The RF depends on the choice of chemical species (gaseous sulphur dioxide (SO2), sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or sprayed aerosols), location(s), rate and frequency of injection. The injection strategy affects particle size (Rasch et al., 2008a; Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; English et al., 2012), with larger particles producing less RF (per unit mass) and more rapid sedimentation than smaller particles, affecting the efficacy of the method. The aerosol size distribution is controlled by an evolving balance between new particle formation, condensation of vapour on pre-existing particles, evaporation of particles, coagulation and sedimentation. Models that more fully account for aerosol processes (Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; English et al., 2012) found smaller aerosol burdens, larger particles and weaker RF than earlier studies that prescribed the particle size over the particle lifetime. Current modeling studies indicate that injection of sulphate aerosol precursors of at least 10 Mt S (approximately the amount of sulphur injected by the Mount Pinatubo eruption) would be needed annually to maintain a RF of –4 W m–2, roughly equal but opposite to that associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; Niemeier et al., 2011).

Stratospheric aerosols may affect high clouds in the tropopause region, and one study (Kuebbeler et al., 2012) suggests significant negative forcing would result, but this is uncertain given limited understanding of ice nucleation in high clouds (Section 7.4.4.4).

They discuss some methods that can be researched:-
7.7.2 Assessment of Proposed Solar Radiation Management Methods
7.7.2.1 Stratospheric Aerosols
7.7.2.2 Cloud Brightening
7.7.2.3 Surface Albedo Changes
7.7.2.4 Cirrus Thinning


This all sounded very encouraging to me. It seems to me that if we can develop methods of artificially increasing clouds at will, we will then be able to control our climate much better. Clouds act to a large extent as an extensive sunshade umbrella.

What disturbs me is that this extensive consideration of the properties of clouds and aerosols appears to have not been followed up in any of the later reports. I skimmed through all of the later reports by the IPCC to see if research on Solar Radiation Management had made any progress since 2013.

I may have missed something and would appreciate it if any members of our forum could skim through those reports on this site -- https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/.

You may remember that I cited Ramanathan et al (1989) in other posts on Clouds. This research is 30 years old, remember that the IPCC recognises this paper, that a 3% reduction in cloud will result in 4 Wm-2 of radiative forcing at the surface. There have been increasing numbers of reports in the literature to decreasing clouds in various parts of the world. That 4 Wm-2 of Ramanathan et al by the way represents 0.68 degrees C.

Because we are not gaining any measurable reduction of either carbon dioxide or global temperatures with our current policies, I see cloud control as something deserving top priority.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on February 4th, 2020, 11:02 am 

I’m not going to get stuck in this tar baby any further, except to note the following:

I've just been perusing the latest IPCC papers, and the whole thrust of action appears to be aimed at reducing the carbon footprint and I can't see any results on the board after a generation


And here you go again. What, exactly, do you mean by, “I can’t see any results on the board after a generation”? If, by this, you mean, “We have failed to meet carbon reduction targets globally,” then this is TRUE — and, because we have failed, further carbon buildup, along with continually rising temperatures (last decade hottest ever recorded), is precisely to be expected.

If, OTOH, you are arguing that we HAVE met global reduction targets, but temperatures keep rising anyway, then this is FALSE — that is, it is FALSE to say that we have met ANY global reduction targets. So, either way, your statement is MEANINGLESS.

But so far I've only received claims that his science couldn't be correct because he is now receiving funding from oil companies or climate deniers …


This is wrong — and, arguably, at this point, a deliberate falsehood. I, myself, have given you at least TWO links to clear discussions of Idso’s fudged data, cherry picking, misunderstanding of the science, etc. So his bad “science” has been shown to be bad INDEPENDENT OF his financial connections to the fossil-fuel industry. The latter is interesting only insofar as it suggests a MOTIVE for his personal dissembling — that, and, by his own admission, a personal grudge! But all this has been shown to you, and you elect to ignore it. I conclude you have no real interest in discussing this, and that you are simply a standard-issue climate-change denialist.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2020, 3:53 pm 

doogles » February 4th, 2020, 5:39 am wrote: If Idso is correct (and I'm still checking on this), then as above, carbon dioxide is only responsible for 0.2 degrees C of that rise over those 100 years.

I see. But you know, according to the following inclusion of fossil fuel byproducts, that Co2 doesn't fly alone.
The breakdown is something like CO2 1.6, CH4 0.8, CFCs 0.4, N20 0.2, TROP 03, BLACK CARBON 0.8. So if I use Idso's land SATS factor of 0.17 degrees C per Wm-2, then the rise in GHGs in toto accounts for approximately 0.73 degrees C of the warming over the last 100 years.

By you, over half is minor?
So, it took us a hundred years of constantly accelerating emissions to contribute half of the warming. And you want to know where the other half came from before we try to stop accelerating our contribution?
I'm still failing to follow the logic.
Wouldn't it make more sense to do a little damage-control now; do whatever is within our power to reduce the risk of annihilation now and leave the study and analysis of factors beyond our control till after?

At least I'm doing something constructive.

What are you constructing? The arguments I've been able follow have been de-constructive.
Even if we make more clouds, how do we get them to drop water over the fires and stop raining on the floods?

I expect flack, because as you said yourself "We can't (Solve problems - my insert). Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced."

Rest easy. Nobody who advocates doing nothing has ever been opposed by the Financial/Industrial establishment or the Trump regime.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2020, 6:11 am 

davidm, I read all of your posts and commented on what you said. That's okay. Essentially what you presented as 'evidence' had nothing to do with Sherwood Idso's science but with the science and perceptions of the character of his son Craig. I concluded that your idea of evidence is totally different from mine.

I've just suggested that it would be wise for the IPCC to have a Plan B. Do you not think a Plan B is a constructive thing to have?

I'm also going to throw the question back on to you. Now given that Environmental Protection Authotrities in most major western cities had cleaned up the majority of emissions by the 1980S, what do you see that the IPCC has achieved since the 1990s, except to clean up the air further, and to instil a sense of panic into the minds of many people?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2020, 6:19 am 

Serpent, thank you for the response. You asked "Wouldn't it make more sense to do a little damage-control now; do whatever is within our power to reduce the risk of annihilation now and leave the study and analysis of factors beyond our control till after?"

Yes, it would, it makes total sense to do actually more than a little damage-control now, and to do so, we have to start thinking about options and Plan Bs. I've never suggested stopping anything and I have no idea how you misread what I say, but I keep asking myself whether our approach at the moment is achieving anything. Don't you think it's wise to have a Plan B at least. The IPCC seemed to be going for it in their 2013 Report as I posted above, but now they seem to be shelving it.

Rather than advocating doing nothing, I'm advocating DOING MORE.

You also commented "Even if we make more clouds, how do we get them to drop water over the fires and stop raining on the floods?"

The aim is to be able to increase cloud production and produce an umbrella effect. If it rains, so be it. Why so negative? The evidence at the moment from a number of studies is that there has been cloud reduction in many areas, and, as I said in my last post, a 3% reduction in clouds can result in an increase of 4 Wm-2 extra radiative forcing at the surface in areas so affected. It''s all there in the IPCC report. This equates to 0.6 degrees C in affected areas.

I'll ask you the same question I asked davidm. "Now given that Environmental Protection Authorities in most major western cities had cleaned up the majority of emissions by the 1980s, what do you see that the IPCC gas achieved since the 1990s except to clean up the air further, and to produce a sense of panic into the minds of many people?"
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


PreviousNext

Return to Environmental Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests