climate change

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: climate change

Postby doogles on January 24th, 2017, 2:29 am 

I like your idea Serpent, but unfortunately I’m not personally happy with the importance placed on the role of carbon dioxide in the slightly increasing average global near-surface temperatures.

Once again, Braininvat and Zetrique, thank you for your responses, but they are not really helpful. I do check on references. I tried this one again this morning - Fleming, James R. (2008). "Climate Change and Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming: A Selection of Key Articles, 1824-1995, with Interpretive Essays.": http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:Cla ... balWarming. And I again received this message on the site.

"Our apologies...
The item you requested does not exist on this server or cannot be served.
Please double check the web address or use the search function on this page to find what you are looking for.
If you know you have the correct web address but are encountering an error, please contact the Site Administration.
Thank you."


I did find the statement “very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. Wavelength matters”, a bit implausible. It just seemed to be too neat as an explanation. In the absence of a reference to back it up, I reproduced a couple of graphics two posts ago suggesting that it was implausible. I didn’t receive any direct opinions about them.

I checked your refs this morning Zetrique and I appreciate your effort to supply them rather than just advise me to go and read some books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_ ... others.png – I’m surprised you listed this. It simply shows that carbon dioxide absorbs in the wavelengths of 2.4, 4.7 and 15 microns which is something I stated two posts ago, although I did make a typo in using ‘microns’ instead on ‘nanometres’.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page7.php Yes, this all elementary stuff. The part I have slight doubts about is the last paragraph - "However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise."


http://history.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - This is the history of the development of greenhouse theory. Braininvat served that one the other day. It did not contribute any useful information on greenhouse gases being transparent to incoming radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzaMQKpPLM’- Yes, that’s all plausible but not useful to the transparency of greenhouse gases to incoming solar radiation.

"Or get yourself an IR spectrometer and breath into it." – You did read that I personally used an atomic absorption spectrophotometer for 5 years of my spare time in the 1970s, didn’t you Zetrique. I am thoroughly cognisant of the variation in absorption wavelengths for varying substances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXP-rh0aQBU – Interesting but irrelevant.

"If nothing else you can try google scholar for original research. Looks like thousands of articles referencing and basing their work off of this concept." Yes I surf Google Scholar more than any other site for references on all sorts of subjects. I tried this site that you suggested
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=co ... _sdt=0%2C5 . There was nothing pertinent on it but one title took my eye – “Ultraviolet absorption coefficients of CO2, CO, O2, H2O, N2O, NH3, NO, SO2, and CH4 between 1850 and 4000 A”. I was quite interested in the possibility of UV absorption bands for carbon dioxide”. Unfortunately there was a cost to getting a full text, So had to give it a miss.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ca ... _sdt=0%2C5 – The first 3 pages of references on this site were not pertinent.

But please keep trying. If you find any refs to the GGHs being transparent to incoming radiation, which seems to contradict the two graphics I inserted two posts ago, I would love to see them.

Also, if you find any leads to carbon dioxide having a limit to the amount of radiation it can absorb, I would appreciate that too. I’ll keep looking, but I’m a bit time-poor today.

In preparing to post this, I just saw three more posts on the topic since I went to work this morning, so I’ll have to let them go till tomorrow.

I did notice a crucial comment in your last post though Zetrique – “Does this stuff you found talk about the fact that short-wave radiation turns into long wave radiation?” The answer is “Ï don’t think so!” But if you can find a reference to that, I would very much like to see it.



……………………………………………………………………………….
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby ralfcis on January 24th, 2017, 10:58 am 

There are facts and there are theories that relate facts together into a cohesive story. This is science. Unfortunately science employs people who are crooked. And now I read in Wiki that a scientific theory is itself fact and how can facts be disputed? I find the science behind climate change very dishonest, the facts may be true, if not manipulated to fit theory, but the theory seems based on nonsense to me.

First there seems to be a total lack of understanding why it's cold in winter and warm in summer. Scientists seem to think it's about the angle of the rays of the sun to land. Well then problem solved, we'll just furrow the land so the rays are at 90 degrees in the winter and we'll never see winter again. OOps, that would bring way more global warming. No it won't because the angle of the rays to the land or to water or to arctic ice have very little to do with warming. Warming has to do with how much atmosphere the rays pass through. The decrease in ray angle means the rays pass through more atmosphere so less heat gets through in the winter.

Second, the idea that plant life permanently removes CO2 from the atmosphere is completely false. Chop down the Amazon and it will make little difference to future CO2 removal. That's because decay of plant life releases all the CO2 that was temporarily absorbed. The best way to have plants affect CO2 is to deforest everything, prevent the harvested wood from decay by using it to build giant arks, replant and repeat. Also people seem to be under the impression that plants don't breathe out CO2. They are living beings, they breathe in oxygen (through their roots) and exhale CO2. Photosynthesis is completely different and is a food production, not a respiratory process.

Science doesn't seem to understand that the oceans are the lungs of the world. 70% of the surface is water and this is the air conditioning system we rely on for life. It's all those animals absorbing CO2 to make the calcium carbonate of their shells and coral. Look at the billions of tons of coral islands that don't decay back into CO2.

Science also wrongly believes that fossil fuels are made from fossils; that plants sucked carbon out of the atmosphere and stored it into the earth. That oil from animals was converted into crude oil. No, oil and coal deposits are just like any mineral deposit. Yes you will find fossils within any mineral deposit but saying those fossils created those minerals is as ridiculous as saying wood is the source of all rock since you can find petrified wood inside rock. There are planets with high hydrocarbon content that have zero life content.

Any honest climate scientist will admit there is only a coincidental correlation between CO2 and warming. The real culprit is water vapor. It's just that there's also a coincidental relationship between water vapor and CO2 content and CO2 content is just easier to measure. I'm just repeating what I read, I may have been duped so you'll need to make up your own minds on this info.

I have other facts but can't remember them right now and don't really care because I live in Canada and love the effects of global warming. Go global warming!
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: climate change

Postby Serpent on January 24th, 2017, 12:20 pm 

doogles » January 24th, 2017, 1:29 am wrote:I like your idea Serpent, but unfortunately I’m not personally happy with the importance placed on the role of carbon dioxide in the slightly increasing average global near-surface temperatures.

? I haven't had an idea since 2005.
Anyway, it matters nought what each of us is happy or unhappy with. We failed to take decisive, collective action when it still mattered. As more deck-chairs slide into the ocean, it will soon become impossible to rearrange them.
You should be looking for a life-boat, not reasons.

ralfics -- I have other facts but can't remember them right now and don't really care because I live in Canada and love the effects of global warming. Go global warming!

I live in Canada, too. Two weeks ago, my garage was carried off in the night by 100km wind - from the south-east. Enjoy drought, flood, forest fire, ice storms, blizzards, tornadoes, dying lakes and three weeks straight of 30+ temrperature next June.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: climate change

Postby ralfcis on January 24th, 2017, 2:43 pm 

I love 30+ temperatures as for the rest, they won't arrive by this summer or maybe a thousand summers (scientists say some number of decades). This is just alarmist propaganda for now that may or may not prove true in the future.

But this jogged my memory as to my last fact. The Earth has built in dampeners. Hurricanes are just heat engines that convert excess ocean heat into mechanical energy. The higher the temp differential, the greater the number and severity of hurricanes there should be. Where are they? No trend of an increase or severity. Yes there have been severe hurricanes here and there but nothing that indicates a trend that would reflect a steady global warming of ocean temp over air temp. You could argue they rise together so the differential remains constant but where's the data to support this theory. You'd think some climate scientist would have covered this contradiction by now.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 24th, 2017, 2:44 pm 

Ralf, that was hilarious! Your satirical impression of an ignorant backwoods redneck who knows nothing about science was dead on! I really liked this line:

"best way to have plants affect CO2 is to deforest everything, prevent the harvested wood from decay by using it to build giant arks, replant and repeat."

LMAO.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: climate change

Postby ralfcis on January 24th, 2017, 3:07 pm 

No, no I was being serious.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on January 25th, 2017, 12:36 am 

Serpent, I phrased that sentence badly. I liked your IDEA to “ ... just look out the window every morning and take what you get?”

That’s what I would like to do. But unfortunately I see many missing links, too much theory and modelling and too little in the way of basic practical experimentation behind the global-warming official position. If it requires FAITH to be a believer in something, then I’m an infidel.

When I ask myself any sort of question about the theories, I have great difficulty in finding evidence to back up the theories. I never have this problem with virtually any other subject.

I would like to see the evidence suggesting that greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming radiation, and that wavelengths actually change. I have searched the literature under all sorts of keywords and followed up reference list bibliographies without success.

Even those espousing those theories on this forum have failed to produce the basic evidence to support them. I receive criticism of my methods of searching, but my critics have achieved no better.

I ask myself if anyone has yet researched the length of time that carbon dioxide retains absorbed energy, and I fail to find any such research.

I ask myself if there is a limit to the amount of infrared energy that can be absorbed by carbon dioxide. I find an answer on a skeptics’ website, but I’m once again unable to find any satisfactory substantiation for the claim. Even there I find that a software program (Modtran) has been used to create a log-normal graph plotting temperature against carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This graph indicates that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide NOW would make very little difference in temperatures.

I’m going to take a break from this thread for a few days. There just seems to be absolutely NO new basic experimental evidence on anything since Tyndall’s time. It’s very frustrating.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby Serpent on January 25th, 2017, 12:53 am 

Well, we all have to while away our remaining time in some way that keeps our minds occupied. I'd never disrespect another person's avocation.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: climate change

Postby Forest_Dump on January 25th, 2017, 9:36 am 

Well I also live in Canada (above the 49th) and personally I could do with a few less days in winter below -30 (love this Jan melt when I can actually sit outside without bugs). And we only get a few days in July and Aug above 30 so I don't mind a few more. I find it odd, since I spent most of my life about 2000 km south of here, how many people around here end up glued to the a/c when the temp is only in the high 20s.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8712
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 25th, 2017, 12:30 pm 

Yeah, when we moved to the hills, I was amazed that people even bothered to put in central air here. It's usually down in the low 60s or 50s at night, all summer, so all you really need is to open the windows at bedtime, close them in the morning, and you're cool all day. The humidity is so low here that even 90 doesn't feel that uncomfortable. Sorry to all you centigraders who have to translate the above. :-(
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: climate change

Postby Serpent on January 25th, 2017, 2:18 pm 

That's okay, we know what hot is. We've been accustomed to hot summers. What we are4 not prepared for, yet, is the kind that make dust bowls out of productive farmland.... but someone will still be happy, because all the bugs are dead.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on February 1st, 2017, 12:57 pm 

I have thought of a very simple way of explaining the problems people have with understanding modelling.

As an example I can place a ball on a table and apply a certain force to it and figure out where it will land due to my understanding of gravity, friction, air resistance, etc.,. We can all accept this as rational human beings and observe this happening in real time. We can model the situation amd expect certain predicted margins of error.

What we are less sure about is where the ball will be in one year. We can say that if no force is applied to the ball it will remain where it is, but we will probably realise that unless we take measures to isolate the ball from forces acting upon it we cannot really say where the ball will be due to wind, rain, erosion, another ball rolling into it, etc.,. We can say with some degree of understanding of the world that the ball is not likely to end up a very large distance away unless it is physically moved by an animal.

With climate the same problem occurs. We can make an isolated system and see the effects very clearly amd model them very accurately. Outside of the labratory, although our base knowledge is sound, our models are limited. Just like predicting where the ball will be in a year (even though we understand basic mechanics and the factors that effect the movement of a ball) we also understand the factors that effect climate change through the very same mechanics and thermodynamics.

I think this veru basic analogy highlights why people are overly skeptical. It is not that they do not understand the basic scientific principles (well ... maybe sometimes!), I think it is more to do with understanding modelling.

It that a reasonable explanation? If so how can this language barrier be broken down?

Biv -

Happy New Year Cock! ;) (as I imagine Chinese-English or English-Chinese would say)

Do you guys say "cock" as in "mucker"? Do you know "mucker"?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
doogles liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 2nd, 2017, 6:34 am 

BadgerJelly - “I think this veru basic analogy highlights why people are overly skeptical. It is not that they do not understand the basic scientific principles (well ... maybe sometimes!), I think it is more to do with understanding modelling.

It that a reasonable explanation? If so how can this language barrier be broken down?”


In my opinion that seems to be a substantial part of the answer BJ. Instead of explanations being based on simple basic research, we are all being asked to put our faith in theories and modelling.

This alone leaves any open-minded person sceptical, as you seemed to point out. Another aspect is that every time a request is made for evidence to support a statement by a global warming/carbon dioxide convert, the skeptics NEVER get a direct answer; the response is usually vague and generalised. The questioner is mostly directed to go and read a book or to peruse a website with thousands of links.

That has been my experience in this thread.

In browsing a skeptics’ site since I last posted, I found this comment - http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/desmog ... -handbook/ “A poor science communicator gives themselves away by vaguely referring to ‘experts’ and linking to the home page of sprawling websites. Clearly if he understood the science himself he would just, well, explain it, eh? But he doesn’t. He waffles and then links to RealClimate.org because he’s ‘sure’ all the answers are in there somewhere. But he’s been tricked by the spin. If Real Climate had empirical evidence it would be all over their site. Instead they just repeat the words ‘overwhelming evidence’, along with put-downs for sceptics, until it becomes a mantra. If he was polite and considerate, he’d sum up the evidence in a line, and link directly to the paper, if there was one. If only someone could find it.” That comment summed up the responses I’ve been getting to requests for substantiation of comments in this thread.

Note that there is a difference between denial and scepticism.

BJ, your point of view was discussed at length in a paper I referenced a few posts ago by Miodrag M Mesarovic in 2015 in Thermal Science - http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx ... eSupport=1 . This paper has the full text available free. Curiously, it was dismissed offhand by one ‘global warming science’ adherent in this thread when he discovered that it was a Serbian-based article. He judged that the article was biased on the basis that Serbia had substantial shale oil deposits.

On the contrary, the author objectively discussed all the pros and cons of the current belief systems and virtually concluded, like you (and me) that because the ‘pro’ side is so dependent on models and theory, that doubts exist and therefore skeptics exist. He did tend to suggest, contrary to the opposite assumption by the respondent who claimed shale-oil-bias by Serbians, that we should plug on with carbon dioxide control regardless. If you are of an ilk to take the hard yards instead of talking off the top of your head, have a look at the Conclusion of the article, even if you do not have the time to take in the whole article.

If the website does not come up, try please copy and paste - Scientific uncertainties feed scepticism on climate change
Thermal Science 2015 Volume 19, Issue suppl. 2, Pages: 259-278
Mesarović Miodrag M. - into Google Scholar.

BJ, the last part of your last post asked how this language barrier could be broken down.
To my practical mind, the answer is quite simple, albeit tedious – DO MORE BASIC EXPERIMENTATION INTO THE PROPERTIES OF CARBON DIOXIDE (AT LEAST) WITH RESPECT TO ITS ABILITIES TO ABSORB AND RADIATE INFRARED RADIATION.

I’m sure that ANY Physics or Chemistry Department at any University could set this up for any willing researcher and have all of the basic answers within months. All it requires is to duplicate Tyndall’s primitive experiments with a heat source and galvanometer with far more modern equipment and to do repeated measurements – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall .

Instead of just a heat source, I’m sure we could find an adjustable infrared emission lamp to use for tests on carbon dioxide (or other GHGs) at emission concentrations equivalent to the whole range of our planet’s direct solar, as well as all of the albedo radiation concentrations possible in our atmosphere range.

We would also need an airtight tube that could be used to hold the experimental gases with ports for vacuum mechanisms, the input and extraction of the variable gases to be studied and for the insertion of probes for temperature and gas concentration mechanisms. This tube should have some sort of envelope for temperature-variation mechanisms. The opposite end from the emission lamp would contain the spectrophotometer.

Experiments primarily should involve examinations of ‘room air’ absorption of infrared at various emission rates at approximately 14 degrees centigrade, the overall average near surface annual global near-surface temperature, particularly with respect to establishing whether there is or is not an arithmetical increase, or log-normal reduction, of absorption, as some predict.

I can foresee that a huge range of computations and permutations of such experiments could answer so many of the questions raised by skeptics, and I can see this as being the answer to, as BJ asked, “how this language barrier could be broken down.”


I have searched the web extensively for such experiments, but have had no success. If I had access to the raw materials myself, it’s the first thing I would do in an attempt to resolve this stultifying stand-off in the ‘climate change’ debate.

I would like to think that people in the ‘global warming’ industry have completed such experiments. I would not be ashamed; in fact I would be pleased if someone can produce evidence that experiments of this nature have been conducted and that I’m a stupid old bastard who doesn’t know how to search the literature.

Is it possible that nothing along these lines has been done since Tyndall’s time? Please show me that I'm wrong.

If such experiments reveal that the greenhouse barrier has a saturation point, a log-normal reduction in absorption, and not an arithmetical increase in effect, then our heat increase has to be due to factors other than the greenhouse effect. I have a couple of other ideas on that.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby ralfcis on February 2nd, 2017, 8:26 am 

So true. I'm really down on science. I find people mouth it like parrots which they feel makes them look smart. Scientists are so afraid of saying the wrong thing that they usually say nothing outside of consensus which has always been proven wrong in the past. Others use popular science to make themselves rich and famous as they either spout ignorance or lies, much like politicians. Whatever happened to critical thinking? No longer possible in this age of belief, the sanctity of personal beliefs and political correctness.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on February 2nd, 2017, 10:31 am 

We put faith in models of how to land probes on Mars and landed probes on Mars. Granted the climate is a more intricate and complex system, but models we use are based on solid evidence and scientists are always prone to err on the side of caution. Many say there is a problem if they are right it is bad news. We should not gamble on the models being wrong we should gamble them being right until the model is improved.

It is not "faith" in science. We measure stuff and we know it. Then we use this knowledge to refine our models and predict what will happen and adjust this knowledge along the way according to what nre evidence and factors we find to be relevant
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Braininvat liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2017, 12:38 am 

[b]BJ, is it possible to re-phrase you last post.

I’m having trouble getting the exact message.

Your phrasing – “Granted the climate is a more intricate and complex system, but models we use are based on solid evidence … “ suggests that you are claiming that ‘climate science’ models are built on solid evidence.

I've just claimed the opposite in my last post. Hence a need for clarification.

Thanks
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 12:50 am 

Look out your window. The weather is doing something it shouldn't. The climate has changed.
Stop obsessing over the math and start building an ark.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on February 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am 

Doogles -

I was just trying to make clear that we can, and have, landed probes on Mars and done so by our understanding of "physical laws". These very same "physical laws" are used to model weather systems. It basic physics.

The problem is being able to model all the subtlties of complex systems. We will always have a margin of error. The margin of error does not alter our understanding of the underlying "physical laws".

Another way to view this is to say we cannot land a probe on a passing comet because we cannot predict what its surface is made of or where it will be. We can prepare such a probe for as many eventualities as we can think of and give ourselves some wiggle room to adjust its course, be prepared for landing on various different consistancies of surface, ways to take samples, possible problems such as dirt clogging up measuring equipment, etc,.

Scientists do exactly the same thing for climate science. The difference is their goal is creat a non-physical probe (model to predict and help confirm and refine understanding). We would not say to the experts who build probes that they don't know what they are doing and then pat ourselves on the back whe their probes fail thinking it proof that we knew better than them. The scientists by building probes/models progress understanding.

I imagine most of us here don't understand the amount of work and trial and error put into creating thebprobes that have landed succuessfulky on Mars. When you look at the achievement it seems like an unbelievable one.

We've all been in an actual greenhouse I imagine. We know carbon has the same effect. What makes the whole process of modelling the global difficult is there are many other factors to consider. This does not take away what we KNOW about carbon. We able to make rough predictions for the weather short term. If we are talking long term our predictions are generally better if we are extendkng this knowledge over a large period of time (not predicting the weather for the 5th of May 2020, but predicting over all changes in global temperatures in 3 years). There is then more complexity involved because as the temperature changes then the ecology will alter too and this also may effect the climate innother less predictable ways.

The current warnings being voiced about carbon emissions are not merely about unbalancing the scales it is about possibly snapping the scales or to be more conservative innmy use of words resetting the scales to a normalised point from whcih we'd have to readjust amdnshift popukations and rethink food production etc. Not to mention the impact of other natural habitats and the resources we gain from them.

I am interested in carbon emissions as acting as a "catalyst" and other more subtle changes being worthy of discussion.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2017, 6:13 am 

Thank you for that BJ.

I apparently I did not misunderstand your last post. I have to agree with you on such matters as the science behind the probes to Mars and other planets. Like you, I see it that those solar system rocket-based endeavours depend on modelling that has been very successful. And like you, I appreciate that these models have been developed over decades of basic hands-on experimental trial-and-error experimentation. Think of the massive amount of experimentation before and after the V1 and V2 rockets during WW!! before we were able to get a sputnik to circumnavigate the planet.

But I’m not on the same wavelength wrt ‘climate science’. I thought I’d made that point in my second last post.

But obviously I failed.

I’ll have another ‘go’. The following are a few random web reports on the subject of what happens if carbon dioxide concentrations double in our atmosphere.

In Science Fair 2011 - http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... JQp6Y9OKcw - "Economic projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change see this doubling happening around 2060 under "business as usual" burning of fossil fuels by people and industries. The extent to which it will raise temperatures higher has been debated for more than a decade, with the IPCC forecasting a 5.4 degree rise as most likely (within a range of 2.7 to 8.1 degrees)."

This is a Clmate.gov 2014 ref - https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... ial-levels - "They imagine that carbon dioxide will continue to increase at roughly the rate it has been, and then ask how much warming would be realized around the time when the concentration has doubled the preindustrial value. On this shorter time scale, it’s likely the planet will warm between 1° and 2.5°C (2°-4.5°F).

This is a 2017 article - http://bib.irb.hr/prikazi-rad?rad=858233 - "Results show that doubling CO2 concentration causes warming around 2°C at all considered levels."

You’ll notice that the alarmist predictions appear to be decreasing with time in the conventional side of the debate, in a ‘trending’ sense.

So I’ll now present some opposite evidence.

1998 In Climate Research - http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf - In his Summary and Conclusion, Idso claims that “What is debatable, however, is the magnitude of any warming that might result from a rise in the air’s CO2 concentration. While admittedly incomplete and highly approximate general general circulation models of the atmosphere predict that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air’s co2 content will raise mean global air temperature a few degrees Celsius, natural experiments based upon real-world observations suggest that a global warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree could result from such a co2 increase. Which conclusion is correct?” This bloke conducted eight of what he called ‘natural experiments’ with models and each time received what he regarded as the same result. He applied the same principles of doubling the CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm on Mars and Venus and came up with the same increase in temperature of 0.4 degrees Centigrade.

This is a log normal graph of the association between the carbon dioxide content of air and the near surface temperatures by a David Archerfield.

ARCHIBALD TEMP & CARBON DIOXIDE .jpg


He claims to have produced it using a climate-software program called Modtrans. Unfortunately he does not present the data he fed into the program, so it is hard to criticise. Nevertheless it is out there and if it happens to be correct, then it suggests that any increase in carbon dioxide from now on will have a negligible effect on global temperatures. And of course it would mean that we have to focus on other possible causes for our undoubted near surface average increases in temperatures.

What the above references do show is that we have a number of different predictions as to the effects on temperatures as a result of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The question is WHY?

I’ll state my opinion again. So far, the field of ‘çlimate science’ has been dominated by theoretical modelling without enough input from basic scientific experimentation, as distinct from what they are doing in the interplanatory field of science. The 'climate science' field of investigation suffers from an absence of basic experimental laboratory studies of the absorption and radiation properties of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in particular, as well as other greenhouse gases. The equipment to do such studies is readily available in every university in the world but strangely, nobody appears to be using such equipment to replicate and expand on Tyndall's work from the 1860s.

My belief is that the more a 'science' is based on theory rather than hard basic experimentation, the more it will be subject to scepticism.

Once again I welcome any comments - positive or negative, but please attempt to use evidence-based comments.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby wolfhnd on February 3rd, 2017, 8:04 am 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... deception/

I have to say I don't trust anyone on this topic. Especially those that say it is simple physics. The climate is very complex and modeling it is like predicting election results.

I can sometimes get climate skeptics to agree to a 1 to 2 degree celsius warming which frankly is a lot. The average global temperature is 16.1 degrees celsius so that is 6 to 12 percent increase. The greatest increases are supposed to be at the poles in winter so maybe that doesn't offer much insight. None the less it is reason for concern.

I spent 6 months reading papers off and on the topic and it was not helpful to me. I'm still skeptical that anyone has numbers that make accurate enough predictions to make adaptation decisions on.

The problem with estimating the temperature rise seems to be more in the feedback mechanism than the physics in anycase. Good luck sorting that system out.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4257
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2017, 7:07 am 

Thank you for that wolfhnd
.
That was a useful link. I hadn’t seen it before. The author of the article (David Archer) claims that he produced the Modtran software that David Archibald used for the graph in my last post. He questioned the raw data that Archibald had used to achieve that log normal graph.

In looking at the RealClimate website, claimed by the writers to be a site on Climate by REAL climate scientists, I notice that Michael Mann is one of their authors. He was the bloke who produced the ‘hockey stick’ graph that predicted accelerating global warming early this century and almost sent the world into a panic. His article was subsequently removed from Nature magazine and is no longer available.

David Archer’s focus appears to be in computer programming and oceanographic rather than atmospheric climate associations.

The person’s results that he criticised for being used in Archibald’s graph was SB Idso, who appears to have been published in this field since the 1960s. His articles attract thousands of citations – see https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?s ... as_sdt=0,5 for bibliography. According to Wikipedia he has been author or co-author of approximately 500 publications and is included in the ISI "highly cited researchers" database — “scientific researchers whose publications are most often cited in academic journals over the past decade, published by the Institute for Scientific Information. Inclusion in this list is taken as a measure of the esteem of these academics and is used, for example, by the Academic Ranking of World Universities.”

I cited one of his abstracts in my last post where he claims that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in only a 0.4 degrees Centigrade rise in temperatures – whether it’s on Earth, Mars or Venus.

IF he is correct, it means that we need to look for causes other than carbon dioxide for the approximate 1.6 degree increase in average near-surface temperatures since the 1970s.

It just seems to me that the orthodox school of ‘climate science’ appears to be blinkered in its obsession with carbon dioxide as THE main culprit. And this blinkered obsession is preventing it from doing any basic experimentation on the absorption and radiation properties of carbon dioxide and other GHGs as well as preventing it from searching for other possible single factors or other multiple co-factors that may be leading to the increase in temperatures.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on February 4th, 2017, 11:04 am 

Doogles, several experiments with FTIR spectroscopy provide strong empirical evidence.....

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Gets down to the nitty-gritty of CO2 absorption and radiation that you are concerned about.

Also this one....

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on February 4th, 2017, 11:53 pm 

Wolf -

It is "simple" physics. The modeling is not so simple though. That is precisely what I was getting at. It is not like we don't possess physical laws to deal with thermodynamics and such. How to apply these laws to complex systems is the difficulty.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby wolfhnd on February 5th, 2017, 1:20 am 

BadgerJelly » Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:53 am wrote:Wolf -

It is "simple" physics. The modeling is not so simple though. That is precisely what I was getting at. It is not like we don't possess physical laws to deal with thermodynamics and such. How to apply these laws to complex systems is the difficulty.


I want to take this to the next level of complexity but nobody seems interested. I actually think that global warming is a good thing. What I'm most afraid of is a year without a summer. We know from the little ice age the kind of political chaos that results from climate change. If someone could assure me that we will not have a major volcanic eruption in the next hundred years then I would be more sympathetic to the view that warming is the worst case scenario. When I say next level of complexity I mean modeling all the possible scenarios and estimating their economic (especially in terms of food production) consequences. I will add that I'm disappointed in the amount of progress we are making on the research for the amount of money we are spending and I do blame international bureaucracy for that to a degree. Politics and science make strange bed fellows.

I'm really tired of the idea that it is only simpletons don't agree with the mainstream political narrative. I'm ok with the idea that my views are not mainstream on the left or right but I would prefer not to be called names by either.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4257
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
doogles liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2017, 6:49 am 

wolfhnd, I'm with you in principle.

I have a failing in that I can't help myself from trying to be constructive by investigating matters for myself if I perceive a problem of any kind.

Braininvat » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:04 am wrote:Doogles, several experiments with FTIR spectroscopy provide strong empirical evidence.....

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Gets down to the nitty-gritty of CO2 absorption and radiation that you are concerned about.

Also this one....

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html


Braininvat

Thank you for those refs. They weren’t exactly what I had in mind, but thank you just the same. I was hoping that somebody somewhere had conducted some basic laboratory-controlled experiments where they could replicate and expand on what Tyndall did in the 1860s - by isolating each factor to be studied.

The research by Evans and Puckrin is useful in its own right in so far as it provides ball-park data on the relative importance of the various GHGs in radiative surface forcing. I have to say that their final Abstract sentence - “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming” had me wondering about their scientific open-mindedness. They were not exactly modest about their experimental findings.

I downloaded the full PDF of that abstract and couldn’t find any reference to how they eliminated the effects of water vapour, which seems to be an important GHG. If you look at their Results section, you will see that they measured in the IR range of 5 to 16 microns. My criticism would be that they did not explore the carbon dioxide surface forcing in the ranges of 2.4 and 4.7 microns (which would have increased their figures for CO2 flux by the way), and they did not mention the effects of water vapour at the approximate 6 micron wavelength. I could be wrong but is there a possibility that water vapour effects at 6 microns could have been compounding the results they attributed to carbon dioxide?

In addition, my Google Scholar source tells me that this paper has had only 15 citations since 2001, which suggests that their peers in the field aren’t overly impressed.

Unfortunately, the full text of the second ref you provided is not available free, so I will have to give that a miss.

Nevertheless, the second ref did seem to suggest roughly, that satellites have detected higher radiative forcing along with higher concentrations of GHGs. Now if you are a devout ‘Global warmist’ (I dislike this emotive term used by James Hansen who kicked off the movement), you would have to say that it provides further evidence for that school of thought.

Now just for arguments sake, and this is directed to our general readership Biv, suppose that we have all been on the wrong tram and that the greenhouse gases are now stable (like a blanket on a bed), we would have to look for some alternative sources of intrinsic warming (from underneath the blanket). In the bed analogy of global warming, the human body or an electric blanket supplies the intrinsic warming. The blanket is just an insulator that retains much of that intrinsic heat. I think BadgerJelly was thinking along these lines some time ago when he asked about the possibility of the Earth’s inner core causing some contribution to intrinsic heating. In that case, Biv was able to negate the idea with some good plausible evidence, and that was a good evidential response.

I would like to throw a couple of ideas into the ring to be kicked around. I haven’t researched this first idea myself, but I would be interested to see any figures on the DIRECT energy produced by human-associated activities alone. There is some consensus about Urban Warming. But has anybody come across figures anywhere for the gross energy production of human-associated activities. When I see a night picture of our planet such as the following space-photograph composite,

EARTH LIGHTS AT NIGHT.jpg


I ask myself how much energy we are producing from our generators to produce that amount of light, the amount of daily energy produced in maintaining the body temperature of we humans, our extra pet animals, and our extra food animals. Then I think of the heat produced by our collective air-conditioning, cooking, motor cars, extra machinery from extra industries for production of everything else in our houses etc. That’s enough to get the picture. I wouldn’t know where to start.

Another possibility is that since the 1950s the world has begun to become somewhat ‘green’. Almost every city on the planet has established Environmental Protection Agencies or their equivalent – LONG BEFORE THE ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ PUSH. Clean air has become paramount.

Legislation has become widespread to reduce particulate matter (particularly in the <2.5 micron range) as well as noxious chemicals and gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide. Every city now tends to boast about its air improvement. Sulphur dioxide and nitric acid happen to be hygroscopic and in the past have served as niduses for water vapour condensation as cloud. Dust and clouds act as partial barriers to solar radiation. So, in effect, the more we have cleaner air, the more insolation we have and possibly then the higher the average near-surface temperatures.

I have found it almost impossible to find global figures on cloud masses to check this out, but here’s just one example of the dust improvement in visibility by EPAs in Melbourne, Australia.

MELB VISIBILITY.gif


There is a mass of data on atmospheric cleaning of every major city on the web. Every western city likes to brag about its clean air policies and data is usually readily available. I maintain that the cleaner the air the more the insolation and the greater the rises in near-surface temperatures.

This graphic is a basic IPCC one. The red arrows and captions at the bottom are my modifications where cleaner air becomes just another possible intrinsic cause of warming ‘under a stable blanket’ (A what-if?)

POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CLEAN AIR.jpg


If this is so, then more UV wavelengths should be penetrating our atmosphere (who’s measuring this these days) and skin cancer should be increasing.

See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 830.x/full . Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is an increasing problem for health care services worldwide.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 25411/full . For both genders, a high increase in both BCC and SCC incidence was observed over time. Between 1978 and 2007, the age-adjusted BCC incidence increased from 27.1 to 96.6 cases per 100,000 person-years for women and from 34.2 to 91.2 cases for men. The SCC incidence increased from 4.6 to 12.0 cases per 100,000 person-years for women and from 9.7 to 19.1 cases for men.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100 ... 2_7#page-1 Cutaneous melanoma is the most rapidly increasing cancer in white populations, in the last 3 decades incidence rates have risen up to 5-fold.

Such evidence does not prove anything of course. Depletion of the ozone layer could be having a delayed effect, but on the other hand it can’t be ruled out.

I just wish that the orthodox global warmists could take a broader view of the problem and in particular do some real hands-on basic experimental laboratory work on the GHGs at least.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on February 5th, 2017, 11:18 am 

Doogles, I am sorry the FTIR papers didn't lead you towards any lab work on GHGs. I'm fairly certain that the 19th century experiments have been repeated somewhere, more recently. I suspect there are science databases which are not indexed on popular search engines, that might yield such work. I will keep an eye out, and post anything I find that isn't blocked by a paywall.

We should question the role of "cleaner air" in all this, for sure, but there's a prima facie case that the levels of warming we are seeing and the rate of warming could not be accounted for by small areas (urban areas cover, what, around 2% of U.S. land area and I supposed the global figure would be a bit lower?) where air is restored closer to pre-industrial levels in terms of particulates.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on February 6th, 2017, 6:18 am 

Thanks for that intention Braininvat, but I’ve been looking for quite a while without success. I appreciate the offer.

I’m not the only one disgruntled about the lack of empirical data and the poor back-up science backing the role of carbon dioxide emissions for the increases in temperatures.

It an interesting coincidence that BadgerJelly mentioned Climate Science and Space Exploration in the one sentence a few posts back, because I’m going to copy and paste a 2012 letter here from NASA Space Scientists complaining about the extravagant claims being made about carbon dioxide without sufficient empirical evidence to support the claims.

Members may find this interesting. The letter is short. I’ve added the list of signatories for authenticity.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa- ... nge-2012-4

Open letter from NASA staff re poor science.

"Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency’s activist stance toward climate change. The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

The letter criticises the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.

The press release with attached letter is below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space centre in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realised that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:
• “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
• “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
• “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: arse Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight centre
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space centre, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space centre, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, arse.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, arse’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, arse’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years"
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby wolfhnd on February 6th, 2017, 7:06 am 

I have seen these guys give a lecture on their position. I have no idea what to make of it. It could be that the older guys don't think scientists should even give the hint of political bias. Certainly those with a military background have been conditioned to a total separation of profession and politics.

I have never accused people like Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of not genuinely putting the interest of society at the forefront of their agendas. If there is a problem it lies more with the IPCC and it's exclusive focus on the effects of co2. IPCC has set the agenda for research which I feel should include more research into predicting natural variability which has nothing to do with trying to diminish the role of co2.

The models do seem prejudiced toward a higher estimation of future warming but I don't assume it is agenda driven as the worst case scenario is what they have been asked to predict. Since the development of atomic weapons and there potential for the destruction of the planet became clear I believe scientist have felt morally obligated to take a more political stand on issue where science plays a role in enabling massive destruction. It would however be naive to think that all scientist share the same ethical concerns and that other nations will act with the same regard for human well being. Once basic research is done I doubt that anyone can put the genie back in the bottle and creation of technologies hostile to human well being falls into the hands of scientist that are more or less engineers. The issue of responsibility does not fall on the scientists in my opinion if the research itself is not directly harmful.

I will be interested in following your journey doogles as you try to unravel the science behind Anthropogenic climate change. As I said I earlier I gave up some years ago and mostly read articles from skeptics to see if their arguments have improved. I can't say that they have. If it is true as the majority of climatologist say that the science is settled then it will take some extraordinary evidence to convince them to reassess their positions. As a layman my interest is almost entirely related to policy and those policy decisions carry such significance that some funding of skeptics should be available and I believe it may be. Keep the reports coming in and I honestly hope you find something substantial to convince people that the established science is wrong as that would be in societies best interest.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4257
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on February 16th, 2017, 5:54 pm 

One of dozens of talks I have attended about climate change. This one is part of the limnology story. Putting this video up temporarily.

User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3032
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby Athena on February 16th, 2017, 6:10 pm 

NASA said:

The March 11, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan may have shortened the length of each Earth day and shifted its axis. But don't worry—you won't notice the difference.


Scientifically that might be right, but seasons are coming earlier and I am not totally convinced this has nothing to do with the shift.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... scientists


Science says spring is coming earlier.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests