Climate Change Contrarians - claims examined

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 Serpent on January 28th, 2020, 12:45 pm 

We might also factor in all those extra cattle to feed all those newly-beef-eating Asians, plus the yearly bigger and bigger forest fires, destroying millions of acres of carbon-filter while sending up more billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The feedback is growing; the mitigation is shrinking.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4021
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 28th, 2020, 1:10 pm 

Idso is a very experienced Climate Scientist.


Doogles, Idso is not respected in the scientific community. If you carefully read the wikipedia entry that you posted on him, you will discover one of the reasons for this. From the section of the article titled "Funding" --

According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.


The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.


Due to the conflict between the business models of such fossil fuel companies and the scientific evidence regarding the climatic effects of fossil fuel consumption, there is an obvious and strong prima facie case for a clear separation between such companies and those who do research in climatology. With the best intentions in the world, there is a long and sad history of pressure on scientists to obtain results that are pleasing to industry sponsors of their research. Examples of compromised research, selection bias, cherry-picking, etc. are so prevalent in these areas that reputable scientists steer clear of such funding, no matter how tempting it may be. In the state I grew up in, there were some serious scandals that arose when research on agricultural products such as meat and milk were funded by the meat and dairy industry. These sorts of conflicts of interest are well known in the scientific community, and one of the reasons that non-corporate bodies are called upon to provide more neutral funding for research in the public interest.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 28th, 2020, 1:13 pm 

This expose, from an independent (donation supported, some donations from science guys like me) muckraking journalism organization, may also be helpful to you, Doogles, in your evaluation of the Idso family.....

https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... so-family/
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 28th, 2020, 1:25 pm 

From the above article (bolding mine):

The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a self-described “bio-climatologist,” published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world’s carbon dioxide concentration wouldn’t change the planet’s temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University’s Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled “Greenhouse Cooling.”

In 1998, Idso’s son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year.


I mean no offense to anyone examining heterodox positions, but at this point I think an LOL would not be out of line.

In any case, I think this illuminates the reason why climate scientists (or really, any scientists or anyone who values objective and unbiased methods of research) do not respect the work of the Idso clan.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 28th, 2020, 1:26 pm 

Climate Misinformation by Craig Idso

Click on the linked texts of “Climate Myths by Idso” and “What the Science Says” for detailed discussion debunking this charlatan.

Idso said:

What really brought me into the issue was when Al Gore went after my father when [Gore] was in the Senate and he rigged a Senate sub-committee meeting to go after my father and discredit his work.


Golly, THERE’S a real scientist and an unbiased source! :-D

Who, btw, is paid by, among other propaganda outfits, The Heartland Institute.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 28th, 2020, 1:38 pm 

Here is one of Heartland's "enlightened" (and enlightening!) campaigns:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.[32] One of Heartland's first campaigns was against tobacco regulation.[8] According to the Los Angeles Times, Heartland's advocacy for the tobacco industry is one of the two things Heartland is most widely known for.


But that's small potatoes compared with shilling for more C02 in the atmosphere, using enablers like Idso, who admits he got started on the whole subject because of a personal grudge! Smoking kills a lot of people, granted. Climate change potentially could kill billions, and even lead to human extinction. Heartland's greatest achievement!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on January 28th, 2020, 2:41 pm 

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 (!)
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 28th, 2020, 6:42 pm 

Wow! That's a sizeable response which will take me a day or two to respond to. I feel like a heretic at a religious convention. I do hope that you all had more than a glance at the article I cited by Idso. It may take a day or two to respond to all of your comments, but I will do so.

In the meantime, could I ask you to have a look at two of Idso's results, based on simple maths. His experiment 4 used two pieces of data widely accepted by climate scientists -- The mean global warming effect of the whole atmosphere -- 33.6 degrees C, and the mean flux of thermal radiation that originates with the atmosphere and which would be non-existent without it (348 Wm-2). The air temperature sensitivity factor = 0.097 degrees C per Wm-2 by simple division.

In his Experiment 8, he cites 3 references, including Valero et al (1997; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/275/5307/1773) to an experiment over the Pacific Ocean. Their direct measurements of downwards-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea is 14.0 Wm-2 and this resulted in an increase of surface temperature of 1 degree C. Divide the 1 degree C by 14 Wm-2 to get a surface air temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071 degrees C per Wm-2.

At face value, the figures seem sound enough to me. I was hoping that at least one of you could find a flaw in the logic of any of the 8 experiments.

The value given by climate scientists for the radiative forcing if carbon dioxide doubled from 300 to 600 ppm is 4 Wm-2. To convert this to a change in surface temperature, you simply multiply by the sensitivity factor -- say a global average of about 0.1. The result is a warming of no more than 0.4 degrees C.

Please try to find a flaw in his arguments, while I frame responses to all of your comments.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 28th, 2020, 9:17 pm 

Been here before, Doogles. Idso's inability to grasp Forcing v Feedback has been pointed out in several older threads here. Radiative forcing triggers vapor feedback loops. The 98% of climate scientists whose education wasn't bankrolled by oil and coal companies seem able to comprehend this.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2020, 6:13 am 

Firstly TheVat, thank you for the comments. I always appreciate input whether positive or negative. Re Idso's failure to recognise the difference between radiative forcing and radiative feedback, are you able to explain where he has gone wrong in this respect in Experiment 4 or Experiment 8, or do you know anyone else who could put me straight using those two examples only. That would be meaningful to me because the two calculations look quite simple to me. Anything else would be meaningless.

TheVat wrote:C02 reduction is failing due to rapid industrialization in large Asian countries and production keeping pace with the more than a billion people added to Earth in the 23 year period you mention. Also, feedback effects - see my new post yesterday on the permafrost melts - continue to play out. And any successful mitigation will not quickly remove CO2 that's already been added. And, as you surely know, methane and NOx are also key players. Mankind can only hope to slow the effects of all those GHGs and allow time for more comprehensive solutions.

The "thrust" of the IPCC is not just on CO2, but on all the GHGs, and also diesel soot and nanoparticles,
so it's not fair to say they are solely focused on carbon emissions.


You are quite right about the IPCC focussing on information about all GHGs etc. My concern is that the Protocols, Accords, and Agreements that Nations agree to are all based on reaching carbon reduction goals. I'd like to see more attention to Cloud increases and attempts to slow down population growth. I back my statement though that they have not conducted a scientific evaluation of their results with respect to carbon dioxide. You'll note that Serpent's post here is based on a carbon dioxide philosophy with maybe a bit of methane thrown in.

I had a close look at your article in a new thread. Some posts back I made a statement and a prediction -- " I have no personal doubts that the oceanic and the average global near-surface temperatures will continue to steadily rise and that we will see plenty of evidence of that in the scientific journals." I should have added the media as well. It no longer phases me and I usually check on the inherent authority of any articles I read and try to put the report in balance.

I noticed a qualifying statement though that "While there is currently no consensus on the reasons for Arctic amplification, proposed mechanisms include: reduced summer albedo due to sea ice and snow cover loss (Pithan and Mauritsen 2014), the increase of water vapor and clouds in the Arctic atmosphere (Dufour et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2017), lapse-rate feedback (decreases in tropospheric temperature with height: Stuecker et al. 2018), and decreased air pollution (Acosta Navarro et al. 2016)." I was surprised to see reports of increased clouds in the Arctic. My check of those two refs (Defour et al; Kim et al) revealed no mention of increasing clouds.

Of interest, it is generally recognised that the Arctic always warms more readily than other parts of the globe. See an article on "What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth? on this site -- https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... poles.html.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2020, 6:19 am 

TheVat wrote:
I'm not a Climate Scientist, but I favour Idso over the IPCC because Idso's main thrust is in the manipulation of experimental data, while the IPCC appears to have been pre-occupied with theoretical models.


Duly noted. However, the IPCC is composed of climatologists and atmospheric chemists and so on who have plenty of input that is experimental data. So, again, I would warn against giving too much credence to sources that falsely characterize the IPCCs work - sometimes that is a source with an agenda serving the fossil fuel industry and looking for a strawman argument to undercut the findings of dedicated and scrupulous scientists. The IPCC, a consortium of thousands of climate scientists, is very much data driven.


The problem here is that the evidence that Idso has presented seems plausible to me. He did receive what he considered to be justified criticism after his first 3 experiments, but then he proceeded to present the results of 5 more experiments. I've invited anyone to point out where he is wrong and I haven't yet seen a criticism of his last 5 experiments. That doesn't mean that they do not exist. Please point them out to me if you see any. Certainly there are thousands of scientists associated with the IPCC but that does not mean that Idso's results are incorrect. The way I see it, unless someone can show that his basic data are incorrect, particularly in Experiments 4 and 8, then he is right. His results are reproducible. Anyone can use the same data and reproduce his results. Is there a chance they are not keen to do so because he may be right.

Just to defend myself, I do not know him or anything about him apart from what I've read about him in Wikipedia which indicates he has a massive academic profile. I looked at his publications in Google Scholar and he has published widely in a large number of Journals, including Science and Nature. Many Journal editors and referees have obviously given the thumbs up to his work. I'm interested in his science and I would be pleased if someone could have a look at it and point out where he is right, wrong or bent.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2020, 6:26 am 

TheVat wrote:
Idso is a very experienced Climate Scientist.


Doogles, Idso is not respected in the scientific community. If you carefully read the wikipedia entry that you posted on him, you will discover one of the reasons for this. From the section of the article titled "Funding" --

According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.


The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.


Due to the conflict between the business models of such fossil fuel companies and the scientific evidence regarding the climatic effects of fossil fuel consumption, there is an obvious and strong prima facie case for a clear separation between such companies and those who do research in climatology. With the best intentions in the world, there is a long and sad history of pressure on scientists to obtain results that are pleasing to industry sponsors of their research. Examples of compromised research, selection bias, cherry-picking, etc. are so prevalent in these areas that reputable scientists steer clear of such funding, no matter how tempting it may be. In the state I grew up in, there were some serious scandals that arose when research on agricultural products such as meat and milk were funded by the meat and dairy industry. These sorts of conflicts of interest are well known in the scientific community, and one of the reasons that non-corporate bodies are called upon to provide more neutral funding for research in the public interest.


I'm not shocked by this. I was quite unaware that an antipathy appeared to be building up about the Idso family. But I would appreciate any evidence that could be evaluated to say that he is wrong in his science.

His academic history is still very impressive to me.

Let's use a hypothetical and ask "What if he is right?"

He certainly won't get any support from the IPCC because this current issue of a Surface Air Temperature Sensitivity factor would discredit the advice and expectations that the IPCC has been building up for the last 20 or 30 years.

And if he is right, is it possible that he would be seen as going against the system and be regarded as a pariah. Naturally then he would have trouble being peer-reviewed and getting funding. Hence his own Journal and funding from an industry which he believes is doing no harm.

--- Just a hypothetical.

In any case I'd like to see some intelligent and valid criticism of his science in the article I've cited above.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2020, 6:38 am 

TheVat wrote:From the above article (bolding mine):

The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a self-described “bio-climatologist,” published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world’s carbon dioxide concentration wouldn’t change the planet’s temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University’s Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled “Greenhouse Cooling.”

In 1998, Idso’s son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year.


I mean no offense to anyone examining heterodox positions, but at this point I think an LOL would not be out of line.

In any case, I think this illuminates the reason why climate scientists (or really, any scientists or anyone who values objective and unbiased methods of research) do not respect the work of the Idso clan.


I must admit that a current paper on Global Cooling doesn't sound quite right, but I think my hypothetical above also applies to this post. I'd still like to see some discussion of his science per se.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


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: 1353
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: 7567
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: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

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

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
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: 4021
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: 747
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: 4021
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: 1353
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: 7567
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: 747
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: 4021
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: 4021
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: 747
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: 747
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: 1353
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: 4021
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: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests