Two degrees climate change target 'utterly inadequate', commentary says

March 26, 2015, BioMed Central

The official global target of a 2°C temperature rise is 'utterly inadequate' for protecting those at most risk from climate change, says a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), writing a commentary in the open access journal Climate Change Responses.

The commentary presents a rare inside-view of a two-day discussion at the Lima Conference of the Parties (COP) on the likely consequences of accepting an average global warming target of 2°C versus 1.5°C (measured from pre-industrial times until 2100).

The discussions were part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 'structured expert dialogue' in December 2014. They reveal unevenly distributed risks and political power differentials between high-income countries insisting on a 2°C target and low- and many middle-income countries pushing for 1.5°C or lower.

The 2°C target has been said to carry an increased risk of sea level rise, shifting rainfall patters and extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves, particularly targeting the Polar Regions, high mountain areas, and the Tropics.

The author Petra Tschakert from The Pennsylvania State University and a coordinating lead author of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report says: "The consensus that transpired during this session was that a 2°C danger level seemed utterly inadequate given the already observed impacts on ecosystems, food, livelihoods, and sustainable development.

"A low temperature target is the best bet to prevent severe, pervasive, and potentially irreversible impacts while allowing ecosystems to adapt naturally, ensuring food production and security, and enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

In her commentary, Tschakert explains that the target of keeping the global average temperature rise to below 2°C originates from early studies in the 1970s. This target became anchored in policy debates over the decades, and was officially sanctioned as the long-term global goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions at the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009.

Despite support from high and upper middle-income countries with high emissions, the 2°C target has been subject to repeated criticism from climate scientists, economists, and political and social scientists.

Alliances representing over 70% of the parties around the table, including over 100 low- and middle-income countries and small island states, have repeatedly said that a 2°C rise is unsafe for their communities, and insist on a long-term goal to keep global average temperatures below 1.5°C. These states include the Pacific nation of Tuvalu that was recently hit by Cyclone Pam.

While the 2°C target is now being re-evaluated, no reference to an explicit 1.5°C target is included in the 2014 Lima Call for Climate Action, despite specific remarks on the lower temperature limit being made throughout the negotiations.

Having taken part in the latest structured expert dialogue in Lima, Peru, with country delegates to the COP, fellow IPCC authors and representatives from UN agencies and intergovernmental organizations, Tschakert now shares new insights into the ongoing debate on the adequacy of the long-term goal.

A representative of the World Health Organization at the session stressed that there was no 'safe limit' for health, as current impacts and risks from climate change were already unacceptable, impacting people's health significantly and inequitably. This includes a rise in undernutrition, food- and water-borne infections, and excess deaths during heat waves, of which 10,000 have already been attributed to the 2010 Russian heat wave.

In addition to heat waves, science participants in the dialogue said that extreme events such as floods and hurricanes were expected to cause high risk in a 2°C warmer world. These events would put at significant danger disadvantaged populations in megacities like Lagos, Mexico City or Shanghai, people whose livelihoods are dependent on natural resources, and those at risk from conflicts over scarce resources.

Tschakert says: "Using a figure for average may indeed be the most convenient and compelling means to discuss the severity of climate change impacts, but not only does it inadequately capture the complexity of the climate system, it poorly reflects locally experienced temperature increases and the extreme and large variation across regions - no single person or any species faces a global average."

Singapore highlighted that certain risks were already catastrophic for people and ecosystems in their region while only moderate in the aggregate. Along the same lines, Ethiopia re-emphasized the uneven distribution of risks for the African continent. Trinidad and St. Lucia stressed regional differences in risk from ice sheet loss and coral bleaching. Botswana raised the subject of costs for mitigation, adaptation, 'loss and damage' and technology transfer associated with both temperature targets.

In terms of ecosystems, it was said that limiting warming at 1.5°C could keep below 1m, saving half of the world's corals, and leave some of the Arctic summer ice intact.

Tschakert says: "These implications emphasize what is truly at stake - not a scientific bickering of what the most appropriate temperature target ought to be, but a commitment to protect the most vulnerable and at risk populations and ecosystems, as well as the willingness to pay for abatement and compensation. This should happen now, and not only when climate change hits the rich world."

The findings are timely as the long-term goal to stay below 2°C warming is currently undergoing a 2013-15 Review, the results of which are expected this June and could be adopted in Paris at COP21 in December 2015.

Tschakert concludes in her commentary: "The crux of the matter is no longer about the scientific validity of one temperature target over another... It is first and foremost about overcoming deeply entrenched divisions on value judgments, responsibility, and finance... It is about acknowledging that negative impacts of under a 0.8°C temperature increase are already widespread, across the globe, and that danger, risk, and harm would be utterly unacceptable in a 2°C warmer world, largely for 'them' - the mollusks, and coral reefs, and the poor and marginalized populations... even if this danger hasn't quite hit home yet for 'us'."

Explore further: Global warming could undermine poverty fight: World Bank

More information: 1.5C or 2C: A conduit's view from the science-policy interface at COP20 in Lima, Peru, Petra Tschakert, Climate Change Responses 2015, DOI: 10.1186/s40665-015-0010-z

Related Stories

UN climate report offers stark warnings, hope (Update)

November 2, 2014

Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.'s panel on climate science said Sunday.

Time running out to reach 2 C warming target: UN experts

November 2, 2014

Time is running out to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the United Nations' climate experts said Sunday, warning that current trends in carbon emissions will lead to disaster.

Rare optimism ahead of climate talks in Lima

November 29, 2014

Energized by new targets set by China and the United States, the world's top climate polluters, U.N. global warming talks resume Monday with unusual optimism despite evidence that human-generated climate change is already ...

Recommended for you

204 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2015
Would everyone PLEASE consider I could melt all the ice on Earth, create massive deserts, change climates, all without changing the temperature at all.

Temperature is a terrible indicator of change on a system as diverse as massive as the Earth.
JoeBlue
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
This is getting as bad as the technocrat invasion of the Social Sciences.

How do they intend to hit a +2*C increase when the average increase per century is estimated at something like 0.6*C?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2015
Water_Prophet deluded AGAIN
Would everyone PLEASE consider I could melt all the ice on Earth, create massive deserts, change climates, all without changing the temperature at all
No. Really - how could YOU, are u now imagining u are some sort of evil super villain ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Temperature is a terrible indicator of change on a system as diverse as massive as the Earth.
By itself sure, I mentioned this to u ages ago & now u run with it, its in the same post where I advised u to get a grip on specific & latent heat of fusion re ice, until my post u didn't know squat about the comparative amount of heat & material properties !

ANY proof of your dumb claims ?

ie
1. CO2's effect is a red-herring/anemic
2. CO2's radiative forcing only 0.00009 W/m^2 but wiki's is 1.5W/m^2 ie 16,666x more
3. Your CO2 figures for radiative forcing are in "great agreement" with wikis
4. You have "4 technical degrees"
5. Business uses your calculations

so sad
angus143
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2015
@WaterProfit, where on Earth do you get your information from?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2015
angus143 asked
@WaterProfit, where on Earth do you get your information from?
I've been asking the little deluded fetus for weeks to qualify several of his arbitrary claims, the list I just gave in my last posting goes back over a period of approx 20 weeks, most recent 22 March

In all cases so far, he has Never qualified one at all, ever !

He even acknowledged some months ago "I don't read citations"... His facebook page doesn't list any of his "4 technical degrees" incl his claim he is a "Physical Chemist", he sure doesn't write like one:-
https://www.faceb...er/about

Here is his most dubious claim, others can be found via google site specific
Mar 22, 2015 posting http://phys.org/n...des.html

Which is in stark contrast with:-
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Yet he claims elsewhere his figure for CO2 of 0.00009 W is in "great agreement" with 1.5W

so sad
Grallen
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2015
Currents heat levels are disastrous...
The strain on ecosystems caused by shifts in precipitation is piling up.
Extreme weather is rampant.
Global systems that we've depended on forever, are failing.

I'm not even sure 1.5C is even reasonably safe...
But... Can we even prevent temps from soaring past 2C?

It doesn't seem possible.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Would everyone PLEASE consider I could melt all the ice on Earth, create massive deserts, change climates, all without changing the temperature at all
No & not by any means.

You should KNOW Water_Prophet, that once you melt ice & despite fact that melted ice as water is at zero deg C it immediately comes in CONTACT with other materials Eg atmosphere & mainly water (ie. Runoff into oceans etc), so unless all the water it contacts is at zero degrees it must therefore cool it & thus must reduce temperature.

So the short simple rational answer Water_Prophet, even though your favourite word "intuitively", the temperature will change - of all the surrounding materials...

But hey Water_Prophet, as a claimed "Physical Chemist" should already know this ?

ie. ALL the methods of heat transfer, especially "Conduction" you seem to be unaware of :-(

Where is there evidence of your "4 technical degrees", name of Institute & year started ?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2015
@WaterProfit, where on Earth do you get your information from?
@angus143
VERY GOOD question, and i hope he answers
though i wouldn't get my hopes up on that one...

Speculation:
IMHO, it starts out with Dunning-Kruger (he already tried to impress everyone with claims of being uber smart via multiple degree's and high intelligence, but has yet to demonstrate it)

Then add in a touch of conspiracy theory
throw in a lot of google searches for anything that will support his delusional belief system
layer in a lot of ego and self esteem problems
sift some delusions of granduer lightly through it all
add a healthy heaping portion of Anonymity (until the idiot linked his facebook page, stupidly)
throw in some delusional faith beliefs and the inability to think logical or critical...
a touch of disassociation from reality but dreaming of being a famous scientist

and walla-walla-washinton!
a pseudoscience troll is created
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
angus, what do you mean?
Usually I derive my information from physical constants or physical properties.

For example, say you have a glass full of water and ice. It is all at 0C.
If I were careful, I could melt all the ice and not raise the temperature.

(A little exaggeration above, forgive me ;)
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
@WaterProfit, where on Earth do you get your information from?
I've been asking the little deluded fetus for weeks to qualify several of his arbitrary claims, the list I just gave in my last posting goes back over a period of approx 20 weeks, most recent 22 March

In all cases so far, he has Never qualified one at all, ever !

He even acknowledged some months ago "I don't read citations"... His facebook page doesn't list any of his "4 technical degrees" incl his claim he is a "Physical Chemist", he sure doesn't write like one:-
https://www.faceb...er/about


If you want Greg's take on CO2 and global warming, go here: https://www.faceb...4557455/

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

He has never, not once, ever provided quantitative evidence to support his claim that CO2 driven warming is less important than mechanical heating of the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. Not once. Ever.
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2015
This is hilarious. I knew it was only a matter of time before some deluded soul decided they had figured out what room temperature for planet Earth was.
jeffensley
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2015
Currents heat levels are disastrous...
The strain on ecosystems caused by shifts in precipitation is piling up.
Extreme weather is rampant.
Global systems that we've depended on forever, are failing.

I'm not even sure 1.5C is even reasonably safe...
But... Can we even prevent temps from soaring past 2C?

It doesn't seem possible.


I find it bizarre that people have so little faith in life that they truly believe the sky is falling and the end is nigh. Are you so bored that you find comfort in despair? We're talking about a planet that has been around billions of years, survived a near-apocalyptic meteor strike, tens of thousands of enormous volcanic releases, cold periods, warm periods, solar storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc... BUT a 60ppm increase in a trace atmospheric gas is going to take the whole thing down? I think some of you need to take a deep breath or thousand.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
Good point Jeff. Perfectly true, if a tiny change in a perfectly normal gas teeters us over the edge, it would've happened a million times.

But how about this?
The Sun presents ~255Watts/m2 to the Earth on average. The Sun's cycle changes in cycles about every 11 years, by about 1/1000th of this, and this is responsible for those characteristic pieces of climate change.
Fossil fuels release about 1/10th of this, or 1/10000th of the total energy of the Sun. Isn't this about enough to describe climate change (consider it's mostly in N. America), that we do see, and not be destroying major parts of the planet?

If it were greater, like AGWers claim the effects of CO2 are, it would be devastating. If it were smaller, it would not have an impact.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
Usually I derive my information from physical constants or physical properties
@Alkie/positum stultum prophetam
No, you do NOT
you make a GUESS as to what things should be based upon a personal preconceived notion that is based upon your delusional belief system, which is a FAR cry different than deriving info

Case in point:
you CHOOSE to accept the basic knowledge for properties (taught by physics and found in pages like your wiki graph)
but YOU REFUSE to accept how they might interact with each other (as OBSERVED and reported in studies and as demonstrated in various ways from various studies i've already linked)

Therefore, your acceptance of data is solely based upon your CHOICES as well as your preconceived delusions

NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
We're talking about a planet that has been around billions of years, survived a near-apocalyptic meteor strike...
@jeffensley
there is a serious problem with your logic

that is like saying "water has been on earth for billions of years so i should be able to breathe in it"

Just because we have survived this long doesn't guarantee that we will survive any longer

The point is simple:
We are causing a problem
think of it like pollution, or whatever you want (like a local spill of Chlorine)
sure, you might survive it, but a lot of that will depend on where you are, how much you are exposed to it, and much more

SAME PROBLEM
we have a known issue that we can calculate
we KNOW it has certain probabilities
sticking our head in the sand will only make things worse, not better
especially if there are things we can do to mitigate the situation NOW
because we might NOT be able to later

would you ignore owning a fire extinguisher because you have a hand pumped well?
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2015
And I would have to find flaw in your analogies as well, Captain. Chlorine is not naturally occurring in the quantities that you are talking about in an accidental release. It's amazingly toxic to life, destroying everything it touches. CO2 however is a naturally occurring, atmospheric gas that's vital to plant growth. We made a grave mistake when we labeled it a pollutant because that insinuates that we KNOW what the ideal concentration is. Likewise, the above scientist saying that an increase 2 degrees C is too much and that 1.5 is far better is based on the false assumption that any change from our calculated averages is bad. Change is inevitable. We roll with the punches, we don't make the rules. I've said this time and again, if you want to talk about living more lightly, energy efficiency, reducing true pollutants, then I'm all for it. I just don't want us to operate from the delusional premise that controlling CO2 emissions is somehow going to affect global temperatures.
al_hopfer
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
What do we really all know? 2 degrees C since pre-industrial age is a very bogus value when considering what the planet's temperature was in, for example, 1880. Nobody really knows what the temperature of the planet was in 1880. In 2012 the US has its hottest year on record. Yet the planet had it 6th highest record. Know the year's temperature of the US says, apparently, nothing about the entire planet. In 1880, and instrumentation in use, one can not compare today's readings to those readings without being laughed out of the room. To then claim that since 1880 temperatures have risen 0.80 degrees C is pure fabrication or wishful thinking to those who want the globe to warm so they can right. Since 1998, however, the globe has warmed just 0.1 degrees C (17 years). From 1977 to 1998 the globe warmed 0.6 degrees C or 3/4's of the total warming since the claimed temperatures of 1880. There has been a slowdown from 0.6 degrees C over 21 years to 0.1 degree C over 17 years.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
This is hilarious. I knew it was only a matter of time before some deluded soul decided they had figured out what room temperature for planet Earth was.

And this is nonsensical. I don;t know why I keep being surprised at how ridiculous some "skeptics" (they're actually denialists) ideas are. You cannot teach to one who refuses to learn.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2015
I find it bizarre that people have so little faith in life that they truly believe the sky is falling and the end is nigh. Are you so bored that you find comfort in despair? We're talking about a planet that has been around billions of years, survived a near-apocalyptic meteor strike, tens of thousands of enormous volcanic releases, cold periods, warm periods, solar storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc... BUT a 60ppm increase in a trace atmospheric gas is going to take the whole thing down? I think some of you need to take a deep breath or thousand.
And I find it bizarre that some people are so steeped in their ideological dogma that they refuse to consider the findings of thousands of people trained to make findings, then display an epic ignorance of the very science they refuse to try to understand. You have the understanding of a 10 year old.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
And I would have to find flaw in your analogies as well, Captain. blah blah misunderstanding balh blah doesn't understand blah blah... I just don't want us to operate from the delusional premise that controlling CO2 emissions is somehow going to affect global temperatures.
"Global warming isn;t happening because I don't understand CO2 loading of the atmosphere!" The science has been around since the 1890's. It is really not that difficult. You should try reading about it.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
In 2012 the US has its hottest year on record. Yet the planet had it 6th highest record. Know the year's temperature of the US says, apparently, nothing about the entire planet.

Not nothing, since it was very warm in the US and the world as well. But, yeah, the US is only a small part of the planet, so what happens here isn't necessarily the same as the planet as a whole.
In 1880, and instrumentation in use, one can not compare today's readings to those readings without being laughed out of the room.

Why would you claim this? The fact that instruments differ doesn't preclude comparisons. In fact, instruments used today differ from one another, but this doesn't make it impossible to compare readings from 2 different instruments. It's done all the time in all sorts of fields - why do you believe it would be impossible to do it with thermometers. (Besides there are many other ways than thermometers to tell temperature.)
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2015
Magnus, what would you have in your argument arsenal without your imaginary intellectual superiority? I don't know your background but you might be surprised to learn that I'm an environmental scientist and actually understand the principles you talk about above. However I also understand that the Earth is not a laboratory. When we pretend it is, we take simplistic ideas and expand them on a global level without a clue as to their significance in a complex, ever-changing system. Truth isn't a popularity contest. Popular science also believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, popular science has believed that the atom was the smallest particle, popular science has believed that the "Big Bang" was the beginning of the universe. If it makes you feel better to ride the bandwagon and convulse with hysterics every time a new study shows "The End is Near!" then by all means do so. Just don't get angry and pretend others who choose not to are intellectually inferior.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2015
I don't know your background but you might be surprised to learn that I'm an environmental scientist and actually understand the principles you talk about above.
If you were, then you would know better. You aren't, as is clear from your comments.
However blah balh **snip** blah blah.. Popular science also believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, popular science has believed that the atom was the smallest particle, popular science has believed that the "Big Bang" was the beginning of the universe.
SO there is no global warming because popular science was wrong once? A new one!
If it makes you feel better to ride the bandwagon and convulse with hysterics every time a new study shows "The End is Near!" then by all means do so. Just don't get angry and pretend others who choose not to are intellectually inferior.
Sloganeering.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
Jef,
Maggnus as of June of 2014 didn't know what a mole of a substance was. He's here, maybe even paid to be here, as paranoid as that sounds, to run people off the site. His answers never contain substance. Arguing with him will frustrate you, then make you look foolish because you realize how much time you wasted, then you won't sign on again-and he will still not have provided a single thing.
Some other usernames think he and stumpy are bots, or at least bots with minimal intervention, you note they quote a lot, they rephrase the quote mockingly.
Hit the ignore button.
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2015
Water_Prophet, thanks for the advice. I ran into the same situation with Stumpy and realized it was not worth my while to argue with him. He, like Magnus now, denied what I know I am on the grounds that I don't agree with their opinion on this matter. His above comment and your advice has motivated me to try out this "ignore" feature.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
flaw in your analogies
@jeff
the analogy is used to illustrate a point (pollution)
it was actually used because chlorine is toxic, or did you not comprehend that?
the above scientist saying that an increase 2 degrees C is too much and that 1.5 is far better is based on the false assumption that any change from our calculated averages is bad
do not misinterpret 2deg with the GLOBAL 2deg average, which is what science is talking about
Change is inevitable
never said it wasn't
however, this is forced change and it is also possibly dangerous
the danger is NOT in the change itself, but the speed and our inability to control the additional problems that are likely to crop up in light of the situation
here is a good article that talks about the speed problem

http://www.skepti...ycle.htm

there is plenty more
such as this problem: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
if you want to talk about living more lightly, energy efficiency, reducing true pollutants, then I'm all for it. I just don't want us to operate from the delusional premise that controlling CO2 emissions is somehow going to affect global temperatures
@jeff
that is exactly my point: living more lightly, energy efficient, as you put it
REDUCING pollutants...
the CO2 issue has serious problems WRT it's longevity and its cycle/feedback with WV... HOWEVER, the issue re: CO2 and controlling it is not about FIXING the global temp as much as it is about not making matters WORSE

hence MY ANALOGY... i know you didn't get that the first time
perhaps you will take another look at it again, instead of trying to sling stupid comments to a known TROLL like alkie/profit who is INTENTIONALLY trying to obfuscate the science behind AGW, and CLIMATE science

and that is a proven FACT
take the claims he has made to me and then read the studies
he lies and is debunked with the science
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
denied what I know I am on the grounds that I don't agree with their opinion on this matter.
@jeff
internet RULE 37
there are no (insert title here) on the internet

i don't CARE what you Proclaim to know by virtue of whatever experience, knowledge etc you are saying you have, because until it is verifiable, it is not only irrelevant, but it is also nothing more than conjecture at best, lies at worst (Usually lies)

taking that into consideration, you could claim to be a theoretical physicist
until i know it is true, you are nothing more than a trolling hack making a claim
PERIOD

just like alkie/profit/tyler above

he has talked about "debunking studies" for over a year
not one study he supposedly debunked is altered, changed, deleted, retracted or in any other way has different data than when i linked it initially
WHY?
obfuscation

you post what you want
i will provide links to studies etc that debunk your stupidity

for those who seek the SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
maybe even paid to be here, as paranoid as that sounds
@alkie/tyler/positum stultum prophetam
again, you are making claims that are only substantial in your own mind and have no basis in reality
case in point: you made claims that you debunked the following studies
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.scienc...full.pdf
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

why are there NO RETRACTIONS or changes to said studies?

your lies are based upon your work for obfuscation of science
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

BOTH use the ignore feature
that is the way all the pseudoscience trolls do it
your delusion sans refute only in your mind
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
@ maggnus... a NEW delusion!
jeffie said
Truth isn't a popularity contest. Popular science also believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, popular science has believed that the atom was the smallest particle, popular science has believed that the "Big Bang" was the beginning of the universe. If it makes you feel better to ride the bandwagon and convulse with hysterics every time a new study shows...
so it is argument from stupidity!!

because jeffy doesn't understand the scientific method, then people who DO understand it are clinging to false belief, in his words!
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

@jeffie
it is not about the "alarmist" political argument you are obviously trying to push
it is about THE SCIENCE

you should learn what the scientific method is
https://en.wikipe...c_method
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet, thanks for the advice. I ran into the same situation with Stumpy and realized it was not worth my while to argue with him. He, like Magnus now, denied what I know I am on the grounds that I don't agree with their opinion on this matter. His above comment and your advice has motivated me to try out this "ignore" feature.
OMG you are going to listen to the water pfftttt? The same one who pouted when he couldn't undermine what thermo was doing because he couldn't understand it, then tried to claim thermo changed something because he didn't understand what thermo was doing (he didn't change anything), then tried to pretend he won something (the exercise wasn't even 1/2 done), then claimed to quit, changed his name and pretended he was someone else to avoid answering the questions asked of him.

Well you fill your boots there jeffensley. You should hook up with the ubamoron too.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2015
jeffensley stated
Water_Prophet, thanks for the advice. I ran into the same situation with Stumpy and realized it was not worth my while to argue with him
jeffensley please please bear in mind re Water_Prophet makes lots of claims he's Never substantiated Eg

1 "4 technical degrees" incl Physical Chemistry
2 CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 when wiki shows 1.5W/m^2
3 His numbers agree with wiki
4 CO2 mostly from ocean "dead zones"
5 Nnot CO2 re AGW, its human generated heat being major cause of climate change
6 Business Uses his calculations
7 Doesnt read citations - ie refuses to Learn

jeffensley claimed
He, like Magnus now, denied what I know I am on the grounds that I don't agree with their opinion on this matter
Be careful, because opinions should be derived from rational deduction from Evidence !

jeffensley offered
His above comment and your advice has motivated me to try out this "ignore" feature
Careful U will miss Science details :-(
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
...Usually I derive my information from physical constants or physical properties
No, in fact Never.

Eg. U haven't EVER done that with CO2 when u claim its radiative forcing effect is a mere 0.00009 Watts per square meter when wiki link here shows ~1.5 Watts per square meter, some 16,666 times LARGER !
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

How COULD that be the case Water_Prophet, your guessed figures are way TOO Low ?

I've asked u this often but, u cannot ever substantiate your claims, why ?

Water_Prophet claimed
For example, say you have a glass full of water and ice. It is all at 0C.
If I were careful, I could melt all the ice and not raise the temperature
No, as a claimed uni graduate of "4 technical degrees" u need details of your claim, eg Issue of conduction re the glass, its thermal resistivity AND the associated convection & radiation of the air its exposed to !

Y don't U prove ANY of your claims ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. if a tiny change in a perfectly normal gas teeters us over the edge, it would've happened a million times
Eh - what 'edge' ?
Where is evidence for the 'million times' & 'edge ?

Water_Prophet claimed
..Sun presents ~255Watts/m2 to the Earth on average. The Sun's cycle changes in cycles about every 11 years, by about 1/1000th of this, and this is responsible for those characteristic pieces of climate change
If that were true we would see an 11 yr cycle, we dont, proof here:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

Water_Prophet claimed
.. 1/10000th of the total energy of the Sun... enough to describe climate change (consider it's mostly in N. America), that we do see, and not be destroying major parts of the planet?
U ignored CO2 at 1.5W/m^2 - why is that ?

Water_Prophet claimed
..claim the effects of CO2 are, it would be devastating. If it were smaller, it would not have an impact
Y can't u show it ?
Skepticus_Rex
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
[quote]No & not by any means.[/quote]

Actually, waterprophet is somewhat correct in his claims. It is true that this can be done in varying ways. I can destroy the Kilimanjaro glaciers and let the Sun sublimate them away forever simply by chopping down every tree around Kilimanjaro. Kilimanjaro began losing its glaciers in the 1950s and it turned out that it wasn't climate change doing it. Kilimanjaro never rose above freezing and the glaciers showed signs of sublimation. It turned out to be poor land-use management in removing trees that were supplying Kilimanjaro with water vapor all this time. Now that they know the main cause, they have been replanting the area around Kilimanjaro with trees, hoping to help.

I can make Arctic ice go away, too, by sending icebreakers through the ice as it is forming and by additionally sending clouds of soot into the ice, and this could be done without raising temperatures. Not sure what he would say but that is how I would do it.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2015
Not so fast, everyone--

Since Water_Prophet --aka-- Whiffen_Poof, had the pleasure of making the first comment:

Would everyone PLEASE consider I could melt all the ice on Earth, create massive deserts, change climates, all without changing the temperature at all.


I think it only fair that we all lend our ears.

Tell us then, Whiffen_Poof--

By exactly what means or mechanism, that is in the present, or has been in the past, or may again be in the future, could you produce such a marvelous and complete melting, without changing the [GLOBAL] temperature, AT ALL?

Please DO tell us, not by analogy, but by exactly what physical process.

We are all ears.

jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
jeffensley offered
His above comment and your advice has motivated me to try out this "ignore" feature
Careful U will miss Science details :-(


Had he offered something besides a personal attack on my degree and current profession then perhaps I wouldn't have to make use of the feature. Once it gets to that point however there is no context for a rational discussion.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
because jeffy doesn't understand the scientific method, then people who DO understand it are clinging to false belief, in his words!
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF


Jeffy! Oh that's amazingly clever and cute. Suddenly your argument caries sooo much more merit ;) Just out of curiosity, how many credit hours did you accrue in the lab in college? I'd have to pull up my transcript but I spent an amazing number of hours in the lab working on everything from microbiology to chemistry to stream ecology, soils, aquatic macroinvertebrates, physics etc. Don't tell me I don't understand the scientific method just because your ego can't comprehend how an educated person isn't jumping on the panic party wagon.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
jeffensley replied
Had he offered something besides a personal attack on my degree and current profession then perhaps I wouldn't have to make use of the feature
Havent been looking at interaction between u & Water_Prophet. He's stated he needed me to show him first, so I did: I studied at Curtin University in Western Australia, EE 1976, BaSci 2008, food science 2010 my student number 07602128, moniker here is my name, so easy to check :-)

But in response Water_Prophet, although implying he would prove, fails to.

This makes him completely disingenuous & given his other posts an outright liar !

jeffensley added
Once it gets to that point however there is no context for a rational discussion.
Therefore best to focus on the Science, especially technical re physics & the issue of CO2's radiative forcing.

Water_Prophet lurched claiming "4 technical degrees" only when he was challenged re an erroneous claim.

Since you mention a degree, what & when please ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Skepticus_Rex claimed
Actually, waterprophet is somewhat correct in his claims. It is true that this can be done in varying ways. I can destroy the Kilimanjaro glaciers and let the Sun sublimate them away forever simply by chopping down every tree around Kilimanjaro
No. Because in order to deliver heat necessary u have to contain it & deal with reflection & the main issues re physics, Heat; Conduction, convection & radiation, sorry.

If u have a methodology, would be keen to see, as it might be the basis for a product :-)

Skepticus_Rex continued
I can make Arctic ice go away, too, by sending icebreakers through the ice as it is forming and by additionally sending clouds of soot into the ice, and this could be done without raising temperatures.
Well I hope u know that breaking ice is NOT the same as applying immense heat to melt it. Adding soot will take LONG time to absorb heat as at pole ie MUCH less Insolation, + issues re Heat as per my 1st para...
fay
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
from my first hand experience, the skeptics usually dont deny "warming" because of the science but because of the economy.
No one would give two ****s about reducing co2 if it wasnt so painful; if we want to reduce co2 to pre industrial levels we either have to go back to pre-industrial age, which is not possible, or we have to jump to "future age" where we make feasible energy without co2, which is again not possible (we dont have the tech yet).
Simply put, I dont really doubt rising co2 will change the climate, i just dont want to do anything about it because action reduces my quality of life. And i also doubt the change must be as catastrophic as believers put it, we are humans, we will simply cope with no matter what comes.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2015
fay claimed
No one would give two ****s about reducing co2 if it wasnt so painful; if we want to reduce co2 to pre industrial levels we either have to go back to pre-industrial age, which is not possible, or we have to jump to "future age" where we make feasible energy without co2, which is again not possible (we dont have the tech yet)
Incorrect. We do have the tech but, not widely distributed & has to compete with subsidized coal/oil. There's immense coal/oil infrastructure which impedes via traditional inertia. There's also non-weaponisable Thorium reactors definitely worthy of trial but which compete with momentum of uranium based nuclear & fukushima didn't help one bit :-(

fay claimed
.. dont want to do anything about it because action reduces my quality of life
No, doesn't have to.

fay
And i also doubt the change must be as catastrophic as believers put it, we are humans, we will simply cope with no matter what comes
Depends, where/wealth etc.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
Jef, good luck with Caliban and Mike_Massen, notice the similarity in their writing styles. I'm not saying they're the same person, but do you see how they protect each other? I ignore them, they give AGWers a bad name.
Honestly I think it is either a band of pathetic cyber bullies, or one really pathetic cyber bully. They can be ID by referencing skepticalscience.com, a personal website created by a cartoonist turned AGWer.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Jef, good luck with Caliban and Mike_Massen, notice the similarity in their writing styles. I'm not saying they're the same person, but do you see how they protect each other? I ignore them, they give AGWers a bad name
You STILL havent proven ANY off your claims !

Y is that ?

All it takes is YOU to prove your "4 technical degrees" & working of CO2's R.forcing ?

Y can't U ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Honestly I think it is either a band of pathetic cyber bullies, or one really pathetic cyber bully
You have NEVER been honest by all account, you make ill thought sporadic claims which U never prove, show or reference sources - Why ?

Water_Prophet claimed
They can be ID by referencing skepticalscience.com, a personal website created by a cartoonist turned AGWer.
No, not me, I live in Perth, Western Australia and went to Curtin University student 07602128 And studied many EE, BaSci, Food Science.

Water_Prophet cannot prove a thing !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
The article should read "2 degrees is utterly irrelevant," average temperature is a result of an equilibrium.

We need to understand all the factors that contribute to that equilibrium. Understand what it means, how it changes.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
The article should read "2 degrees is utterly irrelevant," average temperature is a result of an equilibrium.
We need to understand all the factors that contribute to that equilibrium. Understand what it means, how it changes
Hypocrisy yet AGAIN Water_Prophet !

Why don't U understand & accept your claims for CO2's radiative forcing are wrong ?

They are out by a factor of 16,666 times - didn't U bother to actually check ?

Show your working please & the claimed "4 technical degrees" u say you got ?

You realise that your credibility is at an all time low, you make claims u cannot prove !

so sad
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
Mike,
My four degrees was submitted in a conversation of trust you were only a voyeur to. Beyond that, I have no further intention of proving it. I proved my technical degrees to thermodynamics, you want proof, talk to him, if that ain't good enough, let's face it, a weasel like yourself won't accept anything.
Or, since you know my name, just google that with the word, "predictive," and if you believe that I can get so many accolades from so many experts in so many fields sans a degree, well, that's even MORE impressive isn't it? It would make me a peer of Michael Faraday.
So, yeah, I not only have degrees (only 3 are technical), but I am a fairly reknown scientist.

You have as much right to criticize me as your average flea.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
I find it bizarre that some people are so steeped in their ideological dogma that they refuse to consider the findings of thousands of people trained to make findings,
Here in lies the greatest and most repeated fallacy of the AGWites. You think a bandwagon fallacy is somehow convincing, or even relevant.

"argumentum ad populum[/url] (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so.'"

http://en.wikiped..._populum

jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Therefore best to focus on the Science, especially technical re physics & the issue of CO2's radiative forcing.


Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I understand that. In principle, it allows more heat energy to enter the atmosphere than it allows to escape. Very handy for a planet harboring life in the cold vastness of space. It's one of MANY forces that decide the overall "heat" content of our planet.

Problem 1 with AGW - Calculating the current temperature of the Earth, just to have a number to compare to. Coming up with such a number has only been attempted in recent decades and it's quite a daunting task. We've only just begun attempting to quantify sea heat and even now are making only haphazard guesses at it via interpolation. And I've heard nothing about attempts to quantify heat within the Earth itself. As daunting as that is, it pales in comparison to Problem 2.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
My four degrees was submitted in a conversation of trust you were only a voyeur to
No.

U did it publicly for all @ phys.org, r u so dimwitted u ignoramus ?

Water_Prophet
Beyond that, I have no further intention of proving it
Ah the LIAR runs !

Water_Prophet claimed
I proved my technical degrees to thermodynamics, you want proof, talk to him, if that ain't good enough, let's face it, a weasel..
No. U have NO proof.

I accept evidentiary physics & evidence from the educational institute where u claimed u studied, none of which u EVER responded with. YOU complete LIAR & FAKE !

You Water_Prophet are an utter LIAR, the evidence shows unequivocally !

Why are your "4 technical degrees" not espoused on your facebook page:-
https://www.faceb...er/about

Caught Again :-(

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
And I've heard nothing about attempts to quantify heat within the Earth itself.

That's only because you haven't bothered to look (e.g., http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). The increasing amount of heat is one of the ways that we know that global warming hasn't stopped. And satellite measurements confirm this (http://www.grandk...ange.pdf ). And, of course, surface measurements also confirm that the extra warming is primarily caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (http://www.skepti...red.html ).
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Problem 2 - "Calculating" (yes the quotes are intentional) heat prior to times of direct observation, which is only a century and a half ago. Prior to these times, we make best guesses based on the inexact sciences of tree ring width and oxygen isotope ratios. These both operate off of many ASSUMPTIONS. The numbers they come up with should not be considered fact, they should be recognized for what they are... best guesses.

So now we have two questionable sets of data from which we now draw the conclusion that the Earth is in a precipitous spiral toward becoming an uninhabitable steam bath, ignoring the context of its past.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
I believe systems (aka the miracle of life) are already in place to "check" change. If not, more drastic checks will take place via population reduction (lots of us die) till it's able to reach its balance again. It sounds cold perhaps but it's a simple reality.

The technology to replace fossil fuels is NOT there though I hope we continue to conduct the research to find these miracle sources. Anyone touting nuclear is ignoring the very direct environmental cost of mining it and the consequences of catastrophic accidents. Solar has a long way to go. Hopefully we continue to create more efficient silicon-based cells. The rare-Earth ones simply can't be produced in sufficient quantities and the attempt to do so would mean rampant mining. Ethanol is a fine example of what happens when governments get involved in energy. You get a fuel with less energy than gasoline that is amazingly corrosive to the metals that hold and transmit it yet I doubt subsidies for it will ever go away now.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2015
The numbers they come up with should not be considered fact, they should be recognized for what they are... best guesses.

Given that you've indicated that you're not very familiar with climate science, do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
So now we have two questionable sets of data from which we now draw the conclusion that the Earth is in a precipitous spiral toward becoming an uninhabitable steam bath, ignoring the context of its past.

Except, of course, that the science states clearly that we will not come anywhere near "an uninhabitable steam bath" (among other reasons, because water vapor can't sustain it's own level in the atmosphere). As you say, you're not very familiar with climate science at all. Why are you bothering to comment about something you're not familiar with?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
Jeff, you've been reading the press reports.
We can quantify our effect on the environment.
We can calculate how much heat we release.
We can calculate how that relates to how much ice has melted via, the 6 cm rise in sea level. 6cm x area of the ocean x heat of fusion for ice.
All we need IS in front of us, if we know what to look for. The fallacy of comparing of comparing Earth now to as it was is exposed by simply examining situations:

Something always causes the change. Whether man, volcanoes, the evolution of blue-green algae, etc., the way to untie the Gordian Knot of climate change is only to investigate what could or does change climate now.

V/R
jeffensley
2.1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
So with all of the above in mind, we have alarmists who level insults at those who question the science of and possible political "solutions" to AGW, as if looming catastrophe is a fact and the answer to our energy needs is already there waiting and we are simply choosing to ignore it. Keeping in mind that stopping the use of fossil fuels entirely does not mean that CO2 concentrations will drop or there will be some "leveling" of temperatures. We are not at the helm of the climate. As mentioned before, there are many more factors at work in deciding the temperature of the Earth outside our contribution to the trace gas CO2, 99% of which we have no control of whatsoever. So, do we want to be more efficient and find new energy sources? Absolutely! Do we do it in the name of "OMG we're all gonna die because climate change!" or do we do it because it's in our best interest, acknowledging that we really aren't in control but will do the best we can? Definitely the latter.
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Given that you've indicated that you're not very familiar with climate science, do you have any evidence to back up your claim?


How do you disprove something without reference data to which to compare it? With guessing (modelling) inaccuracies are inherent. The climate is not a laboratory.

Except, of course, that the science states clearly that we will not come anywhere near "an uninhabitable steam bath" (among other reasons, because water vapor can't sustain it's own level in the atmosphere). As you say, you're not very familiar with climate science at all. Why are you bothering to comment about something you're not familiar with?


You've taken what was intended as an obvious exaggeration of AGW fear and are trying to use it to discredit my opinions on the subject. Sorry, no go.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Jeff, you've been reading the press reports.
We can quantify our effect on the environment.
We can calculate how much heat we release.
We can calculate how that relates to how much ice has melted via, the 6 cm rise in sea level. 6cm x area of the ocean x heat of fusion for ice.
All we need IS in front of us, if we know what to look for. The fallacy of comparing of comparing Earth now to as it was is exposed by simply examining situations:

Something always causes the change. Whether man, volcanoes, the evolution of blue-green algae, etc., the way to untie the Gordian Knot of climate change is only to investigate what could or does change climate now.

V/R


"Calculate" and "quantify" on the climate scale equals best guess. Sorry, there is no arguing this. Just because we come up with a pretty number doesn't mean said number has any validity.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
The technology to replace fossil fuels is NOT there though I hope we continue to conduct the research to find these miracle sources. Anyone touting nuclear is ignoring the very direct environmental cost of mining it and the consequences of catastrophic accidents. Solar has a long way to go. Hopefully we continue to create more efficient silicon-based cells.....

Solar PV is already competitive and the battery/capacitor/storage tech will come along. Just last week I read of a new method of fabricating Li-Ion batteries with a metal subtrate that doubles the storage capacity. I've watched a piece today about tidal lagoons around Wales, each having the power of a coal-fired station. The ability is there already, all it need is the imperative to build them. The fuel is free after all ... for ever, it's the infrastructure that costs and it is a necessity for subsidy to initiate investment. I for one, regard it as my duty to contribute some tax to tackle the problem.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
Solar PV is already competitive and the battery/capacitor/storage tech will come along. Just last week I read of a new method of fabricating Li-Ion batteries with a metal subtrate that doubles the storage capacity.


I guess I'm not sure exactly what competitive means but I do know we need to come up with better means to store energy. Li-based stuff is not going to work in the long term because of it's scarcity. Last time I researched solar, the rare earth cells were far more efficient than the silicon ones. We need to be able to rely on cells that use common materials that aren't toxic to the Earth. I'll definitely look up the tidal lagoons.
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2015
Since you mention a degree, what & when please ?


B.S. Environmental Science (Aquatic Resources Focus) , Virginia Tech 1999
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Jef, good luck with Caliban and Mike_Massen, notice the similarity in their writing styles. I'm not saying they're the same person, but do you see how they protect each other? I ignore them, they give AGWers a bad name.
Honestly I think it is either a band of pathetic cyber bullies, or one really pathetic cyber bully. They can be ID by referencing skepticalscience.com, a personal website created by a cartoonist turned AGWer.


Natch.

SHOW US THE MECHANISM, Whiffen_Poof.

@jeff --do you notice the similarity between Whiffen_Poof and a stupidiot?

Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015

I guess I'm not sure exactly what competitive means but I do know we need to come up with better means to store energy. Li-based stuff is not going to work in the long term because of it's scarcity. Last time I researched solar, the rare earth cells were far more efficient than the silicon ones. We need to be able to rely on cells that use common materials that aren't toxic to the Earth. I'll definitely look up the tidal lagoons.


That would be cost "competitive" wrt other means of producing energy(you know --fossil fuel-derived energy?).

Nice try at establishing a credible, scientific and objective persona, @jeff.

Please accept my apology if your lack of understanding arises from simple ignorance --which can be readily corrected by doing a little reading.

Theoretically, that's why you are here. Time will tell, of course, but your comments so far don't inspire any confidence in either your honesty, objectivity, or scientific understanding.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
That would be cost "competitive" wrt other means of producing energy(you know --fossil fuel-derived energy?).

Nice try at establishing a credible, scientific and objective persona, @jeff.

Please accept my apology if your lack of understanding arises from simple ignorance --which can be readily corrected by doing a little reading.


Ahh more unprovoked pretentious douchebaggery. You obviously have no interest in rational discussion and are far more concerned with maintaining your ego-centric pretense of intellectual superiority. Good luck with that. I doubt middle school insults are going to get you very far except with the most immature and passive-aggressive of the crowd. Grow up, kiddo.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Jef, good luck with Caliban and Mike_Massen, notice the similarity in their writing styles. I'm not saying they're the same person, but do you see how they protect each other? I ignore them, they give AGWers a bad name.
Honestly I think it is either a band of pathetic cyber bullies, or one really pathetic cyber bully. They can be ID by referencing skepticalscience.com, a personal website created by a cartoonist turned AGWer.


Funny, I was prepared to completely ignore this comment but Caliban's most recent unprovoked hissy fit confirms that one of the above two isn't trying (or isn't capable) of intelligent conversation.
fay
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
those who say renewables are competitive should do a thorough reality check. Come live to europe, where the poor subsidy PV installations owned by the rich, and are forced to for decades to come. And thats even single digit % of energy produced by renewables, what would happen if we wanted to produce 90%? If the renewables were competitive they wouldnt need subsidies, it cant get simpler than that.
Once again im writing this based on reality i see when paying energy bills (i live in EU), not on some green dreams: renewables arent (yet) an option to base the economy on. Im proponent of nuclear but its not that cheap either (eg UK plants currently being built).
What makes me a true skeptic is the action taken so far - germans swithing from nuclear to coal and calling it green, money wastefuly thrown into electrocars which absolutely no one wants (no wonder), banning some electro appliances etc... it would be better if we did nothing instead of doing these crazy things
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015

What makes me a true skeptic is the action taken so far - germans swithing from nuclear to coal and calling it green, money wastefuly thrown into electrocars which absolutely no one wants (no wonder), banning some electro appliances etc... it would be better if we did nothing instead of doing these crazy things.

it really does amaze me that these sorts of comments are made. Why on earth, would you expect new tech based on green energy to market penetrate/be competive/be the copmplete answer straight out of the box? Why on earth, would you expect anything to be an instant answer to this complicated problem.
What you descibe is the teething problems of an emerging paradime. I wish life were as you seem to think it should be but it's not. Some of use realise that. Some pain/expense is enevitable, but diddums - we (collectively) have bloody well earned it. And some continue to earn it with knobs on.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2015
@unavontuba

To you have an answer for the lies you posted at:http://phys.org/n...ts.html#
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
Fay, unsure what your point is: Food is subsidized, oil is subsidized. Virtually all commodities are.

Oil's only advantage is is that it is a product. You can see it being dug up, track it being shipped, and sell it before it is consumed.
No such economic advantage to renewables. I am convinced it is psychological... I think we should just put a tax on renewables. They tax you income, unjustly, some feel, why not your solar or other energy production.

Am I close?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015

Funny, I was prepared to completely ignore this comment but Caliban's most recent unprovoked hissy fit confirms that one of the above two isn't trying (or isn't capable) of intelligent conversation.


Sad, isn't it? I think the reason Uba and others think they are bots, is that they are incapable of change. Very like a robot or program.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
Just out of curiosity, what are those most reactive to AGW theories looking for from society, governments, etc?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
Well, I've been campaigning for years, I guess that makes me reactive to AGW.
I believe that CO2 is a redherring to get people into inaction.

I believe it's the heat, qv above, that is doing it, something unique to "reactive AGWers," I'm only encouraged because the deniers and AGWers alike only recently (by my watch) admitted the poles melting was a climate impact, and I'd been saying this for 30 years.

So what would I like to see happen, simple: Supplement fossil fuels, which have unrivaled ability for power convenience, with personal home wind generators; cheap, 1920's technology, and solar for lighting etc..
Really, you can buy those solar lights for your yard, but can't buy a rig-up system for your home?
V/R
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
How do you disprove something without reference data to which to compare it? With guessing (modelling) inaccuracies are inherent. The climate is not a laboratory.

Physics is physics is physics is physics. Physical relationships that are true today were also true thousands of years ago. The fact that a number of different, independent lines of evidence arrive at the same conclusions also give support. Claiming that modeling is equivalent to guessing with no evidence to back up that claim is nonsense. Especially when the results of modeling have been very successful to date.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
You've taken what was intended as an obvious exaggeration of AGW fear and are trying to use it to discredit my opinions on the subject. Sorry, no go.

Ah, so you agree that you made up the whole thing. Good to hear you admit that you're wrong. But look at it from the pro-science side: You made up the bit about climate science claiming that the warming will create "an uninhabitable steam bath". And you argued out of ignorance that modeling = guessing, a claim that you are unable to support with any facts or data. And you admitted that you weren't knowledgeable on recent developments in climate science. How about in the future you mark which of your claims are made up and which are based on your ignorance of climate science?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
"Calculate" and "quantify" on the climate scale equals best guess. Sorry, there is no arguing this. Just because we come up with a pretty number doesn't mean said number has any validity.

Negative, there are some things we can quantify. We can quantify the amount of radiative forcing produced by CO2, it's actually pretty easy.
We can quantify how much fuel we burn, we can quantify 6cm of sea level rise.

Why this brings contention and not answers if the real question.

Things like why we measure CO2 from an increasingly active volcano, and pretend it has no effect. Why CO2 hasn't gone up since 2007 (a Global Warning), when it was supposed to cresendo, etc..

Why the non-sense, when there are simple answers?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015

Ahh more unprovoked pretentious douchebaggery. You obviously have no interest in rational discussion and are far more concerned with maintaining your ego-centric pretense of intellectual superiority. Good luck with that. I doubt middle school insults are going to get you very far except with the most immature and passive-aggressive of the crowd. Grow up, kiddo.


Funny, I was prepared to completely ignore this comment but Caliban's most recent unprovoked hissy fit confirms that one of the above two isn't trying (or isn't capable) of intelligent conversation.


Stings a bit, does it, jeff?

All we've seen so far are comments from a user that speaks with what is hoped we will believe is superior knowledge to everyone else --lifelong climate scientist and layman alike-- that are littered with generalities and inaccuracies.

This produces an effect opposite that which you hope to create.

But do go on --there's plenty of rope left.

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
We can quantify our effect on the environment.
We can calculate how much heat we release.
We can calculate how that relates to how much ice has melted via, the 6 cm rise in sea level. 6cm x area of the ocean x heat of fusion for ice.
All we need IS in front of us, if we know what to look for. ..
Something always causes the change. Whether man, volcanoes, the evolution of blue-green algae, etc., the way to untie the Gordian Knot of climate change is only to investigate what could or does change climate now
Why can't YOU properly quantify and PROVE your claims eg that CO2's forcing is as little as 0.00009W/m^2 when wiki, which you claim is in "great agreement" is a whopping 16,666 times greater at 1.5W/m^2 ?

Y do u Water_Prophet, tell whoppers of lies & Y so often ?

Where did u get your claimed "4 technical degrees", institute & year started please ?

Y doesn't your facebook page show it ?
https://www.faceb...er/about
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Sad, isn't it? I think the reason Uba and others think they are bots, is that they are incapable of change. Very like a robot or program
You Water_Prophet are the robot, not able to learn how to correctly calculate CO2's effect !

You robotically trot out claim after claim, most are egotistical without anything substantive & CANNOT respond properly to qualify ANY of your claims, it makes u look AGAIN as a LIAR !

Isn't this the behaviour of a badly programmed robot ?

Why is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Why can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Why can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Why don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Profit ?

Why can't u answer simple questions a uni graduate (as you claim) can easily ?

so sad
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Well, I've been campaigning for years, I guess that makes me reactive to AGW.
I believe that CO2 is a redherring to get people into inaction
Yet NO proof of your belief & especially so as wiki, which u claim agrees with you, shows 1.5W/m^2.

Thats a pretty fat red-herring, does this mean you are immensely fatuous ?

Water_Prophet claimed
I believe it's the heat, qv above, that is doing it...
So WHY can't you prove it, show the working for your CO2 radiative forcing & compare with human's heat flux ?

Water_Prophet claimed
So what would I like to see happen..V/R
I'd like to see you FOR ONCE prove your claim CO2's radiative forcing is only 0.00009W/m^2 - can u do that ?

And explain why you 'believe' wiki's of 1.5W/m^2 is in "great agreement" - can U do that ?

Can u explain why your figure is 16,666 times LESS than wikis u claim is in agreement ?

Lottsa claims U cannot prove Water_Prophet ?

Y is that, r u religious ie "beliefs" ?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
@Mike, re-post this for jeffie
Had he offered something besides a personal attack on my degree and current profession then perhaps I wouldn't have to make use of the feature
@Jeffie
had you proved you had the credentials and were able to provide empirical evidence of your degree and current profession, i think it would be far easier to believe that particular claim
rule 37 - it started out as a Meme, joke, etc, but it is far more accurate than you assume: there are no (insert profession here0 on the internet
I have NO way of determining you are who you say you are
AND i never attacked your degree in this thread till after your post to WP: ignore

Also- i find it hard to believe a scientist would make blatantly false claims
that is not an attack on your profession, but your argument

feel free to continue posting
when you post stupidity, it WILL be attacked for what it is
that isn't going to change even if you are the pope
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Water_Prophet put his foot right in
Negative, there are some things we can quantify. We can quantify the amount of radiative forcing produced by CO2, it's actually pretty easy
Good but,

Why havent u shown Y your claimed figure of 0.00009 is 16,666 times LOWER than wiki's ?

Water_Prophet claimed
We can quantify how much fuel we burn, we can quantify 6cm of sea level rise
These are all simple things and data available but, why can't u show how you calculate CO2's radiative forcing and WHY its so very small ?

Has your belief trounced an ability to do maths ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Things like why we measure CO2 from an increasingly active volcano, and pretend it has no effect
You don't understand instrumentation & the timing of measurements re prevailing winds & where is proof its "increasingly active" ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Why CO2 hasn't gone up since 2007 (a Global Warning)
It has
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

The LIAR, so sad
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
how many credit hours did you accrue in the lab in college?
@jeffie
I thought you said i was on ignore?
you are acting like a child troll, i will treat you like one

also, considering you've never been able to provide evidence of your claims of "degree's" etc... then what is the problem?
if you can't prove it, it aint real
internet rule 37 again
I'd have to pull up my transcript
Ok. link it here or contact me at SciForums and PM the link
TruckCaptainStumpy
if you want to argue from authority, you must FIRST establish your authority
Don't tell me I don't understand the scientific method just because your ego can't comprehend how an educated person isn't jumping on the panic party wagon
then try giving an argument that is not a political, religious, conspiracy or other troll argument
you are NOT the only educated person here
there is a difference between the "wagon" and following the science
and you are confusing the two

pull your head out
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Captain Stumpy observed
@Mike, re-post this for jeffie
Had he offered something besides a personal attack on my degree and current profession then perhaps I wouldn't have to make use of the feature
I don't see where Water_Prophet attacked his degree maybe, he did because it did include Physics but, I get the impression Jeff has negligible Physics background even as pre-requisites to understand the environment is based upon Physics & Chemistry...

@jeffensley
Where & when you obtained degree in "Environment Science" (ES) ?

I'm curious also because I occasionally give career advice but, here in Australia ES at university requires some good physics re heat & experimental methodology.

Is that not the case in USA jeffensley, can you respond please ?

Captain Stumpy noted
AND i never attacked your degree in this thread till after your post to WP
jeffensley, when someone makes claims sidestepping an issue (eg WP), one wonders !

So which uni/when please ?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
These both operate off of many ASSUMPTIONS. The numbers they come up with should not be considered fact, they should be recognized for what they are... best guesses
@jeffie
now, you just told me you studied physics... but now you are presenting a creationist argument against physics

Also (even though you claimed to have plenty of lab time, physics etc) there are error bars in said measured temps

are you sure you actually went to college?
or are you parroting another site again?

then you follow up with a "STRAIGHT out of the creationist handbook" comment
I believe systems (aka the miracle of life) are already in place to "check" change
WTF?
are you educated or a sky faerie addict?

and yes, i am intentionally being vituperative considering the creationist/7th day adventist arguments are completely debunked USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
jeffensley asked
Just out of curiosity, what are those most reactive to AGW theories looking for from society, governments, etc?
Those most reactive to the data re AGW are from uneducated deniers, they react badly trying to sidestep physics & then react from a political bent whilst not addressing the Science.

You as a claimed Environment Scientist Can I hope evaluate the Physics head on ?

Eg. Can any 'reactive' person to AGW address this straightforward question:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with well known & irrefutable thermal properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Related links to CO2 its thermal resistivity is not only a theory its been proven as fact !
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Latest temp http://images.rem...ies.html

As an ES are you up to speed on IR radiative emissions, ie absorbancy/re-radiation ?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
I don't see where Water_Prophet attacked his degree maybe,
@Mike
actually, he was saying i attacked his degree
he was making an argument from authority but was not actually making a logical argument (and if you will notice, i didn't attack his degree or credibility in this thread till after he made that post)...
I was actually hoping you would copy the whole post, but that is OK... he said i was on ignore, but i don't think i am

He is making a LOT of claims that are far more in line with CREATIONIST dogma at the moment... but i haven't gotten that far down the thread yet... just to the last creationist claim he made regarding the physics of historical temp data...
That whole "the historical temps are not right because" argument of his smacks of creationist delusion, right down to the argument as well as the follow up i posted above...

what do you think Mike?
Would a degree'd pro scientist/science field specialist really make such a blatantly false claim?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
level insults at those who question the science of and possible political "solutions" to AGW, as if looming catastrophe is a fact and the answer to our energy needs is already there waiting and we are simply choosing to ignore it
@jeffie
logical fallacy as well as ASSumptions not based upon evidence
You are not questioning the science, you're parroting denier arguments
BIG DIFFERENCE

although i might agree somewhat on the nuke thing, i think the problem is not so much that the answers to our energy needs aren't there as we have a "throw-away" society that is incredibly wasteful of its resources

case in point: there are people who live with less than 10% of the daily energy output of the typical US citizen, and still have all the luxuries

so, in a way, we really ARE choosing to ignore a lot of things because it would "inconvenience" us too much
obvious exaggeration of AGW fear
and yet, a potential outcome for unchecked pollution of our environment
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
I guess I'm not sure exactly what competitive means but I do know we need to come up with better means to store energy
@Jeff
it means that you can run a house and create all your own electricity for the most part very cheaply using solar... like i pointed out, there are some who do exactly that and still have the luxuries

And we really DO need better storage
B.S. Environmental Science (Aquatic Resources Focus) , Virginia Tech 1999
i would refrain from producing ANYTHING more revealing about yourself
Rule 37 ... you really don't know who you are talking to at all

Plenty of trolls are out there willing to track you down
if you are going to share info, i would use PM functions or e-mail
not public postings unless you are ready to field internet abuse as well as possibly have someone on your doorstep

I don't mind people trying that, but i am also very capable of defending myself
and i have experience
You should not post more publicly
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Captain Stumpy offered
@Mike
actually, he was saying i attacked his degree.
Ah I see, yes jeffensley doesn't seem to write like anyone who has uni experience, it might be his style to dumb things down for observers but, I am patient & sympathetic to 'artistic license' :-)
I was actually hoping you would copy the whole post, but that is OK
Um, u mean his post, if u havent ignored him then u would see it & u can see your own, did u mean other thread ?
He is making a LOT of claims that are far more in line with CREATIONIST dogma at the moment.
Yes I've noticed that also there are those that start with something vaguely on Science then attempt a subtle shift, they appear to operate to an unscientific agenda
what do you think Mike?
Would a degree'd pro scientist/science field specialist really make such a blatantly false claim?
So far, his approach isnt that consistent with education as an "Environmental Scientist" but, maybe he's trying too hard ;-)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
@Vietvet
(D)o you have an answer for the lies you posted at:http://phys.org/n...hts.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Corrected repost:

@Vietvet

(D)o you have an answer for the lies you posted at:http://phys.org/n...hts.html#]http://phys.org/n...ts.html#[/url]
How can I, when I posted no lies? ...But I do have an answer for your stupidity.

Check it out:

http://phys.org/n...hts.html

angus143
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
@Water_Prophet Listen, we literally don't have any time to sit around waiting for you to stop denying man-made climate change. 
Climate science is rooted in the basics of physics and chemistry and experiments started on this almost 200 years ago. You might see some aspect of the science being questioned in the news, but that can't affect the core, because the core is so grounded in what science knows, that science would have to tear up most chemistry and physics text books to be wrong.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Angus, I was PROMOTING climate change when the majority was still laughing at it.
Wake up and read before you go making accusations that prove you don't.
Or suggest that you're another sock-puppet.

Climate change has a metric in sea rise.
It has a metric in fossil fuels consumed.
It has no detectable metric in CO2 (to 400ppm, 0.01% delta), or the 3 fold more change in water vapor (~20000ppm and a 0.04% delta).

Water vapor is far more powerful than CO2, and in the lower atmosphere much more prevalent and important. In the upper atmosphere, above 2000ft, it is still 5.5x more prevalent, and remains ~40x more powerful.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
@Water_Prophet Listen, we literally don't have any time to sit around waiting for you to stop denying man-made climate change. 
Climate science is rooted in the basics of physics and chemistry and experiments started on this almost 200 years ago. You might see some aspect of the science being questioned in the news, but that can't affect the core, because the core is so grounded in what science knows, that science would have to tear up most chemistry and physics text books to be wrong.

Water Pfffttt doesn't deny mad-made climate change, he just thinks it is the result of mechanical heating of the atmosphere, not CO2 driven.

You are certainly right about the rest though, and this includes his bizarre claim that CO2 driven warming isn't far more important than mechanical heating. He has a really poor understanding of the physics supporting CO2 driven warming, and nothing anyone says or shows him makes any difference. He has decided he knows, and facts be damned.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
It was 1997 before the environmental community started taking polar melting seriously, something I'd been arguing with environmentalists about for 10 years prior. It's only been a few years since this site has acknowledged it, AND although I've been saying the ocean and indeed the hydrothermal cycle is very important since I got on the site, all these AGWers keep rubbing it in my face as if I didn't claim it before all these articles that came to their rescue in the face of this pause.

The pause, by the way can be a few things; the approach to equilibrium as a result of the China's increase in fossil fuel use, an increase in the melting of polar ice, the ocean absorbing the heat and related ocean currents.

The intelligent AGWers on the site claim the ocean buffers 4000x what the atmosphere does, yet somehow they can't agree...
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
I don't know why such misinformation as this bothers me to the point where I feel the need to point out the inaccuracies and untruths, but here you have it:
It was 1997 before the environmental community started taking polar melting seriously, something I'd been arguing with environmentalists about for 10 years prior. It's only been a few years since this site has acknowledged it...
In the 1960's the first serious warnings about the loss of the polar ice caps were made. (Nye, J.F. (1960). "The Response of Glaciers and Ice-Sheets to Seasonal and Climatic Changes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A256: 559-84. and Hollin, John T. (1962). "On the Glacial History of Antarctica." J. Glaciology 4: 173-95.) and there were suggestions that such a problem could arise from well before that, as this from the 1940's indicates: ("Warming Arctic climate melting glaciers faster, raising ocean level, scientist says," New York Times, May 30, 1947.). ...cont...
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Water vapor is far more powerful than CO2
@alkie/positum stultum prophetam TROLL
if only there were studies that could show us why the CO2 is fingered as the temperature control knob...
OH WAIT! THERE IS!
http://www.scienc...abstract

Hold on a minute... you said you "refuted" this study
How come there are no retractions, changes or alterations to it?
How come there is no shredded chemistry, physics or climate science texts around the world based upon your "comments" here?

maybe because you post unsubstantiated CONJECTURE?
Or suggest that you're another sock-puppet
if course you would...
even though YOU are the only one proven to be a SOCK here
I was PROMOTING climate change when the majority was still laughing at it
and this is a JOKE too

tell you what, alkie
given your "claimed credentials" and since you've already linked your FB page... why not links some STUDIES you've written to support your conjectures here
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Now those of us who have been "debating" with Tyler (aka Water Pffttt) have pointed out numerous times, Greg has a habit of just making up sh$t. It is the same with this.

Articles about the melting of the polar ice sheets have been part of this site's articles from the very beginning, since it's launch in 2004 in fact, and Greg's comment that "It's only been a few years since this site has acknowledged it," is both factually incorrect and inaccurately portrayed. The site has not only always carried articles about it, the site has only ever been a reporting site, a news blog. The site has never, to my knowledge, explicitly or otherwise, acknowledged anything. It reports news.

Greg does on to say this:
AND although I've been saying the ocean and indeed the hydrothermal cycle is very important since I got on the site, all these AGWers keep rubbing it in my face as if I didn't claim it before all these articles that came to their rescue in the face of this pause
..cont.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Now I'm not going to argue his contention he has always said the hydrothermal cycle is important; he has argued this, it is a center piece to his claim that mechanical heating is a more important driver of global warming than CO2 is. I do think, however, that his suggesting that people rub it in his face is overstated, and his language suggesting that there is a pause (there's not) and that it somehow "rescued" anyone is laughable.

Quite simply, everyone who has looked at his claims has come away with about the same view: while the amount of mechanical heating in the atmosphere is something more than zero, it is not enough by orders of magnitude to do what he thinks it is doing, and that Greg's dogmatic, unyielding insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong makes him look, well, dogmatic and unyielding.

He makes many unsupported comments, often along the lines of "I predicted this" or "I said this before". Like the comments about melting polar ice above.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Another example of his dogmatic insistence that he knows more than actual scientists and researchers who are trained to measure and study the changing climate and its effects is this
The pause, by the way can be a few things; the approach to equilibrium as a result of the China's increase in fossil fuel use, an increase in the melting of polar ice, the ocean absorbing the heat and related ocean currents.
Again, there is no pause, the amount of heat added to the climate system continues unabated. Secondly, what possible equilibrium can be reached by China's increased fossil fuel use - if his mechanical heat mechanism was correct, their increased use should result in increased heating, not equilibrium - and how does that related to the ocean's ability to act as a heat sink, or any other thing he mentions in this comment?

Why is it that he cannot see how deeply in conflict his own comments are?

Anyway, no more feeding the troll today. Just another internet nutcase.....
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Speaking of sock-puppets.
If they have anything to say, somebody quote them please.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
@Vietvet
To you have an answer for the lies you posted at:http://phys.org/n...ts.html#
Do you have an apology for the false accusation you made against me? Or are you willing to admit that like most AGWites, you have no honor, no conscience, and no integrity?

jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
And you argued out of ignorance that modeling = guessing, a claim that you are unable to support with any facts or data.


Just out of curiosity, how much modelling have you done? I argue from actual experience. We use it to "calculate" the transmissivity value of free product through a particular aquifer. Basically, you remove a measured amount of petroleum repeatedly and collect data on the recharge rate. You estimate values like porosity and aquifer thickness and run that data through a metric. At the end you do the "best fit" curve adjustment. This is amazingly simple compared to modelling the climate and yet we still have to make assumptions and adjustments and may still come up with a number an order of magnitude or two off from the actual value. Anyone that has actually done field science understands that there's a LOT of guesswork involved because variables and variations in the subsurface (or planet Earth) are innumerable.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
I've said this before but I can't help having the sense that those who most vehemently defend climate science understand its limitations the least.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
Just out of curiosity, how much modelling have you done?

My PhD was in computer modeling - very, very similar to climate modeling.
I've said this before but I can't help having the sense that those who most vehemently defend climate science understand its limitations the least.

And I've never heard of anyone with any competence claiming that modeling = guessing. It's an incredibly silly thing to say. Especially when you have exactly no evidence or data to back up that claim.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
I've said this before but I can't help having the sense that those who most vehemently defend climate science understand its limitations the least.


Jeff: That is one of the most unfounded and incorrect statements I have seen in quite a while on this forum.

Please tell me what limitations do you think that we don't understand?

I defend the concepts because I have worked thorough some of the calculations (to test the concepts). I have found that the foundation of AGW is well understood and related to spectroscopy (which I use at least once a week to characterize molecules).

I understand the limitations of those who argue against climate change (because they, generally, do not have the capacity to make the calculations to test the concepts. or they are just too lazy).

Please point out the concepts that you think we have wrong with respect to AGW.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Nobody quoted the sock-puppets. I wish they would realize they have nothing to say.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
My PhD was in computer modeling - very, very similar to climate modeling.
I've said this before but I can't help having the sense that those who most vehemently defend climate science understand its limitations the least.

And I've never heard of anyone with any competence claiming that modeling = guessing. It's an incredibly silly thing to say. Especially when you have exactly no evidence or data to back up that claim.


Were you attempting to model natural systems? If you hear "guessing" and think "a stab in the dark" then you are correct. It's not guessing in that respect. But we're attempting to quantify (via blanket rules/values) a system for which we A) Can't account for all the variables for B) Don't know the relative influence of the variables that we CAN account for and C) We can't predict natural responses (like mutation for example). So, for lack of a better word we're taking best guesses. I really don't think there's any debating that.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Please tell me what limitations do you think that we don't understand?


Limitations of observation... accuracy of even direct measurements, needing real data instead of interpolation when measuring ocean temperatures, surface temperatures, the temperatures of various atmospheric layers, CO2 concentrations, etc. Limitations in respect to accounting for variables on the planetary scale... ocean currents, weather, cloud cover, albedo, unpredictable natural responses to increases in heat and CO2 (like longer growing seasons, more plant life).

Most of all, that no one predicted the current pause in warming suggests we don't understand the forces in play. I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I feel pretty confident in that one. The problem is, we understand these behaviors only on the laboratory scale where conditions are controlled.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
I really like what this scientist had to say...

"It can be highly misleading to use simple correlation to infer causality in complex systems," says George Sugihara from Scripps Institution of Oceanography (USA). "Correlations can come and go as mirages, and cause and effect can go both ways as in a kind of chicken and egg problem, and this requires a fundamentally different way to look at the data."

Just because we have a fairly firm grasp on a FEW climate influences doesn't mean we have the capacity to predict where it's going to go. I simply would like to see more humility and acknowledgement in that respect. Many still seem to be operating under the assumption that we understand it all and that there is some action we can take to "correct" the temperature. That's the kind of arrogance that needs to go away. As I've said before, I'm all for living more efficiently, wasting less, but not with the assumption that it will reduce climate temperature or prevent oceans from rising.
howhot2
4 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
Ignoring all of the nay-sayers... the most frightening part of global warming that hasn't hit the deniers small brains is CO2 lingers for 1000s of years in the atmosphere. So once you add 2C to the global average temp, there is no going back. You own that 2C for the next 20-30 generations.

Deniers are always doing the big 'flip-you finger' to the future and say I've got mine now! This is the they should be ridiculed as the low dips they are.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
Actually Jef, you know it is impossible to prove a lie. Which seems more like what you are talking about.

The reason can't say CO2 has increased 0.000135% and it has increased thermal flux this much, is because they don't measure it that way. If they did, they'd have to admit that CO2 would have to increase more than 10x to have an appreciable effect.

Forgive me if I presented this to you directly before:
In homes, etc, CO2 builds up to 3-4x concentrations outside. Does it feel warmer because of this?
Well, how could you determine?
You could set your thermostat equal to out side, and measure humidity, temperature, sensible heat and CO2.

You would find small changes in humidity are noticeable, even sans evaporation/condensation, but that colossal changes to CO2 are not noticeable.

AGWers will claim that that is because it has long range effects, and I don't even try not to laugh. Insulation, whether foil, surface area, or notch radiation, works better closer.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
HowHot, CO2 changes seasonally, haven't YOU tried to rub my nose in that one, as if I didn't understand? If it changes seasonally, it doesn't linger 1000 years. It's hype, It hype I hope you will agree is hype after I present that to you.

Like water not lasting long in the atm., silly. Water has been present at greater than ~20000ppm average since at least the last ice age, being exuberant. That Joe the water molecule has been in and out of the ocean a million time, and Bill H2O has never gone skinny dipping once, makes no difference to their GH mechanics. It's average concentration.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
CO2 is a greenhouse gas... we understand these behaviors only on the laboratory scale where conditions are controlled
@jeff
and you would be wrong, as i have already linked several studies based upon not only computer modelling but also upon measured and observed data and empirical evidence

in fact, one interesting study (Lacis et al) actually spells out what the denier water_pffffft/alkie refuses to even acknowledge... the interactions between water vapor as well as CO2, the cycle and feedback it creates and the heating problem with it... it is the reason that CO2 is considered the control knob governing earths temps
It also discusses methane

and as i pointed out to pffft/alkie, scientists compete with each other to find flaws in each others work- https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

2 B continued
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
@jeff cont'd
Many still seem to be operating under the assumption that we understand it all and that there is some action we can take to "correct" the temperature
and i would also like to point out that no one here promoting the SCIENCE, especially not Maggnus, Thermo, myself, or runrig, have made any claims that we will "correct" the temp etc...
only that we will at least not make things WORSE by curbing carbon emissions

and about that other part: sure, we don't know ALL the factors, but we have actually done a pretty good job of predicting
this includes the error bars and the models which are pretty accurate and getting better

we DON'T know it all, but we DO know enough to make some pretty valid and accurate predictions and that has been demonstrated in the studies and models
and like i said: we're getting better at it

again, that is not arrogance
that is following the evidence

Which has been my point from the beginning.. esp. wi/ regard to the SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
Actually Jef, you know it is impossible to prove a lie
@alkie/pfffft
then why are continuing to try to do exactly that?
i will ask you AGAIN:

You have SPECIFICALLY made the claim that you have DEBUNKED the studies that i have linked here on PO to you

Therefore, Why are those studies not retracted, deleted or changed?
Why are the physics, chemistry and other textbooks not rewritten based upon your "model" which you claim is so accurate, but yet you still, NOT ONCE, have been able to prove historical predictions that ARE accurate?

Where is your evidence?
Where is the proof that you are correct?
and before you link the wiki graphs again... remember your own confirmation bias and instead link a STUDY that proves your point... one with empirical evidence in a reputable peer reviewed publication

Anyone else: feel free to Quote this post to alkie so he can reply
IF he can reply

so far, he's NEVER ONCE been able to provide evidence here of his claims!
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Nobody quoted the sock-puppets. I wish they would realize they have nothing to say.


Ah, now, poor Whiffen_Poof --what's wrong?

Are you crushed by the lack of attention you expected?

None of us sock puppets/chatbots felt any need to post any quotes, since Maggnus did such a fine job of sketching out your delusional sociopathy.

In fact --

Hey, Maggnus-- maybe you could do us all a favor and bookmark those posts for later reposting, whenever Whiffen_Poof starts getting too big for his little trollbritches?

That would be brilliant!

There you go, Whiffen_Poof --all better!

Now, why don't you just toddle along and rub some salve on those carbuncles...
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
And you argued out of ignorance that modeling = guessing, a claim that you are unable to support with any facts or data.


Just out of curiosity, how much modelling have you done?[BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH...]the subsurface (or planet Earth) are innumerable.


Other than being a standard modeling caveat, the rest of your rant is complete hogwash, jeff.

You assume that, since you have such difficulty, that it must be even more the case with anyone else --yea, even unto their thousands.

The shocker --for you-- is that these people are professionals, with years of experience working under even more exactingly difficult conditions than you, because they have to continually identify, quantify, and incorporate nearly- or entirely new, massive data sets into and then adjust existing models, as new information becomes available.

ctd.

Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
ctd

Furthermore, jeff, it seems that there is another important aspect of climate modeling which has escaped your comprehension, namely, that, while there are numerous drivers and feedbacks in the climate sytem, they aren't particularly great in number, and certainly not as nearly infinite in number as you seem to wish.

Lastly, and as I alluded to earlier, there are literally thousands of scientists working away at this, all year, every year, and a substantial proportion of them are doctorate and post doc level, with years and years experience in climate research and related disciplines, and not just a bunch of snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears undergrads just cutting their teeth in the real and brutal world of the applied sciences.

Are these observations beginning to corrode your hubris yet?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Lastly, and as I alluded to earlier, there are literally thousands of scientists working away at this, all year, every year, and a substantial proportion of them are doctorate and post doc level, with years and years experience
@Caliban
I would like to piggyback something onto that

these scientists are also multicultural !!

and that is a far more powerful point WRT the scientific evidence than people realize

To even infer conspiracy with those numbers and across those cultures is insane, especially considering that the world can't even get together and agree on a breakfast food

but then we also take into consideration COMPETITION...
scientists competing with each other and TRYING to prove each other wrong (as Dr. Tyson points out in this (simplified, but cogent) video: https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk )

taking everything together, with it's accuracy
it shows just how powerful the scientific evidence for AGW really is
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Lastly, and as I alluded to earlier, there are literally thousands of scientists working away at this, all year, every year, and a substantial proportion of them are doctorate and post doc level, with years and years experience
@Caliban
I would like to piggyback something onto that

these scientists are also multicultural !!

and that is a far more powerful point WRT the scientific evidence than people realize

To even infer conspiracy with those numbers and across those cultures is insane, especially considering that the world can't even get together and agree on a breakfast food

but then we also take into consideration COMPETITION...
scientists competing with each other and TRYING to prove each other wrong (as Dr. Tyson points out in this (simplified, but cogent) video: [...]
taking everything together, with it's accuracy
it shows just how powerful the scientific evidence for AGW really is


Completely agree with those points.

Thanks, Cap'n!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
So, Jef:
Usernames Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_, thermo, Maggnus.
You see why I say they are a bunch of cyber bullies, or more likely one really pathetic one. Notice how they provide fawning support?

If I did that to you Jef, you'd think it was creepy. They don't, get it?
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015
So, Jef:
Usernames Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_, thermo, Maggnus.
You see why I say they are a bunch of cyber bullies, or more likely one really pathetic one. Notice how they provide fawning support?

If I did that to you Jef, you'd think it was creepy. They don't, get it?


Oh, the IRONY....

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
Were you attempting to model natural systems?

Yes. In fact, we use many of the same equations and techniques as climate science.
I really don't think there's any debating that.

That's because, as you've indicated, you really aren't very knowledgeable about climate science and climate modeling. Your point about not knowing all the terms is correct - but models already do quite well, so the unknowns aren't large sources of error. Your point about not knowing the relative strengths of the terms is also silly since that's one of the advantages of modeling. Your point about not knowing natural responses is als silky since that's the point of modeling. (I have know idea why you would bring up mutations, though, as they're irrelevant to the climate response.)
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015
Elsewhere, you talk about how climate models don't capture the pause. This shows an level of great ignorance about the climate and climate modeling. its well known that the earth has continued to heat up during the pause. Two of the reasons for the pause (internal variability and solar cycles) are cyclical and so not relevant to long term climate models - that is to say, all climate models. Another reason, volcanoes, are impossible to model, but unless you believe the increases volcanic activity will continue long term, it's not really going to affect the climate.

You also say you think that there must be some mechanism in the climate to correct the warming, which shows great ignorance of climate science. No short term mechanism has shown up in the past - it's unrealistic to believe one will show up now. And other mechanisms have time scales measured in millenniums while our current warming is in decades.

Your naïveté in regard to economics is also interesting.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
Usernames Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_, thermo, Maggnus.
You see why I say they are a bunch of cyber bullies, or more likely one really pathetic one. Notice how they provide fawning support?
Irony INDEED

because whiffen poof AKA ALKIE/AKA prometheus/AKA pffffft/AKA greg tyler the SOCK king is telling everyone that our mutual support of PROVEN, VALIDATED as well as DEMONSTRATED studies and SCIENCE is somehow WRONG

ROTFLMFAO

pffffft is almost comical in her insistence that we are somehow BULLIES for promoting SCIENCE on a SCIENCE SITE!

Well, tyler the positum stultum prophetam, you would prefer we suport your PSEUDOSCIENCE?
or maybe argue against the studies with conjecture, like you do?

Which brings me back to a MAJOR point in the argument between us:
WHERE IS THE EQUIVALENT [to my studies as well as the empirical evidence i linked to reputable peer reviewed publications] EVIDENCE that shows you debunked ANY study to date????
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
HowHot, CO2 changes seasonally, haven't YOU tried to rub my nose in that one, as if I didn't understand? If it changes seasonally, it doesn't linger 1000 years. It's hype, It hype I hope you will agree is hype after I present that to you.

Like water not lasting long in the atm., silly. Water has been present at greater than ~20000ppm average since at least the last ice age, being exuberant. That Joe the water molecule has been in and out of the ocean a million times, and Bill H2O has never gone skinny dipping once, makes no difference to their GH mechanics. It's average concentration.

Sorry, this was buried under a malicious information warfare attack.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
@Water, was that your response to my assertion about the linger time of atmospheric CO2? I did miss the question in the "fog of battle" It's is an important question so I'm not going to BS you with insults and or point to websites, charts and graphs. So here is my speech;

The Earth is a living system, with a large number of plants that live on the land primarily. We all learned in grade school that plants inhale CO2 and exhale O, and land animals for the most part, inhale Oxygen and exhale CO2. There are way more plants than people and animals. Oddly enough most of the plant contents of the world are located in the Northern Hemisphere so the planet's breathing is seasonal. So during the growing seasons, plants inhale more CO2 and turn it into sugar. That causes the little dips in the CO2 wiggle. When the seasons change the CO2 rises.

That little wiggle is about how much CO2 you can expect nature to take out the CO2/yr (assuming all the plants aren't dead from AGW heat!).

jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
I have know idea why you would bring up mutations, though, as they're irrelevant to the climate response.)


Mutation is NOT in the least bit irrelevant. The best carbon sinks on the planet still come in the form of plant life. To use your language, you are displaying a profound ignorance of life science and evolution. With an astounding (my exaggeration) extra 60ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, why wouldn't mutation (or the activation of an older DNA sequence) allow plants to take advantage of it and increase growth? The history of our planet indicates that this in fact WILL happen. Perhaps not in your lifetime nor in the lifetime of your children but eventually.

Regarding modelling, instead of simply claiming I'm ignorant, you'd be kind enough to cite some sources demonstrating how pre-"pause"models predicted it coming.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
instead of simply claiming I'm ignorant, you'd be kind enough to cite some sources
@jeff
not how that works
you make the claim, it is your responsibility to provide links/proof

otherwise anyone could make any claim they want (and often they do here on PO, from the eu crowd and their plasma discharged making of the grand canyon and moon craters despite observed mechanisms to the idiots posting about aliens giving us the ability to build the pyramids)

so jeff, where are the studies you are getting this information from?
or are you getting them from the pseudoscience pheromone boy kohl?
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
The history of our planet indicates that this in fact WILL happen.

Can you point to where this has happened in the past? There's no question that as the ocean continues to warm, the ocean can hold less and less CO2. When it becomes a source rather than a sink, I'm not sure, but it will certainly become less of a sink as time goes on. Temperate and tropical forests become sources of CO2 during heat waves and droughts (http://www.skepti...nks.html ), both of which increase in frequency with warming.
Regarding modelling, instead of simply claiming I'm ignorant, you'd be kind enough to cite some sources demonstrating how pre-"pause"models predicted it coming.

You'll note that I never claimed that models predicted the "pause". I only pointed out that short term pauses are rather irrelevant to long term climate models. It's your fascination with a "pause" that demonstrates your ignorance in climate modeling.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
Temperate and tropical forests become sources of CO2 during heat waves and droughts (http://www.skepti...nks.html ), both of which increase in frequency with warming.

I was going to say that I was unhappy with this sentence, thinking that maybe replacing "frequency" with "severity" would be more accurate. But it looks like from previous research (e.g., http://ruby.fgcu....ught.pdf ) that the correct replacement should be "frequency and severity". An interesting quote from that paper:
The potential for more droughts and of greater severity is a worrisome possibility (Gregory et al. 1997; Wetherald and Manabe 1999; Wang 2005), compounded
by positive feedbacks, such as increases in the frequency of heat waves (Seneviratne et al. 2006a, b) and decreased carbon uptake by vegetation (Ciais et al. 2005).
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
One other interesting quote from the conclusion of that paper:
The implication is that drought occurrence will increase, despite future emission reductions and this will be exacerbated by the thermal inertia of the oceans (Wigley 2005; Meehl et al. 2005) and already accumulated greenhouse gases, which in turn will increase the time to stabilization of concentrations.
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
HowHot, CO2 changes seasonally, haven't YOU tried to rub my nose in that one, as if I didn't understand? If it changes seasonally, it doesn't linger 1000 years. It's hype, It hype I hope you will agree is hype after I present that to you.

Like water not lasting long in the atm., silly. Water has been present at greater than ~20000ppm average since at least the last ice age, being exuberant. That Joe the water molecule has been in and out of the ocean a million times, and Bill H2O has never gone skinny dipping once, makes no difference to their GH mechanics. It's average concentration.


Sorry, this was buried under a malicious information warfare attack.


We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Sorry, this was buried under a malicious information warfare attack.
Eh ?
Makes no sense !

Are u now claiming someone hacked into your pc, re-sent several phys.org messages from many hours ago at once, bypassing phys.org flood control & STILL u have TIME to edit ALL of them so could add text:-

"Sorry, this was buried under a malicious information warfare attack."

That is ALSO beyond any credibility u had left, for the simple reason there are moderately complex sequences which would have to be defeated AND your ability to edit posts - LOL !

Instead it looks FAR more like a twisted attempt to garner sympathy !

Why not INSTEAD qualify all your claims Eg top are

- CO2 of only 0.00009 W/m^2
- Wiki is in "great agreement" with 0.00009 when theirs is 1.5 - ie 16,666 greater than yours FFS how?
- Those "4 technical degrees"
- Your water bowl model of ice works despite all its experimental failings
- Business uses your calculations

so sad
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
@Water...

The Earth is a living system, with a large number of plants that live on the land primarily. We all learned in grade school that plants inhale CO2 and exhale O, and land animals for the most part, inhale Oxygen and exhale CO2. There are way more plants than people and animals. Oddly enough most of the plant contents of the world are located in the Northern Hemisphere so the planet's breathing is seasonal. So during the growing seasons, plants inhale more CO2 and turn it into sugar. That causes the little dips in the CO2 wiggle. When the seasons change the CO2 rises.

Excellent discussion, now that you understand it for CO2, understand the same analogous process for WV. Instead of becoming sugars for plants, it just goes in and out of phases.

But the concentration remains, indeed, it has increased more than CO2s.

With me yet?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
Hey Jef, I predicted the pause, sort of...
I predicted temperature change is rather irrelevant to what is actually happening to the world in terms of change.

Temperature is a secondary effect.

I sometime think that those people on here claiming to be AGWers, are actually here to prevent change.

It is the result of their efforts anyway...
V/R
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
Hey Jef, I predicted the pause, sort of...
I predicted temperature change is rather irrelevant to what is actually happening to the world in terms of change.

Temperature is a secondary effect.

I sometime think that those people on here claiming to be AGWers, are actually here to prevent change.

It is the result of their efforts anyway...
V/R


uh-huh.

But you still haven't explained by exactly what mechanism all the ice and snow on the face of the earth could be completely melted without changing changing the average global surface temperature, so all your trollblatt rings just as stupidically as always.

So, Whiff'n'Poof --how is it to be done?
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
Hey Jef, I predicted the pause, sort of...

Well, to be fair, science also predicted the "pause" in that since other pauses had occurred during the current warming, it was quite likely that another one would occur. It's the timing that's the difficult bit. And here's another prediction: There will be several more "pauses" but the temperature will continue to climb long term.
Temperature is a secondary effect.

It may be secondary, but the warming has had serious consequences: increased drought, melting glaciers/sea ice, increased heat waves, water vapor feedback, etc. I do agree that a better metric is the heat increase: the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation makes it clear that AGW has continued, even during the "pause". And looking at the heat helps to make it clear that CO2 is the principal control knob for global temperature (http://www-atm.da...ci10.pdf ).
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Hey Jef, I predicted the pause, sort of...
No. You are a LIAR.
You have a brass bowl with water & ice and claimed that because the ice melted it proved a pause BUT, you never proved any aspect of a 1998 change in heat flow - doh !

Water_Prophet claimed
I predicted temperature change is rather irrelevant to what is actually happening to the world in terms of change
No u didnt. Any person trained in physics esp re heat KNOWS temps are a satisfactory indicator as we KNOW the specific heats of the items measured !

Water_Prophet claimed
Temperature is a secondary effect
Its not even wrong to offer a chance its right, what inarticulate rubbish, it shows you havent studied measurement methods !

Water_Prophet claimed
I sometime think that those people on here claiming to be AGWers, are actually here to prevent change.
It is the result of their efforts anyway...
V/R
Grow up, get an education.

You STILL havent proved your claims !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Excellent discussion, now that you understand it for CO2, understand the same analogous process for WV. Instead of becoming sugars for plants, it just goes in and out of phases.
But the concentration remains, indeed, it has increased more than CO2s.
With me yet?
As usual all your so called discussions Water_Prophet and arbitrary claims are so called 'intuitive' or interpretive, nothing even close to any experimental methodology - ever !

Why can't you prove your claims ?

Y is your commenting NOT commensurate with those who have "4 technical degrees"
Which institute & what years u started please ?

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Profit ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
jeffensley offered
With an astounding (my exaggeration) extra 60ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, why wouldn't mutation (or the activation of an older DNA sequence) allow plants to take advantage of it and increase growth?
Problem is not mutation it is shifting plant's equilibria, I guess your course of "Environmental Science" its only minimal intro into issues re plant biology, microbiology equilibria isnt covered, quite understandable depending on course focus.

Bear in mind, CO2 is not just "plant food", its becomes instrumental in many plant processes besides food production, such as structural & chemical equilibria not directly related to food which maintain the plant's functionality.

Some edible plants make cyanogens when CO2 increases & propensity to release hydrocyannic acid (HCN) under various conditions

Already occurs with Cassava & Clover - food for cattle has similar effect, not good overall :-(
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So, Jef:
Usernames Stumpy, Caliban, Mike_, thermo, Maggnus.
You see why I say they are a bunch of cyber bullies, or more likely one really pathetic one. Notice how they provide fawning support?
If I did that to you Jef, you'd think it was creepy. They don't, get it?
No.
What Water_Prophet just doesn't get is, its not mature to make arbitrary claims without any proof, followup, workings or anything to qualify naive claims.

Water_Prophet may claim cyber bullying when we take him to task to prove his claims, it should be evident & it is substantive that Water_Prophet, has NEVER proven any of his claims !

The worse LIE & stupid obfuscation is his claim re CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2 when its well accepted & based upon core physics that its 1.5W/m^2 eg:-
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

What's insane; Water_Prophet claims HIS 0.00009 is in "great agreement" with wiki's 1.5

How is this delusion possible ?
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Can you point to where this has happened in the past?


Our geological history alone is a good indicator of plant adaptation. The development of C4 photosynthesis for example is only possible via mutation if evolution is correct. But here's a little snippet illustrating an increase in plant abundance with increases in CO2. http://ag.arizona..._Nature.

Regarding modelling, there simply isn't enough context to demonstrate their "success". The brief period in which they have become popular is the same one in which they failed to predict the current heating slow-down. Time will tell if it is temporary. That we can adjust models to replicate past data is no feat at all. Only when a new, unpredicted climate response comes to light can they account for it... but only retroactively.

jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
It may be secondary, but the warming has had serious consequences: increased drought, melting glaciers/sea ice, increased heat waves, water vapor feedback, etc.


This shows me a seemingly intentional focus on only the negative aspects of change. It's no coincidence that this article (http://phys.org/n...te.html) hardly saw any comment at all. It doesn't fit the fear-based narrative. This is one of the greater problems I see with this AGW fear-mongering. It doesn't account for the reality of the Earth's past (it has been far warmer and with far higher CO2 concentrations than present for most of its history) and takes the amazingly ego-centric stance that Earth was Eden, JUST prior to us burning coal. The paradigm has been set by powers greater than us and shifting the context (aka seeing reality) is hardly possible anymore.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
A correction to the above link. A period got in there. http://ag.arizona...l_Nature
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2015
Can you point to where this has happened in the past?

Our geological history alone is a good indicator of plant adaptation. The development of C4 photosynthesis for example is only possible via mutation if evolution is correct. But here's a little snippet illustrating an increase in plant abundance with increases in CO2. http://ag.arizona..._Nature.


Yes, jeff, evolution is responsible for C4 p-synthesis arising in certain plants, but beyond this simple fact, your argument falls apart.

And your linked Nature piece in no way supports that ecosystem changes in the area studied were the result of rapid evolution induced by pCO2 increase.

What it points to is a change in ecosystem regime driven by changes in temperature and precipitation: grasslands were replaced by desert scrub as aridity increased in the area studied.

Which is entirely different than inreased pCO2 driving increased photosynthesis.

ctd
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2015
ctd

Just to make it perfectly clear, you need to understand that this regime-change occurred between assemblages of biota that were already coexisting, and hence were already evolved. The authors were not saying new species arose in response to pCO2 increase in that timeframe or the area they studied.

Also -if you are going to make such a bold statement as this:

This is one of the greater problems I see with this AGW fear-mongering. It doesn't account for the reality of the Earth's past (it has been far warmer and with far higher CO2 concentrations than present for most of its history)


Then you need to provide the citations to support it.

We will, of course, ignore any increased temp/pCO2 arising from primordial heat and catastrophic vulcanism, as these have declined over geologic timescales --and for obvious reasons-- caveat being that there are several notable exceptions wrt said catastrophic vulcanism.
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2015
It may be secondary, but the warming has had serious consequences: increased drought, melting glaciers/sea ice, increased heat waves, water vapor feedback, etc.

This shows me a seemingly intentional focus on only the negative aspects of change. It's no coincidence that this article (http://phys.org/n...te.html) hardly saw any comment at all. It doesn't fit the fear-based narrative.


And, jeff, this comment is complete hogwash.

The main reason there was so little comment following the article you reference is that it offered no surprising or contradictory conclusions and in fact was in direct agreement with the predictions wrt AGW in general.

So much so, in fact, that the other resident trolls couldn't even be bothered to set up their blattchorus, given such slim-to-nonexistent basis for doing so.

And the weakness of your blatt is such that I'm downgrading it to mere bleat.

Step up or step off, jeff.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Our geological history alone is a good indicator of plant adaptation.

Um, that wasn't the question. I don't argue that the biomass may increase due to increased CO2 levels (though that's not clear since CO2 is just one of several things that plants need to grow - the increased droughts will make it hard to use that CO2). However, you claimed that:
The best carbon sinks on the planet still come in the form of plant life.

And implied that increased plant growth would increase carbon sequestration. However, it's not that simple. Your article only discussed increased plant growth in grasslands. However, other studies have showed that increased levels of CO2 do not result in increased carbon sequestration (http://forestecol...2642.pdf ).

Regardless, if you're talking about mutation then you agree that it will be at least hundreds of years to return to previous levels of CO2.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
Regarding modelling, there simply isn't enough context to demonstrate their "success". The brief period in which they have become popular is the same one in which they failed to predict the current heating slow-down.

Again, short term "pauses" are irrelevant to climate models. Ignoring this is silly on your part.
Time will tell if it is temporary.

Satellites already have shown that the "pause" can only be temporary. The current energy imbalance must come to equilibrium before a long term pause can occur and the only way for that to happen is for the earth to become warmer. Unless you believe that the conservation of energy can be violated, that is a fact.
That we can adjust models to replicate past data is no feat at all.

That you say this is evidence that you have no idea how modeling works.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
This shows me a seemingly intentional focus on only the negative aspects of change. It's no coincidence that this article (http://phys.org/n...te.html) hardly saw any comment at all.

I'm not sure why you'd claim that. That article isn't necessarily related to global warming. From the article:
They merely reflect climatic impacts over the past ten years. We know that this period is too short to relate it to the global warming debate.

You seem to be confused about the difference between short and long term climate changes. Short term tends to be cyclical and evens out in the long term.

However, this could be a long term positive for parts of Africa (the article shows some parts are worse off). But whether you look at food, water, or health, the negatives far outweigh the positives. How ever you look at this, the negatives of climate change are going to cost us far more than any positives will benefit us.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
@Water...

The Earth is a living system...

Excellent discussion, now that you understand it for CO2, understand the same analogous process for WV. Instead of becoming sugars for plants, it just goes in and out of phases.

But the concentration remains, indeed, it has increased more than CO2s.

With me yet?

Hay @water friend, I'm with you... I see what you are saying. Here is the problem with your science; While water vapor (WV) is a green house gas and a potent one, and as global temperatures rise WV increases water freezes at about 30,000 ft and ice is not a green house gas. CO2 on the other hand is a green house gas all the way up. I hope you see now why water vapor alone doesn't explain global warming and the resulting climate change it causes.

zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2015
The paradigm has been set by powers greater than us and shifting the context (aka seeing reality) is hardly possible anymore.

This seems to suggest that you believe there's a conspiracy afoot to report AGW to be worse than it is. This conspiracy would need to involve thousands of scientists over the years so believing in a conspiracy is not a sign of sanity.

The comment about "seeing reality" is also interesting. Reality says that there is still an energy imbalance in the climate - more energy comes in (from the sun) than goes out and, therefore, the earth must still warm. Reality says that the primary cause of that warming is the additional CO2 that humans have been dumping into the atmosphere. Reality says that those levels will stay elevated for a very long time (hundreds of years) until something like weathering can remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

And most of the effects of the warming are likely to be negative for humans. But the earth will survive.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Just to follow up on @zzTOP's comments here is a link that answers some of these questions;

http://www.ucsusa...faq.html

Enjoy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
Howhot, finally we're on the home stretch.

CO2 GH heating effects are reversed that high above the Earth. The majority of thermal heat is generated by the other spectrums of light striking ground and being converted to thermal, background or waste heat. At 30000 ft, CO2 is acting to diffuse heat up there, eventually sending more to space than it would with lesser concentrations.

The effects of water vapor and homospheric mixing far overwhelming CO2 on the surface where it is important.

Now mankind releases 1/10000th of the Sun's solar energy, on the ground, north of the tropics, where 1/1000th of the Sun's output noticeably and dramatically affects climate.

The fact it is released as waste heat, in the North and at the ground is profound, in terms of exaggerating effects.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Dup post deleted.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
CO2 GH heating effects are reversed that high above the Earth
Huh ?
How is that possible - what immense mechanism of physics MAKES this happen please ?

Should we add this to your list of dumb, immature, ill thought uneducated claims, seems so ?

Water_Prophet stated
The majority of thermal heat is generated by the other spectrums of light striking ground and being converted to thermal, background or waste heat
EXACTLY what I have been telling you MANY times for months, only NOW you acknowledge it - but your terms are showing you are not educated in radiative emissions ie IR !

Water_Prophet claimed
At 30000 ft, CO2 is acting to diffuse heat up there, eventually sending more to space than it would with lesser concentrations
Huh ?
Why 30Kft ? How is it 'sending more' - mechanism please ?

Water_Prophet claimed
The effects of water vapor and homospheric mixing far overwhelming CO2 on the surface where it is important
Prove it !
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
The effects of water vapor and homospheric mixing far overwhelming CO2 on the surface where it is important
@ALKIE/Pffft/positum stultum prophetam
and again, you got it WRONG
they are IN CONJUNCTION with the CO2
but you are NOT here to share science or spread actual knowledge or studies

you are being paid to OBFUSCATE the science and spread misinformation... that much is readily apparent given your claims of scientific knowledge and then your intentional ignoring of studies and empirical data

What we CAN prove, given your behavior at this point is that you are lying
we can also prove that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to distract away from the reality and the actual proven science... from the studies i linked as well as from any other study that promotes AGW

Your posts are intentionally targeting only the AGW claims as well as claims that the oil/big$/Industry want to cover up WRT climate science

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
Sorry, howhot noise on the line...

Howhot, finally we're on the home stretch.

CO2 GH heating effects are reversed that high above the Earth. The majority of thermal heat is generated by the other spectrums of light striking ground and being converted to thermal, background or waste heat. At 30000 ft, CO2 is acting to diffuse heat up there, eventually sending more to space than it would with lesser concentrations.

The effects of water vapor and homospheric mixing far overwhelming CO2 on the surface where it is important.

Now mankind releases 1/10000th of the Sun's solar energy, on the ground, north of the tropics, where 1/1000th of the Sun's output noticeably and dramatically affects climate.

The fact it is released as waste heat, in the North and at the ground is profound, in terms of exaggerating effects.

jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2015
This seems to suggest that you believe there's a conspiracy afoot to report AGW to be worse than it is. This conspiracy would need to involve thousands of scientists over the years so believing in a conspiracy is not a sign of sanity.


Do you actually NOT see how we judge all change as "negative" and attribute all change to AGW? How was that tone set? This is not rational nor scientific. That is the politics of fear and manipulation. To react from such a stance is to choose to make well-intentioned mistakes. Data are data. But in the current political climate, it can never be presented as such. It has to be woven into a narrative of man-made doom... every... single... time. I don't care to be manipulated in such a way but apparently some of you are more than ready to swallow the narrative of fear and help spread it. A serious conversation needs to be had about our resources, caring for the planet and ourselves... just not in this comical context of ego-centric "science".

jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2015
I'm not sure why you'd claim that. That article isn't necessarily related to global warming. From the article:
They merely reflect climatic impacts over the past ten years. We know that this period is too short to relate it to the global warming debate.


I understand it well. I'm simply demonstrating how observations that don't fit the fear narrative of AGW are conveniently overlooked. How much money would you like to bet that if the story were reversed and Africa was drier and losing vegetation over this last decade, that the media, politicians, and pseudo-scientists wouldn't directly attribute it to climate change?
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
I'm not sure why you'd claim that. That article isn't necessarily related to global warming. From the article:
They merely reflect climatic impacts over the past ten years. We know that this period is too short to relate it to the global warming debate.


I understand it well. I'm simply demonstrating how observations that don't fit the fear narrative of AGW are conveniently overlooked. [bleat, bleat, bleat]


Not so fast, jeffy-

You made this bold statement:

This is one of the greater problems I see with this AGW fear-mongering. It doesn't account for the reality of the Earth's past (it has been far warmer and with far higher CO2 concentrations than present for most of its history)


And now you need to provide the citations to support it, before you sidestep to some other unsupported claim

Like I said before:

Step UP or STEP OFF.


zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
I understand it well. I'm simply demonstrating how observations that don't fit the fear narrative of AGW are conveniently overlooked.

How? By talking about something that isn't clearly related to the climate? How does that have anything to do with AGW?
How much money would you like to bet that if the story were reversed and Africa was drier and losing vegetation over this last decade, that the media, politicians, and pseudo-scientists wouldn't directly attribute it to climate change?

Ah, well, I don't really care much about the media, politicians, and pseudo-scientists. I just like to look at what the science says. If you want to talk about those, you'll have to discuss them with someone else. I'll just look at the science - and the science is very clear on this: the negative effects of the current warming will almost certainly be much greater than the positive effects (and this from someone who hates winter and would love more warming).
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Do you actually NOT see how we judge all change as "negative" and attribute all change to AGW? How was that tone set? This is not rational nor scientific. That is the politics of fear and manipulation. To react from such a stance is to choose to make well-intentioned mistakes.

This seems to be right out of Judith Curry's playbook. I really dislike her since she's obviously put politics ahead of science. I've been amazed at some of the idiocy she writes and how she's been forced to lie (to Congress, no less) to try to refute the current science.

That's something I've noticed about scientists that seem to reject climate science as you have. They're forced to lie (Curry, Pielke Jr., Christy - all lied to Congress), or they're always getting things wrong (Lindzen, Spencer, Soon). I really dislike liars (one of the reasons I hate politics) and the track records of the others aren't something to give confidence in their claims.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Sorry, howhot noise on the line..
You r so shallow & immature u aren't even just ordinary stupid but immensely deluded, the only NOISE here is anything u state which doesnt qualify ANY of your claims !

How can you be so inordinately & completely dense as to how you appear on this forum ?

so sad
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Data are data.

I note that elsewhere (http://phys.org/n...bal.html ) you're perfectly happy to make a statement that ignores the data and seems more as a way for you to make a cheap political point, so it's obvious that you put politics ahead of the science. The problem, for you, isn't with the media, politicians, or pseudo-scientists. It's that the data doesn't support your politics (or religion or philosophy or whatever seems to motivate your belief system). You don't seem a lot different from the other anti-science people on this site.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2015
I think one of the problems you and many others here have is that you consider every challenge to the methodology or politics of AGW is meant to completely discredit it. That's not the case at all. I firmly believe we have contributed to PART of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and PART of the increase in temperature (operating from the basis that we were already naturally warming). All I'd like to help do is guide this conversation away from the edge of the cliff. Reality will dictate the narrative, not dire predictions and attempts at silencing any criticism. The science and statistics behind the AGW theory deserves scrutiny. And the general public who have no experience with science need honest scientists with a shred of humility telling them this is our best attempts at speculation, not fact. Perhaps that alone would help lessen the polarity of this issue.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
I note that elsewhere (http://phys.org/n...bal.html ) you're perfectly happy to make a statement that ignores the data


It IS a cheap political point made against cheap "data". Conditions change, nature responds a particular way... the problem is we deem these changes unacceptable and decide we need to take it upon ourselves to "correct" these natural responses, never considering that said responses are necessary or beneficial in the grand scheme. In this case, we're trying to cure something that's potentially not even an illness by treating the symptoms.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2015
never considering that said responses are necessary or beneficial in the grand scheme.


That should read "never considering the POSSIBILITY"
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
I think one of the problems you and many others here have is that you consider every challenge to the methodology or politics of AGW is meant to completely discredit it.

Well, no. I've read a few positive things about climate change and been fine with them. Remember, I prefer warming - I hate winter. But I also hate people spewing nonsense like you've been doing. Remember the 1st comment of yours that I commented on: you mentioned that you weren't aware of anyone trying to quantify heat in the world. I pointed out that this wasn't correct. Instead of acknowledging your error and trying to learn something about climate science, you came back with the silly comment that models are just guesses. When I pointed out that this claim was nonsense, you went on to claim that there are natural processes that will take care of the CO2 (there are, but they take a very long time - as in measured in millennia).

Cont.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
Now I can't really remember the order, but you also claimed that no one was willing to pay attention to the good things the warming brings and to prove this you bring up an article that doesn't appear to be related to global warming. Then you continued to disparage models saying:
That we can adjust models to replicate past data is no feat at all.

which is about as silly a statement you could make. Saying this means you know nothing about models (or are lying). So why are you discussing them?

Now I don't know if you're lying or just astoundingly ignorant (and arrogant to make these claims despite your ignorance). And I don't really care. I'm just tired of the lack of intelligence (and no lack of arrogance) on the part of those opposed to the science. Every time you post something, you should be checking whether you're correct. And every time someone disagrees with you, you should make sure you weren't mistaken. That's the approach I take (though I admit I make mistakes).
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
And the general public who have no experience with science need honest scientists with a shred of humility telling them this is our best attempts at speculation, not fact.

The use of the work "speculation" is obviously incorrect here. The science is based on an enormous amount of data. You've indicated you don't really know much about climate science and nothing about modeling - why do you make this comment about "speculation"?

If you're looking for honest scientists, read the papers. They're not always right and the scientists aren't always honest (but most are). But if the paper is correct, other papers will reference it. Other scientists will talk about it (and in a good way ;). There'll often be issues (like in Mann '98), but if there's something salvageable, there will be updates (like Mann '08). It's not that tough. You have a degree, you should be able to figure it out.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2015
Remember the 1st comment of yours that I commented on: you mentioned that you weren't aware of anyone trying to quantify heat in the world. I pointed out that this wasn't correct. Instead of acknowledging your error and trying to learn something about climate science, you came back with the silly comment that models are just guesses.


I recall you guiding me to a link discussing surface temperature measurements when what I meant was a sum total of Earth's heat, core to outer atmosphere. I say that half-jokingly of course because we have no idea how to do such a thing. And even if we did, we'd have no historic measurements to compare to though I'm sure many would take stabs at it. There was no error nor do I take back anything I said about modelling. I'm glad you hold it in high respect but models are only reliable when we have a firm grasp of all the variables (controlled conditions) which we do not. Deny it all you want, it makes no difference to me.
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2015
The use of the work "speculation" is obviously incorrect here. The science is based on an enormous amount of data. You've indicated you don't really know much about climate science and nothing about modeling - why do you make this comment about "speculation"?


Again, you put words in my mouth and you seem personally insulted whenever I suggest models giving us anything less than absolute answers. I've actually done modelling in my field (LNAPL transmissivity) which was enough for me to realize that it isn't something concrete... even with limited variables. Models are adjusted to account for unknown variables (http://www.report...se.html) after they are discovered. That's fine.... IF we existed in a static system with only limited climate responses. I would argue that we can't possibly know and account for all future responses in our models since every moment, the system, and the rules change.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
A good read from a scientist willing to address questions and further the conversation... which can ONLY happen when we don't react to criticism with defensiveness.

http://www.remss....eratures
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
I think one of the problems you and many others here have is that you consider every challenge to the methodology or politics of AGW is meant to completely discredit it
@jef
i can't speak for anyone else, but i consider unsubstantiated conjecture nothing more than obfuscation of reality, and you've spread your fair share of that around
take your post above, for instance: http://www.remss....eratures
first off, it is a BLOG... so it has every bit the same validity as the following: http://tylervigen...id=28709

your POV is almost purely political and driven by external issues that are not scientific, which is your prerogative but it is not in any way validation of your claims, like "Perhaps that alone would help lessen the polarity of this issue"
the polarity of the issue comes from intentional obfuscation as well as political misunderstanding/mismanagement or intentional misrepresentations due to agenda's
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
the polarity of the issue comes from intentional obfuscation as well as political misunderstanding/mismanagement or intentional misrepresentations due to agenda's


In other words, it's the fault of anyone who questions an incomplete science? How dare they! I will give you that some are simply too obstinate to accept any role in AGW but you bear responsibility for the polarity of this issue as well for your inability to acknowledge the errors and limitations of the science and the people who conduct it. http://phys.org/n...eak.html
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2015
@jeffensley,
I've seen most of your posts & become sadly dismayed, u claim qualifications in "Environmental Science" but, my query with Virginia tech shows it has minimal education tutelage in basic physics applicable to actually understanding the environment - FFS why is that ?

So I see u are struggling with physics & instead tangentially barb at other diverse issues as means to deflect, this is a well recognized tactic I have observed & engaged with on various public debates, it however doesn't help u here, reflects on you.

In respect of AGW, is it possible with your wealth of qualifications & I hope actual experience, that u can possibly address or even answer a straightforward (simple) question in scientific terms:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"

Curious, how is it "Environmental Science" has such a very low requirement for Physics pre-requisites ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
Jeff,
I have had no trouble predicting climate change. I just use a simple approach. Look at prevailing weather patterns. Account for the state of the Sun. Account for the geography. Then see what happens iaw global warming effects.

Ask what happens to a region if it is retaining thermal radiation. The effects of CO2 must be profound even overnight, or they don't persist. Or, viewed long term, CO2 must insulate that region and have those effect. It seems really silly when explained this way, doesn't it? It would mean a region would be warmer but more stable.
This is not observed.

Now if we assume it is heat being released in a region, it leads to observed effects, locally. More extremes, both higher and lower; there is a pattern of heat release, iaw traffic, industry etc.. But more importantly, heat released enters into the environs, whose eventual track ends it up in a region of lower background heat. Which just means it melts ice.

This explains alot.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
I'm no longer surprised how quickly alarmists resort to personal insults in "support" of their argument. "Don't agree with me? Obviously you're dumb".

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"


I've already agreed with the above comment in another article... in principle, given static conditions. But even an increase in the resistivity of the atmosphere does not necessarily equal a corresponding temperature increase given the other factors involved. Agreed? Are we making headway yet?

If you were actually asking a riddle, the answer would be because the concentration of another greenhouse gas (such as methane for example) has decreased, thus balancing or decreasing the overall thermal resistivity of the atmosphere.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
Jeff, actually it is more like CO2 can increase something over 10x before it would attain orders of magnitude approaching that of evaporation/condensation. Which, though important, are still not incredibly significant.

You know it occurs to me, useful data can be extracted from average rainfall per year, per region. That will be my next quest. Figure out how much energy is dissipated by rain. Then transported by evaporation. As if the phenomenon didn't have a pretty enough bow...
jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
Water, based on my understanding it would depend on the initial concentration you are starting with. Changes at lower concentrations have a greater effect on temperature. I've read references of the logarithmic effect of CO2 but the only sites addressing it seem to be skeptic and alarmist blogs. Any less biased sites I might learn more about it from?
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2015
Jeff and Water... you guys are a bunch of idiots. It's crystal clear what is happening to the planet from the impact of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or man made global warming for the troglodytes out there). AGW just didn't fall from the sky. The human race made it as we modernized using fossil fuels as our energy source. The fossil fuels were combusted to produce energy releasing vast (hugely vast) amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as pollution. It's a greenhouse gas and jacks the temperature of our globe up.

Jacking up the temperature of the globe? Is that something you want to do? The consequences from asteroid strikes on earth has been global extinctions. Currently we are in the process of another great extinction like it or not. CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is the cause of this extinction. We are literally burning ourselves out of a planet to live on.

Alarmist? No.. your just an idiot sap that doesn't see what the future has waiting for us.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
Water_Prophet with more idiocy
I have had no trouble predicting climate change
Your brass bowl, candle & ice, doh ice melts primary school kids know this but you have NEVER shown how your pathetic bowl predicts ANY climate change, waffle doesn't cut it on a Science site !

Water_Prophet claimed
I just use a simple approach. Look at prevailing weather patterns. Account for the state of the Sun. Account for the geography
What does this even mean, you interpret the outcome, this is NOT predictive in any way shape or form, u are clearly deluded !

Water_Prophet can't quantify
It seems really silly when explained this way, doesn't it? It would mean a region would be warmer but more stable. This is not observed
What is this rubbish, are you on drugs.

Grow up, get an education or go away, you are wasting everyone's time !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
Water_Prophet continued with utter drivel
Now if we assume it is heat being released in a region, it leads to observed effects, locally
This proves you don't understand heat flow mechanisms !

How can anyone who claims "4 technical degrees" possibly write such drivel & NOT know Physics ?

Water_Prophet rambled
More extremes, both higher and lower; there is a pattern of heat release, iaw traffic, industry etc.. But more importantly, heat released enters into the environs, whose eventual track ends it up in a region of lower background heat. Which just means it melts ice.
This explains alot.
Please take your meds or change them.

U are wasting people's time with your drivel, u make no sense; no quantification, none, zero, zilch !

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove ANY of your claims, especially the numeric ie 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
jeffensley asked
When I suggested
"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
I've already agreed with the above comment in another article... in principle, given static conditions
No, also true in dynamic because we have calculus, esp integration re bounds, u did maths at Virginia Tech ?

jeffensley claimed
But even an increase in the resistivity of the atmosphere does not necessarily equal a corresponding temperature increase given the other factors involved
Provided there is no phase change re latent heat then the level of temperature increase is obviously proportional to specific heat !

jeffensley asked
Agreed? Are we making headway yet?
No. YOU are NOT making headway, surely u learned about this in your "Environmental Science" at Virginia tech, didn't u get physics education in latent & specific heat & principles of resistivity & potential ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
jeffensley claimed
If you were actually asking a riddle, the answer would be because the concentration of another greenhouse gas (such as methane for example) has decreased, thus balancing or decreasing the overall thermal resistivity of the atmosphere
U don't write much like u know essential physics re gas properties; partial pressures, spectra, absorption bands etc

R u claiming ADDing Eg Methane gas will reduce thermal resistivity, because even though it "gets in the way" of radiative flux it somehow magically breaks thermodynamics ?

Did u really do ANY physics at Virginia Tech, did u pass, didn't it cover basics u NEED to know in "Environmental Science" eg Spectra, shortwave vs longwave for plants, heat, absorption/emissions ?

Please get a grip on spectra, they r only ADDITIVE re ADDING gas, it CANNOT subtract, look at this link, it is straightforward, DIFFERENT Bands ie "+" !

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Do u read those links at all ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2015
jeffensley claimed
Water, based on my understanding it would depend on the initial concentration you are starting with. Changes at lower concentrations have a greater effect on temperature. I've read references of the logarithmic effect of CO2 but the only sites addressing it seem to be skeptic and alarmist blogs. Any less biased sites I might learn more about it from?
jeffensley, its Physics, suggest look back over your text books or contact old tutors for a quick answer, the issue of water vapour is very well understood & for well over 100yrs !

Surely u covered humidity, dewpoint re H2O properties ie Psychrometry, its basic stuff ?
http://en.wikiped...ometrics

FACT it rains & FACT relative humidity changes with temp & dewpoint works is all part of Psychrometry & fundamental to understanding of water's place in your base training !

Start here
http://www.realcl...rgument/
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
There was a reason I didn't address you, Mike. Like all AGWers I've encountered so far, you operate solely from a stance of pretense, feigned intellectual superiority, and general douchebaggery. Funny you would bring up atmospheric water since we've still not seen how you guys suggest controlling that important aspect of climate change... http://www.nasa.g...ing.html
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2015
Howhot, thanks, it is pretty clear I underestimated you. So if CO2 isn't causing climate change, then you become as scummy as he rest of the skeptigoons?

Jeff,
The logarithmic thing, assuming it is the right one uses a simple E = 5.4 log [CO2 current]/[CO2 @280ppm] scale.

Why anyone this side of being a junior in high school would believe something like that is amazing. I can find any derivations, and it obviously breaks down rapidly below 280 ppm and above 400ppm. Not to mention, incorrectly (laughably?) modeling the effect.

I mean using the same model for water vapors increase, of 435 ppm we'd discover the Earth was a molten pit. (Exaggeration.)

But still, how many ways is there to prove it is not CO2 causing the trouble?

Fatuously: Is CO2 causing Global "Warming," or is the release of 1/10th of the Sun's variable energy in the form of waste heat, causing warming.

Put another way: Does warming cause warming, or do tiny changes in tiny gases cause warming?
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
In any event, it is completely irrational to see significant warming due to anthrogenic climate change:

If the Earth's temperature could be changed on the scale AGWers harp over, then life on Earth would be dead many times over.

The Earth's temperature is well buffered by weather, mixing, the oceans, the glaciers and poles melting, and probably many other effects we really, and blessfully, haven't had to witness yet.

So we are changing the climate: It is wetter, more dynamic, there is less ice, it is more chaotic, and so on, but temperature has changed very little.

When (if) temperature starts to change dramatically, it will do so quickly and very unpleasantly.

Log continued:
Jef: The response of concentration effects go as E = exp[concentration] until statistically the bulk properties take over, and it becomes linear. This is pretty advanced stuff, and not knowing your background, I don't know how to to say before you can say "Oh, yeah."
jeffensley
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
And now that I got the word "douchebaggery" off my chest I can go back to the subject and the original request for clarification.

http://wattsupwit...dioxide/
http://www.skepti...wth.html

As you can see, two different sites take two very different approaches (and attitudes) toward illustrating the logarithmic effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The second one, a skeptic "debunking" site, chooses to present a graph illustrating cumulative anthropogenic CO2 in a linear relationship with temperature anomaly... which looks nice in chart form but unfortunately is only a correlation, not necessarily causal but that's an aside.

Well I appear to have answered my own question finally.. for anyone who hasn't read it yet, I get the impression this is where the effect was first noted.

http://onlinelibr...7503/pdf

jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
Thanks Water_prophet... you posted while I was writing the above comment. Yeah, there won't be an "Oh yeah" from me on that. I understand things better through process vs. mathematically. However, the properties of CO2 CAN be verified via spectrometer so I suppose we've replicated Callendar's work and not simply derived it mathematically? Anyways, the more I read the less I worry. There are so many factors more important than anthropogenic CO2 when it comes to the Earth's temperature that I fail to see how expending so much intellectual energy trying to quantify it matters... especially if its effect is logarithmic. The Earth won't be in new territory and we're better off figuring out how become more adaptable again than we trying to hunt for heat and make vain attempts at "controlling" things.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2015
Jeff,
That's a fresh perspective. That's why I signed on to this board hoping for. Thanks right back.

I wonder though, based on my own little mental model, accounting or the Sun this year, reduced expenditure of fossil fuels (solar street lights, a reduction in city's night-time "light pollution," check it out!), this winter came out exactly as predicted.

I am starting to wonder about just how much of our climate we can control. I know I sound hubristic, but if we can control, or at least contribute to climate via how much fossil fuel we burn, is it possible to do so, or have we been doing it already?

I mean, weren't we supposed to be going INTO another ice age only 40 years ago? ;o)

Submitted for consideration, and only 20% seriousness.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
In other words, it's the fault of anyone who questions an incomplete science?
@jeffie
don't put words into my mouth
specifically, i mean this: until YOU can provide evidence and a study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal that then is VALIDATED, then you are speculating and it is NOT evidence against anything

you should know that, but like i said before, you are not here to spread SCIENCE, but your opinion, self glorification and promotion as well as obfuscate what IS known

As for your p-hacking link: i am not saying it doesn't happen, but considering the AGW science is a worldwide collaboration as well as competition, then logically that alone reduces the chances that it will occur without being caught or outed as false data

your posts is nothing but a reaching "conspiracy theory" suggestion

still waiting for a link that is not to your site and goes to a reputable journal...
why don't you have one?
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2015
My posts are simple suggestions (based on a personal understanding of the process) that our science is limited and not as concrete as the general public is led to believe. Nothing more. YOU put words in my mouth to suggest I believe in a vast conspiracy. I think politics and psychology (as linked above) factor into what studies are funded and how their data are interpreted. Currently, with all the attention it gets, climate change correlations are big sell-points for research. Do you ever wonder what would happen without this massive amount of data that we've never had before, the researchers processing it, and politicians exploiting it? We'd adapt to the slow change just like every other being on this planet. We'd farm in areas where conditions are right, build where conditions are right, live where conditions are right... I think one of logical fallacies of those who fear this change the most is their false assumption of climate permanence/stability.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
YOU put words in my mouth to suggest I believe in a vast conspiracy
@jeffie
nope
i am basing my labeling of you upon your own wordsYou suggest you are infallible
...attack on my degree and current profession
I spent an amazing number of hours in the lab
then you use circular stupidity
I knew it was only a matter of time before some deluded soul decided they had figured out what room temperature for planet Earth was
delusional redirection not based upon science
We're talking about a planet that has been around billions of years [blah blah blah] increase in a trace atmospheric gas is going to take the whole thing down?
suggesting that you are either not scientifically literate (or literate period) as well as parroting conspiracy theory
plenty more above... want me to continue?

Here is some simple logic: if you are the educated scientist you claim, then where are your studies which undermine the overwhelming science already published?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
My posts are simple suggestions (based on a personal understanding of the process) that our science is limited and not as concrete as the general public is led to believe. Nothing more
@jeff
the deniers who are taking a political or other stand are doing so under the delusion of false pretense as well as imaginary evidence

you label yourself as an authority with knowledge then promote a political and conspiratorial stance, but then you say you are posting simple suggestions?
that is the worst argument ever, IMHO.. it is the same lie that alkie is using

there is science and the scientific method
and then there is your appeal to authority argument which is personal conjecture

I am not (and neither is most of the science advocates here) saying that we are all going to die next decade, etc... i am saying that there is a very real probability we can cause a problem that can't be fixed
THAT is what the science is saying
YOU are the one taking things out of perspective
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
... politicians exploiting it?
@jeff
first of all, this is related to conspiracy and political arguments
like philosophy, there is no wrong answer- it is all subjective to the individual interpreting it
that is not science...
but i will comment on this:
Just because political idiots take advantage of the science (or the NON-science, as the case may well be WRT anti-AGW politicians) doesn't mean that the science is bad or wrong, only that the politicians, like i've said for my whole life, have an agenda that is not necessarily in the best interests of the public
I think one of logical fallacies... permanence/stability
not something i believe in (permanence/stability)
and i don't fear the change, but the speed of the change and the possibilities that we might NOT be able to adapt quick enough

which is a probability
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
last point @jeff
We'd adapt to the slow change just like every other being on this planet. We'd farm in areas where conditions are right, build where conditions are right, live where conditions are right...
and this is your logical fallacy
the threat, as you should well know from the studies, is not the change
-that is the only constant in the universe-
The threat is the SPEED of the change, and that we may not be able to correct the situation nor adapt quickly enough

by adaptation, i also include our food sources, as well as the flora and fauna of the planet, which are showing changes and alterations already

you also say
our science is limited and not as concrete as the general public is led to believe
and i am saying that the science knows a bit more than you are suggesting there

the problem you really have is with the changes being touted in the public by politicians

i don't care about that at all
so i don't pay attention to it
its not SCIENCE
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
Do you ever read that comment beneath the "Submit" button that says "Brevity is the soul of wit"?
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
The threat is the SPEED of the change, and that we may not be able to correct the situation nor adapt quickly enough

by adaptation, i also include our food sources, as well as the flora and fauna of the planet, which are showing changes and alterations already


I would be willing to bet my life that we can't "correct" anything when it comes to climate. Offering you a bone and placing all the warming in recent times on the shoulders of anthropogenic CO2, how does one "correct" a two century accident?

Alterations in the behavior of plants and animals ARE adaptations. Our biggest threat is our own stubbornness. When we fight directly against change( replenishing shorelines, keeping farms where water is scarce, etc) we hurt our chances. Our best bet IMO is to watch how changes are occurring and use them to our advantage.

http://www.reuter...20130326
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2015


Alterations in the behavior of plants and animals ARE adaptations.


No, jeffie, this is not adaptation. This is mere relocation to habitat that the species is ALREADY ADAPTED FOR. Once the habitat disappears as a result of (in this context) climate change, the species go extinct.

You are no kind of scientist, much less an "environmental" scientist. You're just another dilletante troll convinced that your own intellectual and rhetorical abilities are superior to everyone else's.

There is a specific word for this false assessment of one's own qualities or abilities:

DELUSION.

I think they make a pill for that.

You should ask your mental health professional on your next visit.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.