• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
ajbram

SCIENCE!

355 posts in this topic

Despite the risk of this becoming Climate Anarchy or Political Anarchy, something has to be said about how basic the science behind the recent big storms really is. 

At the most basic level, the behavior of things is really governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

"The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system."

Since energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change place and form. We ultimately get most of our energy from the sun, and that amount of energy doesn't change all that much (give or take the odd solar storm). We have just managed to trap more of it near the surface of the planet in the form of heat. When we add energy in the form of heat to the ocean surface waters, that energy has to go somewhere. So it goes into evaporating water and heating the air above the ocean surface, causing it to rise and thereby creating winds. Coriolis force sets the whole thing spinning. To heat the ocean surface and not expect increased atmospheric humidity and stronger winds to be a direct result would be like putting a pot of water on the stove, turning it on, and not expecting steam to rise out of it. Water vapor rises and cools, losing energy to the atmosphere. It then condenses and falls as rain. So more heat = more rain in a storm - like Harvey.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases."

This means that the level of disorder or disorganization in any system tends to increase, unless acted upon by a force. In other words, ENERGY has to be expended to keep a system from becoming disordered (i.e. that spinnaker won't pack itself). Storms like Irma are massive systems and are highly organized. That level of organization requires gigantic amounts of energy. Comparing Irma to Andrew (which also packed a pretty destructive punch in the form of winds), you can see about the same level of organization despite the size difference (pic below - Andrew top left, Irma bottom right). This requires lots more energy to maintain. Where does that energy come from? Warmer water.

Image result for irma vs andrew

 

The bottom line is this. If you are looking for a culprit to blame for the recent outbreak of very destructive storms, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us they can only be supported in a more energetic (i.e. warmer) system. If you are looking for predictions of what is to come, the 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that stronger storms are a highly probably, if not inevitable consequence of warmer ocean temperatures.

If the Cheetoh-in-Chief or anyone else tells you otherwise, they are either a liar or a moron (or both). The jury is not out on this. A vanishingly small subset of scientists are contrarians, but the studies in which they express these views are largely flawed, and contradict one another (see link). 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that there are natural variations that are larger than the effects of climate change so some years you would not have strong storms and some years you would.  That said, what people care most about it the strong storms and those occur when the natural variations add to the effects of climate change and that is what we are seeing now.

Someone said if you want to know if there is global warming don't look at the temperature outside.  Look at the record high temperatures and the record low temperatures occurring in various places across the country.  If there is global warming then there would be more record highs than record lows.  I think the ratio is about 1.8 : 1.

Next point.  If you do not believe that global warming is caused by man I ask you this.  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is being released by what we burn.  So if you don't think man's actions are significant, calculate how much temperature rise is due to this CO2 emissions.  If you don't know how to calculate it, ask someone who does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, allene222 said:

It should be pointed out that there are natural variations that are larger than the effects of climate change so some years you would not have strong storms and some years you would.  That said, what people care most about it the strong storms and those occur when the natural variations add to the effects of climate change and that is what we are seeing now.

Someone said if you want to know if there is global warming don't look at the temperature outside.  Look at the record high temperatures and the record low temperatures occurring in various places across the country.  If there is global warming then there would be more record highs than record lows.  I think the ratio is about 1.8 : 1.

Next point.  If you do not believe that global warming is caused by man I ask you this.  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is being released by what we burn.  So if you don't think man's actions are significant, calculate how much temperature rise is due to this CO2 emissions.  If you don't know how to calculate it, ask someone who does.

Allen, you hit the nail on the head. The scenarios predicted by all climate change models are characterized not only by a general warming trend, but also by much more variability around that increasing temperature. That means we will see increases in record highs and lows, and more variability within single years. We will also see more extreme events. Not every storm is destined to be an Irma, but the potential for this type of storm is greater than it was historically.

As far as your last point, this is about the best infographic I have found that does pretty much just what you suggested (calculate change based on all causes)

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rule69 said:

Short version (taken directly from that link):

"We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good summary.  Also worth noting that the sea surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content of the tropical Atlantic have increased over the past 150 years and particularly in the past 50 years (see e.g. Servain et al., 2014, Recent climatic trends in the tropical Atlantic, Climate Dynamics, v. 14, p. 3071-3089). Ocean and atmospheric circulation move excess heat from the tropics to higher latitudes.  More heat in the tropical ocean results in a more energetic atmosphere. 

At the same time, it is not possible to attribute an individual tropical cyclone or even a year of increased cyclone activity to a warming ocean.  What does look like a global warming signature is the long term trend in cyclone numbers.Obs_vs_zetac_hurr.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone can seriously deny climate change is occurring. It has done for millennia, and will continue to do so long after we have become extinct as a species. As Allene points out the science is very fuzzy around how much of this change is a) due to Carbon dioxide and b) due to human actions. The historical data indicates that we have had significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere when global temps were many 10's of degrees cooler. and periods when less CO2 existed and global temps many degrees higher. These events were long before man could have had any impact whatsoever. As Allene points out increases in SST's mean more violent storms. We should remember that there are many complex thermodynamic systems that determine SST's at any one given time/location. Human induced atmospheric CO2 is just one of many.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vibroman said:

I doubt anyone can seriously deny climate change is occurring. It has done for millennia, and will continue to do so long after we have become extinct as a species. As Allene points out the science is very fuzzy around how much of this change is a) due to Carbon dioxide and B) due to human actions. The historical data indicates that we have had significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere when global temps were many 10's of degrees cooler. and periods when less CO2 existed and global temps many degrees higher. These events were long before man could have had any impact whatsoever. As Allene points out increases in SST's mean more violent storms. We should remember that there are many complex thermodynamic systems that determine SST's at any one given time/location. Human induced atmospheric CO2 is just one of many.

 

Red - simply NOT true.  Show me one single peer-reviewed paper that supports that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vibroman said:

As Allene points out the science is very fuzzy around how much of this change is a) due to Carbon dioxide and B) due to human actions. The historical data indicates that we have had significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere when global temps were many 10's of degrees cooler. and periods when less CO2 existed and global temps many degrees higher.

You could not be more wrong and you also completely misconstrued Allen's sentiments. The science is not at all fuzzy and we have never had higher levels of CO2. The below is from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/  ... or is NASA data fake news to you?

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say the science is fuzzy.  What is fuzzy is the minds of people who think they know more than the scientists, an overwhelming majority of which say the global warming we are seeing is caused by man.  What I said was that if you think it is not caused by man, try and calculate the man made component.  I would be dollars to donuts that anyone who can do that calculation believes in man caused global warming.  That said, nobody knows if Irma was caused by global warming or by a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa.  It is just unlikely that it would be as strong as it is without the added warming from all the greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere. Unlikely is not the same as not.  Don't be confused by the uncertainty of a single storm and the certainty of the trend.  These are not inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather =/= Climate. 

Until this little outburst by Angry Mother Gaia (she is angry because we used disposable water bottles during the last regatta, I presume) we were daily setting the record for most days in between major (Cat 3 & above) hurricane landfalls in the US.  One could look at this chart of the periods between the last 90 major hurricanes to hit the US and conclude that the incidence of major hurricane landfalls is somewhat stochastic and perhaps not particularly indicative of anything. 

It seems like the droughts should be getting a lot shorter in between high intensity storms if the oceans are warming and that warming causes more high intensity storms.  Unless of course we've had major warming as a consequence of the severely overheated political rhetoric of the last year.

Apologies.  Comment edited to include this link to the article [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/25/harvey-will-probably-make-landfall-as-a-major-hurricane-heres-what-that-means/?utm_term=.17a223d4ffe6] that I pulled the graphic from.

 

major_drought-1024x662.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there have been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but you have to go back at least 5 million years.  The ice core record extends to almost 1 million with CO2 no higher than 285 ppmv, about the pre-industrial level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lex Teredo said:

Weather =/= Climate. 

Until this little outburst by Angry Mother Gaia (she is angry because we used disposable water bottles during the last regatta, I presume) we were daily setting the record for most days in between major (Cat 3 & above) hurricane landfalls in the US.  One could look at this chart of the periods between the last 90 major hurricanes to hit the US and conclude that the incidence of major hurricane landfalls is somewhat stochastic and perhaps not particularly indicative of anything. 

It seems like the droughts should be getting a lot shorter in between high intensity storms if the oceans are warming and that warming causes more high intensity storms.  Unless of course we've had major warming as a consequence of the severely overheated political rhetoric of the last year.

Apologies.  Comment edited to include this link to the article [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/25/harvey-will-probably-make-landfall-as-a-major-hurricane-heres-what-that-means/?utm_term=.17a223d4ffe6] that I pulled the graphic from.

 

major_drought-1024x662.png

The problem with your analysis is that tropical cyclones making landfall in the US is a small subset of Atlantic TCs, i.e your n is too small.  No personal slight intended. Droughts are a whole 'nother matter, I mean droughts where exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lex Teredo said:

Weather =/= Climate. 

Until this little outburst by Angry Mother Gaia (she is angry because we used disposable water bottles during the last regatta, I presume) we were daily setting the record for most days in between major (Cat 3 & above) hurricane landfalls in the US.  One could look at this chart of the periods between the last 90 major hurricanes to hit the US and conclude that the incidence of major hurricane landfalls is somewhat stochastic and perhaps not particularly indicative of anything. 

It seems like the droughts should be getting a lot shorter in between high intensity storms if the oceans are warming and that warming causes more high intensity storms.  Unless of course we've had major warming as a consequence of the severely overheated political rhetoric of the last year. .  
 

 

major_drought-1024x662.png

You're cherry picking the data. There are 2 events out of 90 or about 2.2% of hurricane "droughts" that lasted more than 2500 days. One happened to be in the last decade. If we cherry pick like that the opposite way, the last 6 "droughts" were much shorter than average. Also, hurricanes that made landfall in the US is a pretty arbitrary filter to screen events by. Most storms spin out their lives well away from the US shoreline. IF you were to look at this graph but in a global context, i'm sure the pattern would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in grade school, I was taught that the earth used to have an atmosphere of CO2 and was covered in plants and not suitable for human life.  That then the plants died and their carbon was trapped in the ground and the earth changed and man evolved.  I raised my hand and asked what happens if we dig all that oil up and burn it?  Not really but I remember wondering it at the time.

That chart on the time between cat 3 storms hitting the US means nothing.  As I said, the natural variation of storms is much more significant than the added strength due to global warming.  Maybe the storms hit Mexico, or Haiti. I have no idea but I would caution not to read to much into that chart.  It has all the earmarks of data mining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wonder how many of the 'climate change deniers' are really just business people who only fight the science because they know it will cost them money. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, allene222 said:

When I was in grade school, I was taught that the earth used to have an atmosphere of CO2 and was covered in plants and not suitable for human life.  That then the plants died and their carbon was trapped in the ground and the earth changed and man evolved.  I raised my hand and asked what happens if we dig all that oil up and burn it?  Not really but I remember wondering it at the time.

Not knocking you Allen, but plants came later. Earth's original atmosphere was CO2 and HS. Not a very nice place. The earliest photosynthesizers were cyanobacteria (blue-green algae - I study these in freshwater systems) and sulphur bacteria ~3.5 billion years ago. With their photosynthetic activity, O2 started accumulating and the first ture "plants" evolved about 440 million years ago. 

Image result for evolutionary time scale

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kirwan said:

I always wonder how many of the 'climate change deniers' are really just business people who only fight the science because they know it will cost them money. 

 

 

Germany is prospering with a pretty green economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate deniers I know just hate Liberals and are against anything Liberals are for.  Knowing that Al Gore was for it was enough to know it wasn't real. That said, it is known to be difficult to get someone to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a few mostly based on research performed on ice cores from various locations. During Ice ages there have been significantly higher CO2 levels than now. I am not a climatologist but it seems if less vegitation is around then CO2 levels will higher due to lack of photsynthisis.

With everything that is happening and about to happen in the South east, I suggest this scientific debate be placed on hold for a while.

 

Santer, B., Taylor, K. E., Wigley, T. M. L., Joghns, T. C., Karoly, D. J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Oort, A. H., Penner, J. E., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Stouffer, R. J. and Tett, S. 1996: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature 382: 39-46.

Michaels, P. J. and Knappenburger, P. C. 1996: Human effects on global climate. Nature 384: 522-523

Burroughs, W. J., 2005: Climate change in prehistory. The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge University Press.

Kukla, G. J., Bender, M. L., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Bond, G., Broecker, W. S., Cleveringa, P., Gavin, J. E., Herbert, T. H., Imbrie, J., Jouzel, J., Kelgwin, L. D., Knudsen, K.-L., McManus, J. F., Merkt, J., Muhs, D. R., Müller, H., Poore, R. Z., Porter, S. C., Seret, G., Shackleton, N. J., Turner, C., Tzedakis, P. C. and Winograd, I. J. 2002: Last interglacial climates. Quaternary Research 58: 2-13.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. R. and Begét. J. E. 2001: Vegetation and paleoclimate of the last interglacial period, Central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 41-61.
 
Muscheler, R., Beer, J., Kubic, P. W. and Synal, H.-A. 2005: Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be & 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: doi: 10.1029/2005JA011500.
 
Grootes, P. M., Stuiver, M., White, J. W. C., Johnsen, S. and Jouzel, J. 1993: Comparison of oxygen isotope records from GISP 2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature 366: 552-554.
 
Thompson, L. G., Mosely-Thompson, E. and Henderson, K. A. 2000: Ice-core palaeoclimate records in tropical South America since the last glacial maximum. Journal of Quaternary Science 15: 377-394.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, allene222 said:

The climate deniers I know just hate Liberals and are against anything Liberals are for.  Knowing that Al Gore was for it was enough to know it wasn't real. That said, it is known to be difficult to get someone to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.

It has nothing to do with science

Get with the program 

 

Hurricanes Irma, Harvey are nature's 'wrath' for Trump victory, Jennifer Lawrence claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, poopie pants said:

It has nothing to do with science

Get with the program 

 

Hurricanes Irma, Harvey are nature's 'wrath' for Trump victory, Jennifer Lawrence claims

Or is it a liberal conspiracy?

"Rush Limbaugh indicates he’s evacuating Palm Beach days after suggesting Hurricane Irma is fake news"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/rush-limbaughs-dangerous-suggestion-that-hurricane-irma-is-fake-news/?utm_term=.9eb09ea5d07f

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, poopie pants said:

what is this Rush Limbaugh you speak so highly of ?

Oh, you misread me - fair enough, I forgot to use the sarcasm font.  He's an idiot, but unfortunately he has many idiot followers. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one always confuses me. Global warming enthusiasts always tell of the sea levels rising by meters because I drive a v8 truck however there is simply not enough water available for it to ever happen. The earth may slowly change its topography as it always had but I don't think my GMC can be blamed. Can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's land based ice melting or falling into the ocean. Antarca ice sheet becoming unlocked is the scary one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajbram said:

You're cherry picking the data. There are 2 events out of 90 or about 2.2% of hurricane "droughts" that lasted more than 2500 days. One happened to be in the last decade. If we cherry pick like that the opposite way, the last 6 "droughts" were much shorter than average. Also, hurricanes that made landfall in the US is a pretty arbitrary filter to screen events by. Most storms spin out their lives well away from the US shoreline. IF you were to look at this graph but in a global context, i'm sure the pattern would be different.

Cherry picking?  If I concede on that point, I have to accept that the US was just super lucky for the last >11 years in not seeing landfall of any major storms...  but the weather of the last couple weeks proves your theory that warming oceans ->more frequent higher intensity storms.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than just carbon dioxide at play here. Let's not forget the changes in the earth's ability to reflect/absorb the heat of the Sun (albedo) due to the destruction of large tracts of what was vegetation covered open space now replaced by roads and cities. All a result of human behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kirwan said:

I always wonder how many of the 'climate change deniers' are really just business people who only fight the science because they know it will cost them money. 

 

 

I wonder how many climate alarmists are really just pumping up the rhetoric as much as possible to secure their next block of grants and fuel the political divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sail Skipper said:

More than just carbon dioxide at play here. Let's not forget the changes in the earth's ability to reflect/absorb the heat of the Sun (albedo) due to the destruction of large tracts of what was vegetation covered open space now replaced by roads and cities. All a result of human behavior. 

Exactly so why are we taxing CO2 instead of cities?

Other studies (about to head out so no time to cite)  indicate Water Vapor has a much bigger influence on global atmospheric heating and cooling than CO2. Water has +-2 x More heat capacity and there is 25 x more water in the upper atmosphere than CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lex Teredo said:

Cherry picking?  If I concede on that point, I have to accept that the US was just super lucky for the last >11 years in not seeing landfall of any major storms...  but the weather of the last couple weeks proves your theory that warming oceans ->more frequent higher intensity storms.  

 

 

Fucking graph of Cat 3 storms.  Sandy was a 1 in 700 year story.  Harvey was a 1 in 1000 year story. It was the third 1 in at least 500 year flood in Houston in the last 3 years.  Irma is the largest Atlantic Hurricane ever recorded, probably another 1 in 1000 year storm.  And you show me a plot of Cat 3 storms and say it proves something.  How many once in 500 year storms have to happen before you will think things are changing?  Nobody cares about your Cat 3 Hurricanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alcatraz5768 said:

 

This one always confuses me. Global warming enthusiasts always tell of the sea levels rising by meters because I drive a v8 truck however there is simply not enough water available for it to ever happen. The earth may slowly change its topography as it always had but I don't think my GMC can be blamed. Can it?

You need to do some reading mate. That is complete bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rule69 said:

Not to quibble with the main thought (more T, more delta T == more deeply screwed) but the "once in n years event" can be misleading. You get the same probability every year. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/

The probability of Houston experiencing two 500 year floods and a 1000 year flood in 3 years is .0000001 percent if I did the math right.  Either way, I agree it is not zero. Statistically it will happen occasionally.  Like about once per million years... unless the models are wrong and the climate has changed.

But for all practical purposes, the probability of what is happening with these storms being consistent with the past is approximately zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vibroman said:

Heres a few mostly based on research performed on ice cores from various locations. During Ice ages there have been significantly higher CO2 levels than now. I am not a climatologist but it seems if less vegitation is around then CO2 levels will higher due to lack of photsynthisis.

With everything that is happening and about to happen in the South east, I suggest this scientific debate be placed on hold for a while.

 

Santer, B., Taylor, K. E., Wigley, T. M. L., Joghns, T. C., Karoly, D. J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Oort, A. H., Penner, J. E., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Stouffer, R. J. and Tett, S. 1996: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature 382: 39-46.

Michaels, P. J. and Knappenburger, P. C. 1996: Human effects on global climate. Nature 384: 522-523

Burroughs, W. J., 2005: Climate change in prehistory. The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge University Press.

Kukla, G. J., Bender, M. L., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Bond, G., Broecker, W. S., Cleveringa, P., Gavin, J. E., Herbert, T. H., Imbrie, J., Jouzel, J., Kelgwin, L. D., Knudsen, K.-L., McManus, J. F., Merkt, J., Muhs, D. R., Müller, H., Poore, R. Z., Porter, S. C., Seret, G., Shackleton, N. J., Turner, C., Tzedakis, P. C. and Winograd, I. J. 2002: Last interglacial climates. Quaternary Research 58: 2-13.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. R. and Begét. J. E. 2001: Vegetation and paleoclimate of the last interglacial period, Central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 41-61.
 
Muscheler, R., Beer, J., Kubic, P. W. and Synal, H.-A. 2005: Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be & 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: doi: 10.1029/2005JA011500.
 
Grootes, P. M., Stuiver, M., White, J. W. C., Johnsen, S. and Jouzel, J. 1993: Comparison of oxygen isotope records from GISP 2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature 366: 552-554.
 
Thompson, L. G., Mosely-Thompson, E. and Henderson, K. A. 2000: Ice-core palaeoclimate records in tropical South America since the last glacial maximum. Journal of Quaternary Science 15: 377-394.

Fuck me, we have an invasion of Happy Jack and NGS type shill, WTF is going on?  Has Exxon released more cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always like this graphic to show how much the temperature has changed in a short period of time:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ModernViking said:

This is gonna get feisty :)

There is absolutely no reason why it should.  There are three categories of people.  Scientists.  Those with a natural respect for science and scientists' conclusions.  And then there are the assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alcatraz5768 said:

 

This one always confuses me. Global warming enthusiasts always tell of the sea levels rising by meters because I drive a v8 truck however there is simply not enough water available for it to ever happen. The earth may slowly change its topography as it always had but I don't think my GMC can be blamed. Can it?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+much+water+is+in+the+polar+ice+caps%3F

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Beer Can said:

There is absolutely no reason why it should.  There are three categories of people.  Scientists.  Those with a natural respect for science and scientists' conclusions.  And then there are the assholes.

There are three kinds of people.  Those that did well in the math-science subjects in school and those that didn't.

People.  We are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that is warming the planet. That will cause catastrophic climate change that will make some parts of the planet uninhabitable and some places much nicer. There will be winners and losers.  That and the fact that given the large number of ass-holes in power in this country there is just nothing that can be done to stop it.  If you have grandkids, they will hate you. These are just facts.  If I had a V-8 truck, I would continue to drive it.  I just figure there is nothing I can do about it and I will be dead before all this matters. Besides,   I live in a place where it is not going to get better or worse due to climate change.  It will be better to the north and worse to the south. About the same here.  Some places are like that.  I have enough money that I can probably outbid you for food so that won't be a problem either. 

Obama didn't stop it and in fact it got a lot worse while he was President. Trump isn't even trying so he isn't going to stop it. Given that, how can one person giving up his V-8 truck make any difference?  As long as I can get beer and scotch, I am good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you stop drinking beer, pop and other carbonated beverages (CO2), then talk to me about Global Warming.  The core issue that NO ONE wants to talk about is population!

Want to really deal with Global Warming, then talk about the population explosion.

Crime, Starvation, Land Fills, Pollution, Global "Warming" - TOO many people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allene222 said:

The probability of Houston experiencing two 500 year floods and a 1000 year flood in 3 years is .0000001 percent if I did the math right.  Either way, I agree it is not zero. Statistically it will happen occasionally.  Like about once per million years... unless the models are wrong and the climate has changed.

But for all practical purposes, the probability of what is happening with these storms being consistent with the past is approximately zero.

Statistics don't Lie.  Scientists and politicians who use statistics Lie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vibroman said:

Heres a few mostly based on research performed on ice cores from various locations. During Ice ages there have been significantly higher CO2 levels than now. I am not a climatologist but it seems if less vegitation is around then CO2 levels will higher due to lack of photsynthisis.

With everything that is happening and about to happen in the South east, I suggest this scientific debate be placed on hold for a while.

 

Santer, B., Taylor, K. E., Wigley, T. M. L., Joghns, T. C., Karoly, D. J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Oort, A. H., Penner, J. E., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Stouffer, R. J. and Tett, S. 1996: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature 382: 39-46.

Michaels, P. J. and Knappenburger, P. C. 1996: Human effects on global climate. Nature 384: 522-523

Burroughs, W. J., 2005: Climate change in prehistory. The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge University Press.

Kukla, G. J., Bender, M. L., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Bond, G., Broecker, W. S., Cleveringa, P., Gavin, J. E., Herbert, T. H., Imbrie, J., Jouzel, J., Kelgwin, L. D., Knudsen, K.-L., McManus, J. F., Merkt, J., Muhs, D. R., Müller, H., Poore, R. Z., Porter, S. C., Seret, G., Shackleton, N. J., Turner, C., Tzedakis, P. C. and Winograd, I. J. 2002: Last interglacial climates. Quaternary Research 58: 2-13.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. R. and Begét. J. E. 2001: Vegetation and paleoclimate of the last interglacial period, Central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 41-61.
 
Muscheler, R., Beer, J., Kubic, P. W. and Synal, H.-A. 2005: Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be & 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: doi: 10.1029/2005JA011500.
 
Grootes, P. M., Stuiver, M., White, J. W. C., Johnsen, S. and Jouzel, J. 1993: Comparison of oxygen isotope records from GISP 2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature 366: 552-554.
 
Thompson, L. G., Mosely-Thompson, E. and Henderson, K. A. 2000: Ice-core palaeoclimate records in tropical South America since the last glacial maximum. Journal of Quaternary Science 15: 377-394.

I'm sorry, but, no, none of these studies show cooler temperatures during periods of higher CO2.  During the ice ages, and more specifically during what are termed glacial periods, atmospheric CO2 is lower than during warm,interglacial periods.  See the graph in post 11.  Average global temperatures closely track CO2 during glacial/interglacial cycles. Present CO2 levels, over 400 ppmv, are higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years, as shown by Antarctic ice core measurements on trapped air bubbles.

Some parts of the earth, mainly the Arctic, may have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene (~4-6 thousand years ago) at preindustrial CO2 levels.  But earth's avg T was not warmer than today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT:  The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.



MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

 

MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

 

MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.


MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT:  The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6:  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. 

See a Wall Street Journal article here.


MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.  The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.


MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.

FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


 MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.

FACT:  The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faaaaark me, here we go again.  Funded shills are back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TFIO said:

MYTH

You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eastern motors said:

You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe this.  

He doesn't.  He lies for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TFIO said:

MYTH 1:  blah blah...

Thanks for that vomit of misinformation. 

I'll not bother with a direct response since it would be useless in your case.

If anyone is genuinely interested here is a link to the IPCC 2014 summary for policy makers, which is not light reading but is easily accessible to almost anyone. It is for 'policymakers' after all.  And it is the considered opinion of an extremely respected group of climatologists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point in time did man as a species become responsible for the majority of the climates recent warming? Industrial  Revolution? Earlier?

i think earlier.... 

but even if it was 1940.... whaddya gonna do? No, seriously. What do you propose to bring conditions back to the state when man hadn't or wouldn't perturb the sst's for example? Do you think the planet would cool then?

i have no answers. But I'd be stoked to hear something uplifting and not redirection or self recrimination which excuses the particular self spouting same.

we're all gonna die. - billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vikram said:

At what point in time did man as a species become responsible for the majority of the climates recent warming? Industrial  Revolution? Earlier?

i think earlier.... 

but even if it was 1940.... whaddya gonna do? No, seriously. What do you propose to bring conditions back to the state when man hadn't or wouldn't perturb the sst's for example? Do you think the planet would cool then?

i have no answers. But I'd be stoked to hear something uplifting and not redirection or self recrimination which excuses the particular self spouting same.

we're all gonna die. - billy

My understanding is that there is a tipping point. I think it is 2 degrees.  Above that the permafrost melts and the CO2 trapped there is released and things will get rapidly worse. I am not sure of the numbers so don't argue about them.  What they want to do is keep the rise below the tipping point.  In other words, quit warming the planet.  We can live with an occasional destruction of Florida but not with total crop failure or whatever they think will happen.  Whatever, it is in the report and I have not read it.  But I do understand that they are not suggesting cooling but rather stop the catastrophic warming before it is too late.  I won't be around to see how it all comes out and probably most of you won't either. But like I said, your grandkids will hate you and our generation for not believing the warnings and doing something about it.  Renewable energy, electric cars, more sail boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, allene222 said:

My understanding is that there is a tipping point. I think it is 2 degrees.  Above that the permafrost melts and the CO2 trapped there is released and things will get rapidly worse. I am not sure of the numbers so don't argue about them.  What they want to do is keep the rise below the tipping point.  In other words, quit warming the planet.  We can live with an occasional destruction of Florida but not with total crop failure or whatever they think will happen.  Whatever, it is in the report and I have not read it.  But I do understand that they are not suggesting cooling but rather stop the catastrophic warming before it is too late.  I won't be around to see how it all comes out and probably most of you won't either. But like I said, your grandkids will hate you and our generation for not believing the warnings and doing something about it.  Renewable energy, electric cars, more sail boats.

I have a genuine candid question about electric cars...

I read somewhere (don't ask me where, I don't remember) that 40% of the power generated by electrical power plant is lost. Meaning that the power at your electrical outlet on the wall is 40% less than what was generated at the power plant. I guess those big power lines do get hot, even if they are at ultra high voltage to reduce current .

First question: is that true?

If it is (big IF, understood), is this fact really taken into account in the claims of eletrical car efficiencies? I understand that running a turbine at its peak performance (exactly the right load, exactly the right RPM) will be much more efficient than a car with a ICE. But is it enough to compensate for the electrical transport losses?

Just asking...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, allene222 said:

My understanding is that there is a tipping point. I think it is 2 degrees.  Above that the permafrost melts and the CO2 trapped there is released and things will get rapidly worse. I am not sure of the numbers so don't argue about them.  What they want to do is keep the rise below the tipping point.  In other words, quit warming the planet.  We can live with an occasional destruction of Florida but not with total crop failure or whatever they think will happen.  Whatever, it is in the report and I have not read it.  But I do understand that they are not suggesting cooling but rather stop the catastrophic warming before it is too late.  I won't be around to see how it all comes out and probably most of you won't either. But like I said, your grandkids will hate you and our generation for not believing the warnings and doing something about it.  Renewable energy, electric cars, more sail boats.

Allen, you are correct (mostly) again here. We could totally stop CO2 emissions right now and cooling would still lag. In fact, the warming trend would likely continue for a few years. We are already hitting some pretty critical tipping points. The permafrost is beginning to melt. In some cases it's warm enough for bacterial consumption of the organic matter in the permafrost that was previously frozen. This takes oxygen and gives off CO2. In some cases methane from anaerobic microbial metabolism that was locked up as bubbles in frozen ground is now thawing out and escaping to the atmosphere. That's 4x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. My research focuses on both modern and fossil algae communities from freshwater systems. The Great Lakes, about 1/5 of the world's fresh water are warming faster than the air around them. Everywhere we look at algal indicators and try to find evidence of recovery from eutrophication since we stopped dumping tons of phosphorus, that signal is obscured by the legacy of climate change. Lakes have longer ice free periods tha ever before and stratify more intensely. Water has some funny properties. Density decreases exponentially as temp rises, so warmer surface waters create really steep density differentials, which in turn make a strong selection against algae that aren't buoyant. So we've seen changes in the species makeup and size structure of algae communities towards smaller cells. This affects the entire food web, as well as a lake's ability to absorb atmospheric CO2. My PhD focused on tropical limnology (the study of lakes). Temperate lakes are beginning to behave like tropical ones. We can look at drill cores of sedimentary rocks in lakes like Baikal and see that these lakes haven't behaved this way in their multi-million year histories.

We can't reverse the problem in the short term. The planet has mechanisms that will swing it back the opposite way. But there is no legitimate science that suggests anything other than that our actions have pushed the planet to a climatic scenario it has never seen. We can only hope we haven't pushed past the tipping points in a way that causes this swing to oscillate beyond conditions that we can endure as a species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Laurent said:

I have a genuine candid question about electric cars...

I read somewhere (don't ask me where, I don't remember) that 40% of the power generated by electrical power plant is lost. Meaning that the power at your electrical outlet on the wall is 40% less than what was generated at the power plant. I guess those big power lines do get hot, even if they are at ultra high voltage to reduce current .

First question: is that true?

If it is (big IF, understood), is this fact really taken into account in the claims of eletrical car efficiencies? I understand that running a turbine at its peak performance (exactly the right load, exactly the right RPM) will be much more efficient than a car with a ICE. But is it enough to compensate for the electrical transport losses?

Just asking...

 

 

 

Google says it is 8.5% loss worldwide and 6% in the US.  The losses are proportional to the current and the resistance squared.  Long distance distribution is at very high voltages which reduces the current by the same ration as the voltage increase.  So the short answer is no.

I did not take thermo but do know that the efficiency of a power plant is related to the temperature difference and power plants can run much hotter and thus more efficient than a car engine.  And of course, some power plants are hydro, like the one that generates the electricity I use.

But the big deal is that electric cars can run on locally generated solar, which is why Tesla and Solar City are the same company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Laurent said:

I have a genuine candid question about electric cars...

I read somewhere (don't ask me where, I don't remember) that 40% of the power generated by electrical power plant is lost. Meaning that the power at your electrical outlet on the wall is 40% less than what was generated at the power plant. I guess those big power lines do get hot, even if they are at ultra high voltage to reduce current .

First question: is that true?

If it is (big IF, understood), is this fact really taken into account in the claims of eletrical car efficiencies? I understand that running a turbine at its peak performance (exactly the right load, exactly the right RPM) will be much more efficient than a car with a ICE. But is it enough to compensate for the electrical transport losses?

Just asking...

 

 

 

There is transport loss but a modern gas turbine plant is way way more efficient than a car engine.  

Solar and wind power will grow.  Nuclear will grow exponentially in China and India, and not necessarily uranium light water reactors.  Thorium reactors will be up and running within 15 years (not in US).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane Irma thrives on fateful mix of 'ideal' conditions
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-irma-science/hurricane-irma-thrives-on-fateful-mix-of-ideal-conditions-idUSKCN1BK020

 

"A combination of many factors, experts said on Friday, set the stage for Irma's formation and helped the storm achieve its full thermodynamic potential, creating the monster tropical cyclone that wreaked havoc on the eastern Caribbean and may inflict widespread damage on Florida.

"It got lucky," said John Knaff, a meteorologist and physical scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "This storm is in the Goldilocks environment for a major hurricane. It's bad luck for whoever is in its path, but that's what going on here."

Brian Kahn, an atmospheric scientist and cloud specialist for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, called the ocean conditions that spawned Irma "absolutely ideal.""

 

"Knaff said it was no surprise that the advent of Irma coincided with the precise peak of the Atlantic hurricane season.

Much less certain is the role of global climate from human-induced atmospheric increases in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases, scientists said.

There is consensus that climate change has raised sea levels, which is likely to exacerbate hurricane storm surges. Rising ocean temperatures have been clearly documented as well.

Research is divided on whether global warming will make tropical cyclones more frequent, though data from climate modeling suggests a higher probability for stronger, wetter hurricanes in the Atlantic when they do occur, said Tom Knutson, a climate research scientist for NOAA.

"We think, based on model simulations that climate change is having an effect, making storms slightly more intense with higher rainfall rates, but these changes are not huge and we cannot yet clearly detect them in observations," he said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kinda funny that both sides think their scientists are the completely objective ones, while the other sides ones are pure shills...

Its kinda funny that after all we've learned, we've managed to completely forget the ones we got wrong...like the earth is flat, or that the best way to treat high-blood pressure was to bleed a pint or two out of the patient.

Its kinda funny that electrical power generation in the US currently creates more CO2 than gas powered automobiles

Its kinda funny that all us living breathing humans, and other animals create this pollutant called CO2 just by being alive

Its kinda funny that we can imagine we are not having an impact on the planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda funni that someone thinks there is an argument to be had.

But it's not funni that we have been targeted by the fossil fuel industry yet again.  This just demonstrates how fucking scared they are that the assets they have on their books will be worthless soon.  Follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beer Can said:

There is absolutely no reason why it should.  There are three categories of people.  Scientists.  Those with a natural respect for science and scientists' conclusions.  And then there are the assholes.

And statements like that is a great way to keep it civilized.
:lol:
I'm in your group 2 btw, are you 1 or 3? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vikram said:

i have no answers.

I agree with that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

It's kinda funni that someone thinks there is an argument to be had.

But it's not funni that we have been targeted by the fossil fuel industry yet again.  This just demonstrates how fucking scared they are that the assets they have on their books will be worthless soon.  Follow the money.

I don't think it's gonna help much to try to stirr up some conspiracy shit. That industry have had decades to divest their investments or take other meassures. I don't think they would take such an unsure route to protect the money, as you ask us to follow.

Anyway, it is really a fucking mess. I have no doubt that GW is real, but I also cannot see any signs that all the big countries can come together and make the sascrifies needed to seriously deal with this... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ModernViking said:

I don't think it's gonna help much to try to stirr up some conspiracy shit. That industry have had decades to divest their investments or take other meassures.

There is no need to stir up conspiracy theories, they are there for all to see.  Like Exxon being aware of what CO2 does to the climate while funding denial.

"That industry" has done fuck all to divest their investments.  They are stuck with them now and investors are getting very nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

There is no need to stir up conspiracy theories, they are there for all to see.  Like Exxon being aware of what CO2 does to the climate while funding denial.

"That industry" has done fuck all to divest their investments.  They are stuck with them now and investors are getting very nervous.

So long as myself and billions of others are dropping 50 bucks worth of petrol a week into our cars to get to work and back, why would they want to divest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, allene222 said:

I did not say the science is fuzzy.  What is fuzzy is the minds of people who think they know more than the scientists, an overwhelming majority of which say the global warming we are seeing is caused by man.  What I said was that if you think it is not caused by man, try and calculate the man made component.  I would be dollars to donuts that anyone who can do that calculation believes in man caused global warming.  That said, nobody knows if Irma was caused by global warming or by a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa.  It is just unlikely that it would be as strong as it is without the added warming from all the greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere. Unlikely is not the same as not.  Don't be confused by the uncertainty of a single storm and the certainty of the trend.  These are not inconsistent.

The greenhouse effect is a range, not a number. If somebody tells you they know how to calculate how much the climatic average temps will rise, they are fooling ou (or perhaps fooling themselves). However, it is pretty definite that the greenhouse effect -is- producing higher temps; and you can simply take a step back from that and look more directly at stuff we DO know.

How many barrels of oil does mankind burn per day? Ask a climate change denier. He will either demur, and refuse an answer because the thought leads him to uncomfortable conclusions, or make a wildly low guess. But the total amount of oil burned is a well known and definite number. How much fossil fuel overall is a bit fuzzier, but it is a much larger number.

So we are adding gazillions of BTUs to the atmosphere every day. Is that having no effect? I've never had a dittohead or konservative give an answer to this, usually they get mad and start calling names.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, allene222 said:

My understanding is that there is a tipping point. I think it is 2 degrees.  Above that the permafrost melts and the CO2 trapped there is released and things will get rapidly worse. I am not sure of the numbers so don't argue about them.  What they want to do is keep the rise below the tipping point.  In other words, quit warming the planet.  We can live with an occasional destruction of Florida but not with total crop failure or whatever they think will happen.  Whatever, it is in the report and I have not read it.  But I do understand that they are not suggesting cooling but rather stop the catastrophic warming before it is too late.  I won't be around to see how it all comes out and probably most of you won't either. But like I said, your grandkids will hate you and our generation for not believing the warnings and doing something about it.  Renewable energy, electric cars, more sail boats.

Sailboats that don't require an internal combustion motor to run the hydraulics, winches and air conditioner.   Reduction has a bigger benefit then recycling and renewable production.

The time lag is the problem,   People can deny the consequences of their gluttony,   Most likely the grandkids are also self indulgent pricks anyway.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crash said:

Its kinda funny that both sides think their scientists are the completely objective ones, while the other sides ones are pure shills...

Its kinda funny that after all we've learned, we've managed to completely forget the ones we got wrong...like the earth is flat, or that the best way to treat high-blood pressure was to bleed a pint or two out of the patient.

Its kinda funny that electrical power generation in the US currently creates more CO2 than gas powered automobiles

Its kinda funny that all us living breathing humans, and other animals create this pollutant called CO2 just by being alive

Its kinda funny that we can imagine we are not having an impact on the planet

97% of climate scientists are on one side.  If you are too stupid to understand science you should just keep your mouth shut for the good of humanity.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i firmly believe in mankind's impact on greenhouse, as an engineer, I was intrigued by the statement that there wasn't enough water in the ice to cause the expected rise - so I went to google and found an easily understood but mathematically correct explanation of the rise, which per the NYU author states there should/could be a rise of 11.5" in the next hundred years - given a 3° rise in ambient temperature of the oceans - http://cosmo.nyu.edu/Shoshana_Sommer.pdf

 

In short, of the 11" expected rise:

- thermal expansion of salt water accounts for 3.7"

- mountain and ice cap melting accounts for 2.1"

- Greenland ice sheet melting accounts for 1.5"

and Antarctica melting (after its initial counter impact) accounts for 1.5"

 

The article does not approach whether the 3° is real or what is the causation, but if the 3° does come to pass, the 11.5" of real sea level rise can be calculated using real world physics which makes sense - now back to the denying of millions of years of empirical data!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, notherday said:

While i firmly believe in mankind's impact on greenhouse, as an engineer, I was intrigued by the statement that there wasn't enough water in the ice to cause the expected rise - so I went to google and found an easily understood but mathematically correct explanation of the rise, which per the NYU author states there should/could be a rise of 11.5" in the next hundred years - given a 3° rise in ambient temperature of the oceans - http://cosmo.nyu.edu/Shoshana_Sommer.pdf

 

In short, of the 11" expected rise:

- thermal expansion of salt water accounts for 3.7"

- mountain and ice cap melting accounts for 2.1"

- Greenland ice sheet melting accounts for 1.5"

and Antarctica melting (after its initial counter impact) accounts for 1.5"

 

The article does not approach whether the 3° is real or what is the causation, but if the 3° does come to pass, the 11.5" of real sea level rise can be calculated using real world physics which makes sense - now back to the denying of millions of years of empirical data!

 

 

Excellent paper, thanks for finding and sharing it with us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting that a substance that in total represents such a tiny portion (less than 0.04%) of the atmosphere in total & (based on the chart in post 11 only 0.008% is human generated) can cause the majority of the heating. What about other causes? Of course going from 300 ppm to 380 ppm sounds much more impressive than 0.03% to 0.038%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many humans on the earth.  Nothing will be fixed until population problem is addressed.  Some scientist believe a population of  50,000,000 people is the appropriate amount in order to not have resource issues.  We're way past that number.  It's unsustainable.  If the rest of the world consumed the earths resources as much as the US does the resources would be depleted within a few years.  C02 isn't the problem.  It's the uncontrolled population growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mckarma said:

Too many humans on the earth.  Nothing will be fixed until population problem is addressed.  Some scientist believe a population of  50,000,000 people is the appropriate amount in order to not have resource issues.  We're way past that number.  It's unsustainable.  If the rest of the world consumed the earths resources as much as the US does the resources would be depleted within a few years.  C02 isn't the problem.  It's the uncontrolled population growth.

winner winner chicken dinner.... end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Keith said:
15 minutes ago, Mckarma said:

Too many humans on the earth.  Nothing will be fixed until population problem is addressed.  Some scientist believe a population of  50,000,000 people is the appropriate amount in order to not have resource issues.  We're way past that number.  It's unsustainable.  If the rest of the world consumed the earths resources as much as the US does the resources would be depleted within a few years.  C02 isn't the problem.  It's the uncontrolled population growth.

winner winner chicken dinner.... end of story.

Malthus, winning arguments and losing history since 1790.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to focus on the entire mix of the atmosphere, and what gases contribute to warming.  CO2 is important, as it methane.  If the home scientist tries to model it (in some way), it gets complicated rather quickly.

For the deniers, what's wrong with reducing greenhouse gases just to see what happens?  We've done the other thing for awhile now and have that data, so let's try something different for the next 100 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... we can no longer talk about climate change without talking about capitalism, which has laid waste to our planet and now impedes humanity’s effort to deal with the climate crisis it engendered.

This was of course the thesis of Naomi Klein’s 2014 book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate,” in which the author and activist posed climate change as a “battle between capitalism and the planet.” Klein convincingly argues that without radical changes to our economic system, we will ultimately fail to confront climate change in the radical way that is necessary in order to preserve our planet for future generations. “We have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions,” writes Klein, “because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis.”

Simply put, capitalism is an economic system that prioritizes short-term profits over the long-term good of society (and the planet), and as a result encourages myopic self-interest that often has disastrous long-term consequences. This is evident in the behavior of multinational corporations that put profit over people. According to the logic of capitalism and the market, for example, it was entirely reasonable for ExxonMobil to mislead the public about climate change for decades, or for Koch Industries to skirt environmental and safety regulations to boost their profit rate. It was also reasonable for these companies to fund climate change denial groups and anti-science politicians, as their entire business model depends on the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

In addition to promoting this kind of destructive behavior, capitalism is also a system that is based on endless growth, which has been sustained over the past few centuries by the depletion of our natural resources. 

P.S.  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oreskes-supran-exxonmobil-20170901-story.html

Quote

Reviewing 187 ExxonMobil documents, we found that 83% of peer-reviewed papers authored by ExxonMobil scientists and 80% of the company’s internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and human-caused. In contrast, only 12% of ExxonMobil’s advertorials directed at the public did so, with 81% instead expressing doubt.

How did the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company respond? With a straw man, a falsehood, cherry picking and character assassination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vibroman said:

Its interesting that a substance that in total represents such a tiny portion (less than 0.04%) of the atmosphere in total & (based on the chart in post 11 only 0.008% is human generated) can cause the majority of the heating. What about other causes? Of course going from 300 ppm to 380 ppm sounds much more impressive than 0.03% to 0.038%.

Yes, it is interesting.  Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, followed by CO2 and CH4.

It is all about the energy balance of the planet. T stabilizes at a level so that energy in = energy out.  If more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, T goes up to allow more energy to leave and the system comes back into balance. And remember if we are talking about T in Kelvin, earth's avg T has increased from ~288 to 288.5 (+/- .1) as CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv (though probably not yet in energy balance, so even at 400 ppmv T will continue to go up).

Look at Venus - T is ~700 K with an atmosphere of 96% CO2.  Mars - T ~210 withnno atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, monsoon said:

Yes, it is interesting.  Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, followed by CO2 and CH4.

It is all about the energy balance of the planet. T stabilizes at a level so that energy in = energy out.  If more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, T goes up to allow more energy to leave and the system comes back into balance. And remember if we are talking about T in Kelvin, earth's avg T has increased from ~288 to 288.5 (+/- .1) as CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv (though probably not yet in energy balance, so even at 400 ppmv T will continue to go up).

Look at Venus - T is ~700 K with an atmosphere of 96% CO2.  Mars - T ~210 withnno atmosphere.

Good point

So If water vapor is the biggest player (what up to around 4% (40,000ppm) in the upper atmosphere?) then why don't we see research study etc  into reducing/controlling it rather than what are effectively trace gasses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vibroman said:

Good point

So If water vapor is the biggest player (what up to around 4% (40,000ppm) in the upper atmosphere?) then why don't we see research study etc  into reducing/controlling it rather than what are effectively trace gasses?

Primarily because of equilibrium issues, if we somehow manage to reduce the water vapor in the upper atmosphere, this (ultimately) increase the rate of evaporation from the oceans, and as a side effect possibly reduce rainfall. Most people would consider this a bad thing.

As far as I am aware there is no data that suggests industrialization and human activities have cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere

We do have data that shows that human activity has increased the CO2 in the atmosphere, this also therefore tells us that changes in human activity can affect this. It seems to make sens to deal with the thing we can deal with, and that we know can have an effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

As far as I am aware there is no data that suggests industrialization and human activities have cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere

YHTBFKM

That would have to be one of the stupidist statements we have seen in these parts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

YHTBFKM

That would have to be one of the stupidist statements we have seen in these parts. 

Now we have shill socks creating their own echo chamber?

cool,

 

whats the evidence and where is it?

my statement was that i am not aware of it... I'm not sure how admitting my ignorance of something is a stupid statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try the laws of Thermodynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, random said:

Try the laws of Thermodynamics.

That's a scientific theory, 

Evidence is something you use to prove a scientific theory.

Changes in atmospheric temperature will result in changes in atmospheric water content,

I agree that my statement ignored the fact that human activity has increased temperatures which will have increased water content, so that  wasnt the smartest comment,

My point was that anything humans do directly to try and mess with the water content is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnMB said:

My point was that anything humans do directly to try and mess with the water content is irrelevant.

My point was that you are talking shit.

Discussions of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is an old tactic used by Exxon agencies to distract discussion away for CO2.  Strawman, and you have either fallen for that tactic or are using it as intended.  Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think tropical weather data is still too small to find definitive evidence of  man made global warming in tropical storms trends. Keep  in mind that we collect a huge amount of data and we have been able to do so for a number of years but that's only a tiny fraction of the time we inhabited the planet. Satellite hurricane tracking started in 1966 and the resolution get better and better but historical data from ice cores with  Co2 level and other atmospherical data goes way back. These set of data are hard to confront.

 

That is why it is tricky to link hurricane activity to global warming, but that is not enough to deny global warming. It is happening even if the storm energy was not significatively different. Scientists agree that human activity impacts CO2 levels and CO2 levels contribute to warm the earth. This relationship is real, it is a fact. It is also a fact that we can do things globally that decrease our emissions, even though it is not clear if this would arrest a phenomenon already going downhill.

those who says that global warming is not man made prefers fantasy over rational and logical arguments based on solid observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

My point was that you are talking shit.

Discussions of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is an old tactic used by Exxon agencies to distract discussion away for CO2.  Strawman, and you have either fallen for that tactic or are using it as intended.  Which is it?

I was responding to a question

This one

2 hours ago, vibroman said:

Good point

So If water vapor is the biggest player (what up to around 4% (40,000ppm) in the upper atmosphere?) then why don't we see research study etc  into reducing/controlling it rather than what are effectively trace gasses?

 

I haven't fallen for anything, did you actually read what i said or just cherry pick to find an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, like I said, you fell for the strawman.  Someone using the Exxon developed strawman, works well doesn't it!

"So If water vapor is the biggest player ... "  Hahahaaaaa.  Bad water vapour, good burn black stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

I haven't fallen for anything, did you actually read what i said or just cherry pick to find an argument?

Responding to "questions" about water vapor is falling for anti-science bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eastern motors said:

Responding to "questions" about water vapor is falling for anti-science bullshit. 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cuntyhunk said:

I think tropical weather data is still too small to find definitive evidence of  man made global warming in tropical storms trends.

Yes, that's what you 'think'.  Nice, when we are talking about science. 

Do some reading on science and get back to us when you are capable of intelligent discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

That's a scientific theory, 

Evidence is something you use to prove a scientific theory.

Changes in atmospheric temperature will result in changes in atmospheric water content,

I agree that my statement ignored the fact that human activity has increased temperatures which will have increased water content, so that  wasnt the smartest comment,

My point was that anything humans do directly to try and mess with the water content is irrelevant.

The LAWS of thermodynamics are not "scientific theory", they are part and parcel of the rules of physical behaviour in our particular universe.  If you don't know that then you should not even attempt to have an opinion on a scientific subject.  And certainly not post such idiocy, unless you are completely immune to embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Go Left said:

The LAWS of thermodynamics are not "scientific theory", they are part and parcel of the rules of physical behaviour in our particular universe.  If you don't know that then you should not even attempt to have an opinion on a scientific subject.  And certainly not post such idiocy, unless you are completely immune to embarrassment.

Or maybe I follow popper's theory of scientific development.

(You are aware of Poppers work right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, eastern motors said:

Responding to "questions" about water vapor is falling for anti-science bullshit. 

responding to questions is fundamental to scientific inquiry.

If you are unwilling or unable to respond to questions then your perspective on this is political not scientific.

James Randi had no difficulty responding to questions on psuedo-science, i don't see how that means he was taken in by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, random said:

Yes, that's what you 'think'.  Nice, when we are talking about science. 

Do some reading on science and get back to us when you are capable of intelligent discussion.

I'd love to read some scientic publications that link tropical storm development and global warming.

Please help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, enough,

This thread needs to be moved to P.A. where it belongs with the many, many, other similar threads with the same, never ending, ad nauseam of inconclusive argument.

your next phase is unlimited graphs....  in 3-2-1...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno Keith

I won't be heading to the cess pool

I was hoping for some civilized scientific discussion without all political BS perhaps it belongs in GA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vibroman said:

I dunno Keith

I won't be heading to the cess pool

I was hoping for some civilized scientific discussion without all political BS perhaps it belongs in GA

Yeah that would be reasonable, but I've never seen that happen for this topic. 

Most have extreme opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys solve Global Warming while was out sailing?  Anybody have their opinion changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, allene222 said:

You guys solve Global Warming while was out sailing?  Anybody have their opinion changed?

Ya bugger. I was moving furniture and suddenly realized I don't know if guns cause global warming. Do guns cause global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cuntyhunk said:

I'd love to read some scientic publications that link tropical storm development and global warming.

Please help.

Fucking troll

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So water vapor... how much water the atmosphere can hold is controlled almost entirely by temperature.  Warmer air holds more water. Water vapor thus is a positive feedback on global warming.  One reason to expect greater tropical cyclone activity/intensity is that water vapor holds a great deal of potential energy through the latent heat released when the vapor condenses. That latent heat is what powers TCs.

I think if we try we can have a civil discussion.

As far as statistically significant relationships between global warming and TCs - jury is still out.  We don't really have long enough records of TC intensity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are an anti science prosititute 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now