Global Warming My Arse

I'll have to think that through.

 

Except that they had no reason to get the guy who was seated as he hadn't done anything to the dumba$$ bullies, except for what they determined as being 'what was wrong with America'. I love it when bullies get their a$$es handed to them.

 

Of course they were dumb asses. No reason for them to hassle people. They just made tactical mistakes.

 

Sure. But "significant" is relative. When using the form of the equation that outputs radiative forcing the range of the parameter are actually pretty tight. And they've been derived using multiple techniques. For example, the 5.35 W/m2 is a reasonable blend of techniques that use infrared spectroscopy and theoretical calculations rooted in quantum mechanics. If fact, the only range I've ever seen with substantial backing from the scientific community is 5.35 to 6.30 and almost everyone uses the lower 5.35 value to be conservative.

The form of the equation that maps directly to a tropospheric temperature increase is a lot more uncertain. That's because the sensitivity of the climate (measured in C per W/m2) isn't static. The paleoclimate record suggests that this sensitivity can range from 0.5 C per W/m2 to over 2.0C per W/m2. This gives a final range of 0.5 * 5.35 = 2.68C and 2.0 * 6.3 = 12.6C. That means the final range in pure terms of tropospheric temperature for a doubling of CO2 is 2.68 * ln(560/280) = 1.85C and 12.6 * ln(560/280) = 8.73C. Again that is a range of 1.85C - 8.73C per doubling of CO2. The official IPCC range is only 1.5C - 4.5C though.

The IPCC range is conservative for two reasons. First, they actually dropped the lower bound from 2.0C to 1.5C in AR5 because of only a single line of evidence. Namely, the pause in warming from 1998 to 2012. This is a very controversial move for several reasons that I won't get into right now. But, suffice it to say this upset a lot of scientists. The 1.5C lower bound is NOT the consensus on the matter so that is one exceptional case of the IPCC failing to preserve consensus. Second, the IPCC is typically silent on tipping points that cause further warming. So while the lower bound of 1.5C has an extremely high degree of confidence the upper bound actually has low confidence. Again, the IPCC is being very conservative for reasons that are controversial.

 

Yep. Ditto. I had to go into work that night for literally no technical reason. It was pure PR because *if* in the unlikely event there was a problem (whether it was related to Y2K or not) the media would have crucified us for not having someone ready at a moments notice. The whole thing was pretty dumb actually.

 

There is a mountain of evidence supporting this conclusion. And it comes via different techniques including but not limited laboratory experiments, infrared spectroscopy, calculations rooted from the fundamental quantum mechanic process of converting quantized photon energy into thermal energy via molecular vibration, etc. This evidence goes back to the 1860's when Tyndall first proved that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Even Fourier (of Fourier analysis fame) correctly surmised that our atmosphere was trapping heat in the 1820's. He just didn't know how and didn't explorer the issue further.

 

A rather disproportionate number of those skeptical scientists appear to be employed or financially supported by vested interests. How odd.

I agree that future projections are not definitive. They are predictions after all. OTOH, there seems to consensus on the phenomena as a whole (accelerated temp increases) while they bicker about how devastating the effects will likely be. NOT that human generated pollution is causing such an acceleration or that the effects will be detrimental to our civilization.

I noticed higher co2 amounts in a world that was much hotter 400 million years ago along with more methane and less oxygen. Humans would not be happy campers trying to live in that atmospheric soup. go figger.

 

Anyone here really believe we can control the atom?

 

Here is a good explanation:

https://www.learnastronomyhq.com/articles/why-the-sun-will-become-hotter-and-brighter.html

 

And the Sun was also 4% dimmer 400 million years ago as well. That yields a radiative forcing difference of 0.04 * 340 = -13.6 W/m2. While at the same time the CO2 radiative forcing would be 5.35 * ln(12) = +13.3 W/m2. Of course solar radiation and CO2 aren't the only mechanisms modulating the climate. But, as you can see CO2 (among other things) is one piece of the puzzle in solving the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

This is the fundamental problem in ignoring CO2's effect. Skeptics/deniers who ignore it or pretend like the magnitude of it's effect is somehow lower than the laws of physics mandate not only fail at explaining current climate change, but fail at explaining past climate change as well. CO2 absolutely IS an essential piece of the climate change puzzle. Any theory that ignores it or censors the magnitude of it's effect completely and utterly breaks down.

This is why skeptics/deniers like Soon, Baliunas, Easterbrook, etc. who ignore CO2 and instead focus solely on the Sun are consistently wrong with their cooling predictions.

In fact, their claim that the Sun is THE driver of climate change is ridiculously stupid based solely on first principal reasoning. The paleoclimate record definitively shows that global temperatures have generally moved in the opposite direction of solar radiation over the last 500 million years. It's certainly the most important factor in determining what the equilibrium temperature of Earth is (being about 15C on average). But, it's not the only factor in determining how that equilibrium changes. In fact, it's probably not even the most important factor in driving the change.

 

It doesn't really matter what the flux is off the star. Whether it's a big star or a small star makes no difference. It's the raw amount of radiation being emitted that matters.

The principal isn't really any different than in everyday objects. It doesn't matter if it's an incandescent lightbulb or a human body. They both radiate at about 100W. The flux off the bulb will be higher than the flux of the human. But anything in the vicinity of either will receive roughly the same amount of radiation. Well...that's actually not true for pedantic and technical reason, but I'm leaving that out of the discussion for now. It's the concept I'm going for here.

 

I knew about the nature of the problem, and wondered what the hell was wrong with people in expert positions that thought they were facing something insurmountable.

It is not fact, but what people believe that controls the decisions and actions. What they tend to believe is what someone with "expertise" tells them they should think. The number who think for themselves and are skeptical of dubious claims seems to be steadily shrinking. Bad sign.
I think I directed you to a site covering the people warning us of the dangers of the chemical DHMO for example, and the lack of action ignoring it. What did you think?

Frequently, we see street interviews asking our current average person questions that could be answered by any 8th grader 100 years ago- and most don't have an answer. Saw one the other day; question- when did the pilgrims land at plymouth rock? Answer- 1900. We have become a society with a lot of people who have a high amount of knowledge in one field, often none in others. Many can't spell, but they are smart- so smart they are easy to manipulate.

 

Absolutely. I fully agree.

I should have made it clear that I was limiting my comment to advances in understanding climate change.

I keep hearing claims that soeone is getting rich from climate change and THAT is the motivating factor behind what we're hearing.

Such claims should come with an explanation of what the heck the poster is talking about.

 

No, it is absolutely NOTHING like that.

Scientists have been measuring earth's temperature and heat arrival and departure along with what mechanisms change the balance.

The conclusion that mankind is having an affect comes from that analysis.

I don't know of ANY "doomsday" predictions.

As for Y2K, I think you just don't understand what happened.

In that case, computer scientists identified a serious problem and, along with those from the economic community, described the magnitude of the danger.

BECAUSE of that warning, a gigantic effort was put into addressing the problem - which was accomplished pretty much successfully.

Another example is the "ozone hole". Scientists found that problem and identified the major human causes. The result was a world wide effort to reduce emissions of the offending chemicals.

Again, that was successful, although other problems with our ozone layer have cropped up since then.

These problems were very real.

The difference is that people here and abroad worked together to resolve the problem.

But, with climate change you want to deny the probblem. You want to claim that the vast majority of climatologists from around the world somehow don't know as much about climate as YOU do. But, of course they're all just phd's who have been working on this problem for decades.

 

That's not a fair representation.

By that time, a lot of code had been changed.

I fully agree you were there more for corporate PR reasons. But, that doesn't mean that no work got done to ensure your presence wasn't needed.

I'd point out that many companies were able to be protected by simply buying updates to the software they were using, or using the coming event as a further motivator to upgrade to better business solutions.

 

There was a rather large issue in corporate Line of Business apps. Those old cobol programs that ran the backbone of corporate transactions scared hell outta management as they raced to ensure that their date related applications would continue to function correctly. Things like aged receivables and all Previous Year/YTD comparisons, and the broad range of truly mundane but critically important applications reliant on date processing.

The garbage about planes falling out of the air and such nonsense was all fear mongering bullshit that NONE of my technical associates believed for a nanosec.

 

I had a PhD working for me for several years too. He was my warehouse janitor. Knew a lot, could talk about things in his field, and could sound like an expert- but didn't understand most of what he knew and couldn't actually make use of it. Nice guy though, but had very little motivation. I think he stayed in school to avoid the real world, and mom & dad paid the bills.

I don't argue that global warming is happening, and I have said that repeatedly. I do argue that those laying the complete responsibility of humans is a stretch, and assuming that we can effectively reverse it is a far greater stretch.

Science, in theory- will be guided by facts that are strongly backed up by data and statistics. However, scientists are human too. They want to be recognized, they need to be published, and you don't get those things by bucking the trend or consensus. If you know much about statistics, perhaps you have heard the old saying-

"There are three kinds of lies- lies, damned lies, and statistics".

What the means is that anything that is at all complex can have a statistical base created to prove it- according to what conclusion is desired. Science is not above this. Further- science accepts certain things and does not like to be contested. When mistakes are discovered, somethings things that have been playing a role in other decisions for a very long time- acceptance of something contradictory is an uphill fight, regardless of proof. Medicine is the same way- when a doctor in Australia discovered that ulcers were caused by a particular bacteria and could be treated with the right antibiotics, he was laughed at. Took 20 years for mainstream medicine to alter the treatment course. Nobody likes to be wrong- and once they have taken a position, for whatever reason, the resistance only gets stronger.

You apparently want to give the scientists 100% credibility. I give them perhaps 75%. However I give the people coming up with what they call solutions about 40%.

 

one day of below normal temps and Conservatives want to throw science out the window.

pathetic

 

Nah.
Actually I would suspect that the below temps are an associated phenomenon. Weather will always have randoms. Of course, when their buns are growing icicles, people are going to ask where the hell the global warming is.....

Now when the glaciers begin to reform, everyone should be asking that question.

 

Good points. But the howling dogs are all looking for power and control.

Just an observation on the money,power, and popularity aspect. We are told the science is settled. There is certainty in the data and the consensus of researchers. The only people not convinced are deniers who are too stupid or uneducated to understand the facts.

So, why is the big money and emphasis on collecting more data, creating better models, and writing more papers and warnings? Is this logical? No. If thousands of scientists are convinced we must act now or die, where is the mass exodus of scientists from the climate change research field into sectors trying to find remedies? Shouldn’t the brightest minds in the field be putting their talent to better use than adding to the preponderance of evidence that’s useless against the skeptical rubes anyway? Wouldn’t anything less be suicide?

The case for warming from CO2 is logical. From there the whole narrative goes to pieces for me. Too many dots that don’t connect and too many actions and reactions that aren’t rational in context of the big picture narrative we are asked to swallow.

I agree it seems no one is willing to have skin in the game. They just want to shame or force others to put their skin in the game. That doesn’t fly with me and a lot of others.

 

Seriously, I don't care if you found a PHD you can call stupid.

As for making a name in sciencc, the greatest opportunity for that is in proving climate change theory false.

Confirming current understanding NEVER gets the major attention in science.

Once again, you got it totally backwards!

You give them 0% credibility. You keep saying they screw their results in order to confirm existing thought and suggest they are too vain to accept the truth. You tell me about some phd you hired - that he''s stupid and/or lazy. Don't bother me with claims that you have any respect for science.

And after that, saying anything about solutions is just silliness. Why would I think you know anything about solutions?

 

That is all correct IMO. My concern (disagreement) is in the differential -- the ongoing change in the forcing with the ongoing change in the concentration.

 

I disagree per my earlier post. There is credible evidence to stupor the current differential but no evidence to support the differential one magnitude ahead.

 

Sounds like an ad hominem rebuttal.

 

With significant reservations, I'll consider your claim.