Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its appropriate that you would cite a science fiction author.

BTW as for data you mean something like this?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

[RandomGuy]

Maybe RG should read this:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/...ing_trust.html

An exerpt

I happen to agree with her analysis for the most part.



The funny thing about you posting this, is that the analysis essentially blames the politically/economically motivated s like yourself for discrediting the legitimate skeptics, and producing the groupthink that is criticised. If you had those self-same critical thinking skills you might have noted that irony.

That's why I delineate between actual skeptics and "deniers", who are essentially climate change "truthers".

Just as there are some legitimate skepticisms of the "official version" of 9-11, there are legitimate skepticisms of the way climate science is conducted, and the conclusions reached.

Beyond that, you get the morons like Cosmored, and you apparently, who glom on to some kernel of truth, magnify that with ignorance and paranoia to see vast deliberate conspiracies. These vast conspiracies then move to somehow purposefully repress you.

The reality is that most people who aren't somewhat mentally disfunctional, and have the ability to form logical thoughts react with increasing repulsion at the continued craziness from such people. That general reaction then paints the legitimate skeptics with the taint of the nutters. This isn't to say it is fair, or condusive to good science. It isn't. It isn't a total barrier, either.

That's why I really advocate improved transparency and changes to peer review to make it even more rigorous.

That is just good science.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol michael criton. Lolololololol

[DarrinS]

I happen to agree with her analysis for the most part.

The funny thing about you posting this, is that the analysis essentially blames the politically/economically motivated s like yourself for discrediting the legitimate skeptics, ...

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with re ed doesn't add much to the debate.

[DarrinS]

Lol michael criton. Lolololololol

Lol Al Gore. Lolololololol

[MannyIsGod]

Lol Al Gore. Lolololololol

Did I quote Gore? Ever?

[RandomGuy]

[Michael Crichton said:]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Another shining example of taking a kernel of truth and magnifying it to produce something dishonest.

Mr. Crichton is right of course. Then again, so is Manny.

Consensus is the refuge of scoundrels, and neither is it entirely useless in building conceptual frameworks. On the contrary, a general agreement on how things work, is what allows for further steps in researching. At any point, the lone correct researcher can, should, and hopefully must come forward to prove that consensus wrong when needed.

The most important take-away from Mr. Crichton's quote is the bit about reproducible results.

The recent BEST analysis shows the power of this. Skeptics and Deniers claim that the heat island affect was markedly affecting the conclusions about how much warming was taking place. The BEST analysis then went out and reproduced the previous analysis, and showed the affect was negative.

That weeded out the skeptics from the Deniers.

The next step in addressing the legitimate skeptics, is to conduct the same kinds of reproducible calculations and transparency to the science that points to human caused actions to the e in CO2 (mostly done anyways) and the linking of that and other GHG more conclusively to the warming trend we now know is happening.

Truthers cling to their dogmatic worldview, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and I have little doubt that Deniers will be doing the same. Even now some are moving to continue their dismissal that there is even any warming taking place.

I don't think you and WC are completely mentally disfunctional, ala Cosmored, so the only thing I wonder is how long you will cling to the dogma, as more and more evidence piles up.

When you finally realize how dumb and wrong you are/were, and want to make amends, let me be the first to offer you both a good swift kick in the butt as part of your "sorry I ed everybody over with my stupidity" contrition.

[Wild Cobra]

Did I quote Gore? Ever?

You might as well since you link other peoples work instead of being able to explain in your own words.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You might as well since you link other peoples work instead of being able to explain in your own words.

The problem arises when people such as yourself try and explain it in your own words. Tell us about looking into the troposphere and compare fog's refratction/diffusion with the absorption of photons by molecules again. That was great.

Thats why I keep quoteing Bert when you try and do the above:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Your comments on 'looking into the troposphere' and fog were just that, you dumb mother er. Being able to put it in your onw words only adds value when you are not a dumb mother er so for you it doesn't apply.

Mass coronal ejection?

You are comedy gold in just one week.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think you and WC are completely mentally disfunctional, ala Cosmored, so the only thing I wonder is how long you will cling to the dogma, as more and more evidence piles up.

What do you mean. Evidence is going our way. Just because temperatures have increased, and a skeptic changes his thought, doesn't mean . He went from not believing temperatures have increased, to the stance Darrin and I share, that temperatures have increased. He still makes no claim that it is due to CO2.

When you finally realize how dumb and wrong you are/were, and want to make amends, let me be the first to offer you both a good swift kick in the butt as part of your "sorry I ed everybody over with my stupidity" contrition.

How can you be certain we are wrong? Because consensus says so? Funny how as scientists actually verify their claims, the find more and more warming due to things like solar and soot. That means there is less warming somewhere else than they accounted for or more cooling from something.

I have stated before, I guess I must remind you again, I will let our future's history judge me.

Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:



The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

[Wild Cobra]

Well Fuzzy, I put it in terms I hope everyone can understand, and you still don't. Oh well, I tried.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So is it hiding in the deep oceans or in the stratosphere, WC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well Fuzzy, I put it in terms I hope everyone can understand, and you still don't. Oh well, I tried.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[Wild Cobra]

So is it hiding in the deep oceans or in the stratosphere, WC?

It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

What did you think that I was talking about when i said that they were nonperiodic systems? You do not even know how to begin to model and as such watching you try and discuss models is comedy gold.

I am way past your frame of mind, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

This is exactly what i am talking about.

'We should see?' Really should we huh?

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[RandomGuy]

What do you mean. Evidence is going our way.

If I had a nickel for every 9-11 truther who said the same for the stupid they posted...

Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:



The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

The problem with that is ocean acidification from carbonic acids.

If your contention is that the extra Co2 is almost entirely from the sea, then the sea, as it gives up the CO2 gases, should be seeing less acidity from these carbonic acids.

The fact that the Oceans appear to be soaking up atmospheric CO2, despite warming, indicates that the net gain in CO2 is from some other source, does it not?

That, in turn points to one of the things I have been saying about negative feedback cycles.

Add a little CO2 to the air = retain heat

Retain heat = warm the oceans

warm the oceans = add more CO2 to the air

add more CO2 to the air = retain more heat

Etc. That is a good reason not to monkey with such cycles.

If your theory is true, then all you have to do is sample dissolved CO2 in the oceans. It goes down, as air concentration goes up, then you have a good bit of evidence showing the CO2 came from someplace other than the gigatons of yearly human emissions.

Since there is a fairly obvious source for that increasing CO2, i.e. human yearly emissions, you have a fairly high hurdle to climb.

Get cracking, crusader of truthiness.

[RandomGuy]

It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

A complex system that we understand little about.

Precisely why adding gigatons of extra CO2 and other GHG into the air is a bad idea.

[RandomGuy]

Similarly, one of the first detailed datasets examining temporal variations in pH at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring at a rate much higher than that previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[18][19] Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank, has suggested that "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This bit also raises another point that gets glossed over by Deniers in their rush to form strawman arguments about what climate scientists say.

It isn't about whether aspects of our climate have existed before, it is the rate of change that is far, far outside historical norms.

[MannyIsGod]

Its gotten to the point that I really look forward to this thread being updated because I can almost always count on it for at least a chuckle.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with that is ocean acidification from carbonic acids.

This also has more than one cause, and I forget specifically, but various carbon forms of the carbon cycle establish an equilibrium based on acidity too. Temperature also p[lays a part of these equilibrium.

Why do you believe what other tell you? Have you ever researched this part of the issue?

If your contention is that the extra Co2 is almost entirely from the sea, then the sea, as it gives up the CO2 gases, should be seeing less acidity from these carbonic acids.

No. No. No...

Don't you even try to understand anything I say? Why do you not listen to what I say, and then jump to incorrect assumptions?

I said the ocean would give up CO2 is we didn't generate any extra. As it stands, the ocean is absorbing about half the extra atmospheric CO2. The ocean is still caining CO2, not losing it. However, at equilibrium, the ocean has about 98% of the carbon. This means it should absorb about 98% of what we emit. However, it takes time and temperature will change this percentage for equilibrium.

The fact that the Oceans appear to be soaking up atmospheric CO2, despite warming, indicates that the net gain in CO2 is from some other source, does it not?

Yes, they are soaking up

That, in turn points to one of the things I have been saying about negative feedback cycles.

Add a little CO2 to the air = retain heat

Retain heat = warm the oceans

warm the oceans = add more CO2 to the air

add more CO2 to the air = retain more heat

Etc. That is a good reason not to monkey with such cycles.

Except that the radiative band the water absorbs from CO2 is limited, and doesn't beuld up the same energy because it is absorbed rather than reflected back in the atmosphere. Now what you are forgetting is that water absorbs about 90% of the solar energy that it comes in contact with. Our southern hemisphere is closest to the sun during our winter time, and is mostly water. This is more collection of energy in the waters than the greenhouse effect, and the way the ocean currents flow matter too. The warmer the water near the poles are, the less CO2 is absorbed. Cold water in the polar regions sink CO2. The surface waters become saturated quicker. As this water moves north, it is sourcing CO2, and since it started out warmer, it warms more, and releases more CO2 than it would if it were cooler.

If your theory is true, then all you have to do is sample dissolved CO2 in the oceans. It goes down, as air concentration goes up, then you have a good bit of evidence showing the CO2 came from someplace other than the gigatons of yearly human emissions.

This is already known science. Solubility of gasses in fluids vs. temperature, pressure, and even salinity are taken into account. It is measurable in the water. Alarmists completely ignore this part of the geosciences as isn't part of the meteorology they learned.

Since there is a fairly obvious source for that increasing CO2, i.e. human yearly emissions, you have a fairly high hurdle to climb.

No I don't. Note this chart:



Lets just take 5C at 34 psu. The value is 52.44. If we relate it to the carbon absorbed in the ocean for the ratio of 40,000 GtC total with 750 of it in the atmosphere, then we can say the ocean contains 39,250 GtC.

Now if the increase the entire ocean temperature was about 0.1 degrees, we can approximate change by calculating 1/50 the value of 52.44 - 44.13, or 0.1662. We would have an approximate decrease of equilibrium to 52.27 (5244 - 0.17).

Now this 52.27 is 99.68% of the other value, but 99.68% of 39,250 is 39,127. Now, for equilibrium, we have to force another 123 GtC of carbon, or about 60 ppm into the atmosphere.

That is with no added CO2 by man, and only a 0.1 C increase.

Of course, this will be inaccurate because most the ocean is colder and some is warmer than the 5C I used, but I just wanted to show you how little changes can make bug difference.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. No. No...

Don't you even try to understand anything I say? Why do you not listen to what I say, and then jump to incorrect assumptions?

I said the ocean would give up CO2 is we didn't generate any extra. As it stands, the ocean is absorbing about half the extra atmospheric CO2. The ocean is still caining CO2, not losing it. However, at equilibrium, the ocean has about 98% of the carbon. This means it should absorb about 98% of what we emit. However, it takes time and temperature will change this percentage for equilibrium.

No it does not. Its not a linear system. I know you are too stupid to understand the relevance but its there. You are assuming only one stable point anyway and there is no evidence that is the case either.

Oh and btw you are making all these claims about oceanic CO2 but considering all of your questioning concerning the atmospheric data collection, its only sensible that you hold this data to the same scrutiny.

So, dumb , where are the samples taken, how often, and in what manner? After all how do you know that the CO2 is not being hidden in the deep ocean currents like you claim the heat was?

You cannot even keep up with the logical extensions of your own bull .

[MannyIsGod]

f (x) = x^2

f (2) = 4

ERGO

f (4) = 8

Right?

[Wild Cobra]

No it does not. Its not a linear system. I know you are too stupid to understand the relevance but its there. You are assuming only one stable point anyway and there is no evidence that is the case either.

Oh and btw you are making all these claims about oceanic CO2 but considering all of your questioning concerning the atmospheric data collection, its only sensible that you hold this data to the same scrutiny.

So, dumb , where are the samples taken, how often, and in what manner? After all how do you know that the CO2 is not being hidden in the deep ocean currents like you claim the heat was?

You cannot even keep up with the logical extensions of your own bull .

It is linear to partial pressure. The table is correct as are the relevant percentage changes. Though I simplified the calculation and it isn't 100% correct, it isn't far off.

If you wish to still disagree with me, let's see your math.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This bit also raises another point that gets glossed over by Deniers in their rush to form strawman arguments about what climate scientists say.

It isn't about whether aspects of our climate have existed before, it is the rate of change that is far, far outside historical norms.

I forget the details, but the ocean acidification has exceeded anything the extra CO2 would cause. Acidification is not caused only by CO2. Want me to believe CO2 is the cause, show proof of eliminating the other factors.

This link you provide has a graph I've seen before:



Now coral formations are in shallow warm water. then this water gets warmer, it doesn't retain as much CO2. It out-gasses more. For the same equilibrium reasons it cannot hold as much CO2 and carbonic acid, it cannot hold as much of the other carbonates. This is why coral loses it's calcium carbonate. Temperature changes this equilibrium also . From your link:

(CO2(aq)), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO−
3) and carbonate (CO2−
3). The ratio of these species depends on factors such as seawater temperature and alkalinity (see the article on the ocean's solubility pump for more detail).

Now if we follow the link to Solubility Pump:

The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water)

One consequence of this is that when deep water upwells in warmer, equatorial la udes, it strongly outgasses carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of the reduced solubility of the gas.

This means global warming will release CO2 from the ocean.

Please...

Start reading up and understanding this part of the geosciences and stop listening to the alarmists propaganda.

It is very unscientific to blame everything on CO2 only when there are other factors. If you want to be believed, at least attempt to account for the other factors as well.