Opening with an ad hominem.
About as expected as a knee jerk reaction from climate change warriors to a mildly contra-indicating study.
Funny enough, the highest CO2 value on that graph is 280 PPM for CO2LOL...
Limiting yourself to fossil fuels as a cause.
I showed this before:
As of last month we were sitting just shy of 400 PPM
All the es in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.
Just sayin'
Yes. Fair restatement.
Although you left out the part where some of the scientists involved posit that the reason that we are seeing a flat, lower e is due to the oceans soaking up the excess.
That right there, if true, would be somewhat alarming in its implications.
They have everything to lose, quite the contrary. If they are wrong about the whole thing it will be a huge disaster PR wise at this point.
You are only complaining about an "agenda" because it is not your agenda. Spare me the crocodile tears.
Good science goes where the evidence leads, no matter who is doing the peer reviews.
Closed review processes allow for frank discussions, and for people to speak their minds, criticise and critique without fear of repercussion, FWIW.
Good and bad in that. You haven't given me a reason to lean one way or another.
As for why are there so many "Skeptics"... I would point out that is an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy. If you like I can show you people who still claim that 9-11 is an inside job. Why do they persist in their beliefs?
Simply because conspiracy theories can persist, HAS NO BEARING ON THEIR VERACITY.
You are the one weaseling out. You cannot give me a specific example. I contend you have no valid arguments against my claims, that you are simply an expert at talking out your ass.Ask questions? So you can try and weasel out with claims of context and being misunderstood. These are not new debates, dumbass. You come with the same time and again so I just rub your face in it some more. I have an idea: you find someone that buys your line of you being taken out of context and misunderstood.
I just used the linear example to show how you talk out of your ass. You were the one that ran with it and tried to use 4th grade math to try and demonstrate how you understand. Now you are going onto this tactic. CONTEXT!!!! You shouldn't talk about concepts that you don't understand and you won't be made fun of for being stupid.
I've told you specifically what you are wrong about. I've done it several times. This time, I'll even number them again so your dumb ass can figure it out.
1) Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI (and being out of phase even though your dumbass has yet to recognize this).
2) Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3) That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.
You have been shown that the models do consider these things and have been in existence for at least 4 years.
Your dumbass is trying to twist it into me saying that they agree with you. It's tantamount to you accusing someone of being colorblind and patting yourself on the back when they say the sky is blue.
All three of your examples are too general and wrong at that.
Go to a specific claim and post, else shut the up.
Yes, and that 400 ppm has not increased our temperature above the past temperature peaks. Not the lat one at +2C, and only about 260 ppm.
What if the oceans have been soaking up much of the extra solar power since the increased solar output between 1900 and 1950, and have been slowly releasing with a lag as long as 50 years?
It seems pretty precise to me. You have been talking about the UV spectrum effect with your canned charts of what molecules absorbed that bandwidth and where they aresince you've been posting here. I imagine that you have been saying it nonstop since you first found the chart years ago. You seem to have held onto the rocket scientist and ocean as a soda for a long time too. This is just another thing you roll out too.
Seems you don't want to actually discuss what I am saying just like you didn't want to talk about linearity. I don't blame you. I imagine that you are at wit's end trying to figure out some other bull you can say have you figured out over 'climate alarmists.'
Exactly. They can trump up an agenda, and have nothing to lose.
We have activist scientists advocating we devote large investments to something that many say is a waste of money. They need to be damn certain before anyone involved with the IPCC convinces world politicians to damage our economy. Everyone's reputation needs to be on the line.
Doctors are, when peer reviewed.
That's your opinion, which I say is not true, unless you are calling my agenda, being factually accurate.
It doesn't in the Climate Sciences.
It also allows like minded people to fly with an agenda.
It needs to be open to keep it honest.
How about this simple attempt.
The energy budget can be broken down into percentage of power. In fact, it used to be represented that way before using it in watt/square meter.
The sun effectively is the source of 100% of all the heat energy in the surface, seas, and atmosphere.
The total energy in the atmosphere by the above chart is 158% of the 340 watts/square meter the earth receives. Now almost all solar scientists will agree that the solar TSI has increased by about 0.15% since the IPCC beginning time frame of 1750. If you notice, the direct solar heating in the troposphere in the above graph is 23%. Now 23% of the 340 is 78.2 watts/square meter. 0.15% of this 78.2 is the 0.12 watts per square meter the IPCC AR4 assigns for solar radiative forcing change. They don't even hide the fact that they are only consider the "direct forcing." That isn't the end of the story, and one of the places Fuzzy mixes up when linear and nonlinear calculations are applied. The 0.15% does not stop here. It applies to all the numbers. Now look at this atmospheric total of 158%. This is a pretty large value. If we assume this NASA graph to be correct, it represents 537.2 watts/square meter. Now 0.15% of that 537.2 watts is 0.806 watts. This represents the total forcing changes from a 0.15% solar change. This is half of the global warming the IPCC claims since 1750.
I submit that these alarmists are conveniently leaving out this indirect solar forcing, and passing it off as extra greenhouse gas forcing. The they have also in recent years, acknowledged that both soot and UV have greater effects than previously thought.
CO2 is losing the battle in science.
How many of them are respected scientists?
I claim this is a conspiracy only on the part of a limited few, driven by agenda. I think most who believe are simply applying incorrect teachings from universities.
Still all bluster, and no specific examples.
You are ing lame Fuzzy.
I guess numbering them made it too difficult to figure out. Would bullet points have helped? Wait! I have an idea!
It doesn't matter. You are still a joke.
But wasn't it your theory that temperatures CAUSED Co2?
Wouldn't a flat decade with rising CO2 levels kinda debunk that?
I would also point out that the current e in CO2 is faster than has ever been recorded in that graph.
Doesn't that rate cause you some concern?
A testable hypothesis. Get testing.
Please. You would not even need peer review to look at your paper.
Sure thing Cosmored. Big claim, big burden of proof. The Climate Gate stuff doesn't quite mean what you would like it to, so you will need to get some hard evidence of this vast conspiracy.
How many people are in on this conspiracy of yours? 10? 100? 100,000? Give us some hint as to the order of magnitude.
So none of these people is as smart as you are, and have put 2 + 2 together to see through this "agenda"?
That is what you are going with?
The PhD candidates are too stupid to figure out they have "conveniently" missed things, and are being led down a false road by some nebulous group of "scientists" with a secret agenda?
That about right?
Last one before I log off. Either he is re-stating your position accurately, or his is not.Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.
If not then, say why not.
I would hate to miss something important, and believe something falsely, either about what you are trying to say, or something as important as climate change, and its causes.
Specifically, ocean temperature. Not atmospheric temperature.
I have been saying that ocean temperature changes CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have said long wave radiative forcing does little to ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures do not necessarily change with atmospheric temperatures. It is comical to think that the greenhouse effect has any substantial impact of ocean temperatures.
If you look at the electromagnetic absorption of liquid water, it absorbs very little at the visible and shorter frequencies, that make it to the surface. It is effectively transparent to them. The IR from the greenhouse effect are readily absorbed in the uppermost surface, where they re-radiate back upward, and have little effect in increasing the water temperature. The visible band and shorter wavelengths are not so readily absorbed, and travels several hundred feed before effectively being absorbed. This causes a warming of deeper waters and stays in the system longer. This is increased heat, not making it back to the surface for a very long time.
No, because of ocean currents, and man's input of CO2 to the atmosphere.
So?
Not at all. What concerns me is the soot that is also coming from the Asian industrialization, from the burning of fossil fuels that aren't regulated for solid emissions like ours are.
A testable, scientific hypothesis.
I don't care what you *say*.
I care what you can prove.
Design a test for this hypothesis. Tell me how to go about confirming it.
Has this work already been done?
Liquid water or ocean water?
What about the particles, creatures and ions besides water that are actually in the ocean?
Correct me if I am wrong, but how much energy does plankton absorb globally? Ultimately a lot of the energy they absorb gets released into the environment.
Seems to me that basing your assumptions on clear water would not tell us anything useful, unless we know exactly how much is absorbed.
Further, water may be clear, but what happens when you get a mile or two of it? How much light reaches the last few feet? What implication does this have to your theory?
Yes, this type of ocean research has been done to some extent. I don't know how much has been done in relating it to atmospheric temperatures.
As for proving it to you. I don't have the means to do so. If you understand enough about the sciences involved, you will agree that it makes sense at least. Still, it's good to be skeptical. That is proper science.
lmao at this op ed
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...eam-after-all/
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Like most of you, I yearn for shorter winters, more shirt-sleeve weather, less lashing from frigid winds. As a confirmed New Yorker, I’m not willing to do what millions have done: move to the sunbelt. I want warmer weather here in the Big City.
But I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather. It’s enough to make one doubt the “settled science” of the government-funded doom-sayers.
Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology Harry BinswangerContributor
Anti-Immigration Rhetoric Frighteningly Reveals Education's Failure Harry BinswangerContributor
With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral Harry BinswangerContributor
No President Obama, We Can't "Outcompete" Other Countries Harry BinswangerContributor
Remember 1979? That was the year of “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge, of “The Dukes of Hazard” on TV, and of “ Kramer vs. Kramer” on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.
In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: “Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.” The abstract in the Times archives says: “If the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.”
By 1981 (think “Chariots of Fire“), the drum beat had taken effect. Quoting from the American Ins ute of Physics website: “A 1981 survey found that more than a third of American adults claimed they had heard or read about the greenhouse effect.”
So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
After all this time, when the continuation of industrial civilization itself is on the table, shouldn’t there be some palpable, observable effect of the disaster that we are supposed to sacrifice our futures in order to avoid? Shouldn’t the doom-sayers be saying “We told you so!” backed up by a torrent of youtube videos of submerged locales and media stories reminding us about how it used to snow in Massachusetts?
Climate panic, after all, is fear of dramatic, life-altering climate changes, not about tenths of a degree. We are told that we must “take action right now before it’s Too Late!” That doesn’t mean: before it’s too late to avoid a Spring that comes a week earlier or summer heat records of 103 degrees instead of 102. It was to fend off utter disaster that we needed the Kyoto Treaty, carbon taxes, and Priuses.
With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions? Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, those of us who long for warmer weather will have to give up the dream–or move south.
Both. There isn't enough salt or other minerals to have a significant effect.
Same thing. They don't "blanket" the waters.
I'm sure it's a tremendous amount. It's not enough to keep light from reaching several hundred feet deep.
Then as an ocean explorer how deep they can still see without artificial lighting.
If any spectra at all reaches that deep, it probably isn't measurable.
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Chinese burning of high sulphur fuels like coal, etc., could have a marked cooling effect.
Your "soot" could end up reflecting far more energy than the dark color stuff you imagine is a big deal.
Do some research on the kinds of coal the Chinese are using. It is the dirty dirty dirty sulfuric kind.Begin with aerosols, such as those from sulphates. These stop the atmosphere from warming by reflecting sunlight. Some heat it, too. But on balance aerosols offset the warming impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most climate models reckon that aerosols cool the atmosphere by about 0.3-0.5°C. If that underestimated aerosols’ effects, perhaps it might explain the lack of recent warming.
If these areosols are cooling the atmosphere, but still causing large amounts of CO2, we would expect that, all other things equal, one might get higher CO2 concentrations and just modest temperature rises.
What happens when the Chinese decide that they need to scrub their coal emissions to keep them from dying in the streets from emphasema?
The areosols go away, and the CO2 sticks around.
Still something we should put some efforts to avoid.So what does all this amount to? The scientists are cautious about interpreting their findings. As Dr Knutti puts it, “the bottom line is that there are several lines of evidence, where the observed trends are pushing down, whereas the models are pushing up, so my personal view is that the overall assessment hasn’t changed much.”
But given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified: a downwards nudge on various best estimates from 3°C to 2.5°C, perhaps; a lower ceiling (around 4.5°C), certainly. If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch. But it would not yet be downgraded.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a benchmark in climate science. But it is a very specific measure. It attempts to describe what would happen to the climate once all the feedback mechanisms have worked through; equilibrium in this sense takes centuries—too long for most policymakers. As Gerard Roe of the University of Washington argues, even if climate sensitivity were as high as the IPCC suggests, its effects would be minuscule under any plausible discount rate because it operates over such long periods. So it is one thing to ask how climate sensitivity might be changing; a different question is to ask what the policy consequences might be.
For that, a more useful measure is the transient climate response (TCR), the temperature you reach after doubling CO₂ gradually over 70 years. Unlike the equilibrium response, the transient one can be observed directly; there is much less controversy about it. Most estimates put the TCR at about 1.5°C, with a range of 1-2°C. Isaac Held of America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently calculated his “personal best estimate” for the TCR: 1.4°C, reflecting the new estimates for aerosols and natural variability.
That sounds reassuring: the TCR is below estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity. But the TCR captures only some of the warming that those 70 years of emissions would eventually generate because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for much longer.
As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.
Since CO₂ ac ulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.
Bottom line the problem still appears pressing, and despite what the economic alarmists claim, would not bankrupt us, or even cost the average person much.
It baffles me why we can't do more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
