Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

14 Mar 2016, 3:35 am

if Europe can do it [take steps to address excess energy usage and curb pollution] then why can't we? why do we have to take second place to the rest of the west?



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,240
Location: Long Island, New York

14 Mar 2016, 7:33 am

auntblabby wrote:
if Europe can do it [take steps to address excess energy usage and curb pollution] then why can't we? why do we have to take second place to the rest of the west?


If Holland where a lot of the country is underground can build a systems of levees and dikes that works so can we but we will not

1. Mostly out of pride we will not admit a small country has done it better for hundreds of years. All it would take is that we ask then and pay them but we won't.

2. Companies after screaming and kicking will pay lip service to reducing carbon, because it is good Public relations and will be popular with the mellenial market.

3. We will be too gaddammed broke.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

14 Mar 2016, 1:29 pm

auntblabby wrote:
if Europe can do it [take steps to address excess energy usage and curb pollution] then why can't we? why do we have to take second place to the rest of the west?

A: Because we are a representative Democracy & such systems require an informed, educated citizenry.

Also, mostly unregulated capitalism + lobbying, but I repeat myself.

And, we have no laws against dishonesty in political campaigns.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

14 Mar 2016, 1:41 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
what will the deniers say when it is 40 or 50 years down the road and billions of people have been flooded out of their coastal cities?


What will they say if 40 or 50 years down the road there is no major flooding and billions of people have not be flooded out of their coastal cities.

Just keep in mind that the IPCC models are not supported strongly by empirical evidence. Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.

I have no doubt that the temperature level is rising. But what is driving it? Is it the man made CO2 overload. Or is it some natural driver or drivers? The IPCC folk have reduced the thermodynamic complexity of the Earth atmosphere and ocean temperatures to CO2. The thermodynamics of the system are far more complicated. They have not dealt with the feedbacks, both positive and negative. They have not factored in the ocean temperature variations.

The scientific quality of the IPCC studies, putting it charitably, questionable.


Have a look at this presentation which is rather technical. If you can manage the math statistics well and good.
If not look at the portion following the 45 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/2ROw_cDKwc0?t=3555

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

15 Mar 2016, 10:35 pm

Here is a explanation of the computer climate models.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Basically climate scientists are constantly compare them to what is observed in reality and we can rely on them.

To those not believing that the earth is warming; what proof do you need to accept it as a reality? So far there is a LOT of proofs and not accepting a idea without taking account of the proofs of that idea is unscientific.



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

16 Mar 2016, 1:05 am

Tollorin wrote:
Here is a explanation of the computer climate models.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Basically climate scientists are constantly compare them to what is observed in reality and we can rely on them.

To those not believing that the earth is warming; what proof do you need to accept it as a reality? So far there is a LOT of proofs and not accepting a idea without taking account of the proofs of that idea is unscientific.


Look here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/h ... te-models/

The averaged output of the CMIP-5 models do not match the observed temperature. What the IPCC boys do is weight the output to match the readings. That is -cheating-. The scientific standards of the IPCC are well below the accuracy of the readings made at CERN. To put it another way the quality of the climate models is nowhere as good as the quality of the Standard Model of Fields and Particles (that is REAL physics, the kind of physics that found the Higgs Boson). We are being urged to take upon ourselves an Oath of Poverty. I will not do it unless the underlying theory is good enough Sub-Atomic physics is good enough. Climate modelling is not.

None of the climate models have handled the major Greenhouse Gas, water vapor, properly. Water Vapor traps most of the IR heat (actually it slows down the radiation of heat into space, it doesn't block it). Water Vapor is 50 x as dense as CO2, but the IPCC models weight the correlation of temperature to CO2 and Methane far more heavily than water vapor. Bottom line. The IPCC predictions before they are fiddled are too high. The Greenhouse Theory is questionable. The 33 degree (Celsius) difference between the atmospheric temperature and the black body temperature can be derived without the use of CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere his less to do with the warming than the Water Vapor.

In any case the Earth is NOT going to become Venus. The Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation assures that the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere will never get that high. The fact of the matter is that the temperature of the Earth tracks the -total- CO2 burden fairly well but does not track the CO2 added by human activity well. The Earth is indeed warming up as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age (1300 c.e - 1800 c.e). But the cause more related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation than the athropogenic CO2 loading.

The scientific quality of the IPCC approved models is C- at best.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

18 Mar 2016, 9:42 pm

The models do take account for water vapour.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

You should not listen to denialists either, I seen them many time cherry picking data without looking at the global picture, saying things betraying a lack of understanding of science, weather and climates as well sometime outright lies. They also tend to focus greatly on Al Gore and the IPCC to the depend of the question of the scientific consensus.

A thunderstorm visited me yesterday; never seen a thunderstorm in March, while spring is not even officially begun (In the astronomical sense). Generally they only happen during the summer months where I live; this thunderstorm is a testament how much this winter is unusual thank to a climate change boosted El Nino.

Also; Image



marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

18 Mar 2016, 10:47 pm

Tollorin wrote:
Here is a explanation of the computer climate models.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Basically climate scientists are constantly compare them to what is observed in reality and we can rely on them.

To those not believing that the earth is warming; what proof do you need to accept it as a reality? So far there is a LOT of proofs and not accepting a idea without taking account of the proofs of that idea is unscientific.

Did you know that water vapor accounts for 97% of Earth's greenhouse gasses?
Did you also know that Mars is also undergoing global warming in parallel to Earth?
There is only one common link between the two. And what is that? Could it maybe perhaps, by a small sliver of a chance be caused by the Sun's solar cycles?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Also worth reading, is an article from 2011 comparing actual data with a computer prediction from 1990:

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

Really, just some facts to consider. It's much more complex than humans and carbon dioxide alone.


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

18 Mar 2016, 11:23 pm

marcb0t wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
Here is a explanation of the computer climate models.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Basically climate scientists are constantly compare them to what is observed in reality and we can rely on them.

To those not believing that the earth is warming; what proof do you need to accept it as a reality? So far there is a LOT of proofs and not accepting a idea without taking account of the proofs of that idea is unscientific.

Did you know that water vapor accounts for 97% of Earth's greenhouse gasses?
Did you also know that Mars is also undergoing global warming in parallel to Earth?
There is only one common link between the two. And what is that? Could it maybe perhaps, by a small sliver of a chance be caused by the Sun's solar cycles?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Also worth reading, is an article from 2011 comparing actual data with a computer prediction from 1990:

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

Really, just some facts to consider. It's much more complex than humans and carbon dioxide alone.

In case you missed the link in my last post...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

Quote:
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.


The sun don't explain the warming either; the sun even got a little bit colder lately.

Image



marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

18 Mar 2016, 11:31 pm

Tollorin wrote:
In case you missed the link in my last post...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

Quote:
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.


The sun don't explain the warming either; the sun even got a little bit colder lately.

Image


Pretty picture, where did you link from?

Also, how do you explain the Mars issue?


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

19 Mar 2016, 11:09 am

Tollorin wrote:
Here is a explanation of the computer climate models.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Basically climate scientists are constantly compare them to what is observed in reality and we can rely on them.

To those not believing that the earth is warming; what proof do you need to accept it as a reality? So far there is a LOT of proofs and not accepting a idea without taking account of the proofs of that idea is unscientific.


The Earth has been warming since 1800 c.e. when the "Little Ice Age" ended. From about 1300 c.e. - 1800 c.e the Earth underwent a cold snap called the Little Ice Age Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age. Prior to The Little Ice age was the Medieval Warm spell. During which time grapes grew in Britain and the Vikings were farming and raising cattle on the coast of Iceland. This planet has had ice only during the last 800 million years (The Earth is about 4.25 thousand million years old). Even so, from a climatic p.o.v. we are still in an interglacial period. The Next Big Thing will probably be the next Ice Age.

At one time the CO2 level was 30 times greater than it is now. Most of the CO2 has been sopped up by growing plants and the bones of sea life. So the excess CO2 ended up in trees and skeletons. And most of the CO2 is either dissolved in sea water or is spread along the ocean bottoms was skeletal material, calcium carbonate rock and such like.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

19 Mar 2016, 11:25 am

For people interested in climate studies the views of Freeman Dyson should be part of you mix. Freeman Dyson was a contemporary and friend of Richard Feynman. He corrected many of Feynman's errors and if the Nobel Award for physics had been given to four scientists (it is limited to three) he might have been the 4 th Nobel Awardee for his work (along with Feynman and Weinberg) on quantum electrodynamics.

He, by is own declaration, is not a climate specialist but he knows the difference between good science and not-so good science.

Read what he has to say about the climate modelers.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

He is not taking a hard position on Anthropogenic Warming but he is taking aim at some of the bad science found in that area.

Ba'al Chatzaf


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

24 Mar 2016, 1:07 pm

7 years later, and Freeman Dyson's views are still rejected by the scientific community at large. It looks like he has 0 peer-reviewed papers published on the subject:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerrev ... eptics.php

I wonder if he has ever tried to publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Apr 2016, 11:15 am

Tollorin wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^in your opinion, is it basically money which is the concern of the climate change deniers?


No. There are "leukwarmists" who have reservations about the climate sensitivity models pushed by the IPCC. They have not predicted very well. In real science, when a prediction fails the underlying theory is questioned. In climate modelling by the IPCC when someone points out a discrepancy between what the model predicts and measurement that someone is called a "denier". Einstein was a denier. He denied the existence of aether which many scientists believed existed.

In just about every area except climate and nutrition, experimental accuracy is a top level concern....

The data show that the Earth is warming faster that is predicted by the models; meaning like it or not the situation is bad.


It's quite the contrary. The models are all over the place, but most are clearly predicting enormously more warming than is happening.

In any case, warm is good.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Apr 2016, 11:17 am

auntblabby wrote:
what will the deniers say when it is 40 or 50 years down the road and billions of people have been flooded out of their coastal cities?


The most likely warming projections would indicate a sea level rise of about a foot or two per century.

Nobody is going to suddenly be flooded. The sea rise will be gradual enough that people will be able to move further from the ocean.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Apr 2016, 11:21 am

Edenthiel wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.


I would recommend reading up on the greenhouse effect. Glass is transparent to UV, but opaque to IR; this means that when sunlight shines into a greenhouse, visible and UV get in and are absorbed by the surfaces inside. Those surfaces heat up and radiate IR. That IR is then trapped as it cannot pass back out through the glass. CO2 performs the same function as glass in the atmospheric model. Also, there is no way to vent hot air into space; apart from hydrogen & helium it is all held somewhat tightly in a layer close to the earth by gravity.


Warming will not spiral out of control. We will just reach a reasonable higher equilibrium.