|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Well, it is all about models, there are no real world facts that back the models up.
Nonsense
|
|
|
|
|
One pole warming isnt much you know, especially since it was as warm in the 40s.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: One pole warming isnt much you know, especially since it was as warm in the 40s.
I suggest that you look up the term "cherry picking"
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, let me cherry pick 3500 bc then. 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: facts changed
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to disappoint you: global warming never implied growing your own bananas and lemons in Norway.
What it does mean is putting more energy into the atmosphere - storms bigger and more often, stormy seasons extending, and weather patterns changing. It could even potentially account for the rather brutish cold much of the US is going through of late. Consider what a couple or so degrees of warmed ocean would do during the hurricane season.
Or not. The thing about weather is that any short range of time doesn't give one really any result at all as weather is what is known as a strange attractor (q.v.).
But forgetting all the political nonsense, I put to you the following information which IS indisputable:
- The earth is in a dynamic steady state with respect to energy: radiational heating in on the day side, out on the night side. These reach a balance, with the environment acting as a buffer.
- Sources: We are putting ancient CO2 into the atmosphere. Not only by burning fossil fuels but by releasing it from minerals in order to trap SO2 to avoid acid rain (another conspiracy?)
- Sinks: We are removing the components of the earth, such as rain forests and forest in general which trap carbon from the atmosphere.
- Thus, the system must reach a new equilibrium. Period. You make up anything you wish as to what the new state will be - but it will most definitely be.
At this point, a mitigating circumstance, such as a huge volcanic eruption, could cause extreme cooling, counteracting some of this temporarily, but unless we return to nuclear power, we'll burn even more fossil fuel and emerge in an even more unstable system.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is that even though we are producing CO2 it is not sure it is actually contributing to warming. It should be, but there isnt a signal that can be distinctly attributed to CO2.
Proof of this is obvious. POst War cooling to 1975, while CO2 increased. POst 1998 no warming, while CO2 ioncreased, pre 1940 warming periods, 3 of them, extending back 2 centuries, while CO2 didnt increase.
Thers in no distinct trace in the record that can be attributed to CO2. So all AGW is just a theory, and not an observable fact.
What IS the case is that warming has not progressed as was expected. One pole refuses to warm, the troposphere refuses to warm, WV refuses to increase, source is NASA WV project, the other I wont quote, they should be obvious enough and well known.
These are all unexpected, and hence also shed doubt on the theory of AGW.
Anyway, science moves on, we shoulud all keep up with it and nnot become fixated on old ideas lest they become ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
The interesting thing is that while the warming didn't manifest over the past years, the storms did. So what does that tell us about the association between global warming and storms?
What makes me sad is that I believed the hype. I won't say the global warming will not happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. However, I'm no longer convinced the scientists had good arguments to start with. I'm not religious, because there is nothing to base all these fantastic assumptions and beliefs on. But I used to believe in science. Now I feel it's all the same slippery slope ... 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
All would have been better served if the phenomenon were referred to only as "Climate Change".
That is a given. How it will manifest itself is quite another story. Winters will remain colder then summers (for those of us who have seasons).
The kind of things to look for, aside from more and bigger storms of all types, is the far more dangerous possibility of changes in rainfall patterns. For all the causes (and methane from termite fart is a major player), there are primary and secondary responses (more plankton and algae in warmer seas make up for lost forest?). It's as you recognized, not a simple story when it comes to predicting the ending, or more properly, the new resting point.
The earth is a spherical test tube and we've modified the properties of the contents - like it or not, we've but to wait and see.
And, of course, for those in the extreme 'right', we can always go for nuclear winter to set things right.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: The earth is a spherical test tube and we've modified the properties of the
contents
Yes, we have taken some of the carbon that used to be in the atmosphere and put it back
Big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Big deal.
Yup. Big deal.
Unless you bother to consider what the earth's climate was like when that carbon was part of our atmosphere.
The system is being perturbed from equilibrium. It will reestablish a new equilibrium. So, all we are doing is simply (1) gambling on what the new state will be like (possibly better) and (2) having to survive the path to the new equilibrium (which may be no fun at all).
Don't worry . . . be happy . . . Don't worry . . . be happy . . . Don't worry . . . be happy.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Unless you bother to consider what the earth's climate was like when that carbon
was part of our atmosphere
No doubt to you it was utter chaos, species went extinct and all life nearly died out.
Of course the reality is that life evolved...
Look, you do realize the effect of CO2 is inverse log don't you? The more we add the less it effects temperature? You do know we are already near the top of that curve don't you?
Do you also know GH gasses reduce Tmax? No? Well do some research. Look at incoming solar IR and the absorption bands of GH gasses at those frequencies.
GH gasses make the planet more temperate by raising average temp and reducing temperature extremes.
This is all basic physics by the way, and really very simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Your logic is rather silly -
First: the absorption coefficient of greenhouse gasses is only part of the equation. In particular, there's also reflection: internal reflection for energy already with the atmosphere and reflection of energy (solar) off our atmosphere. You're claiming they're equal, or, actually, now inverted. Certainly not based simply on the absorption coefficients at various wavelengths.
Secondly, and more telling of your the type of research you claim to be doing in one or more of your posts:
You don't take into account that (solar) energy entering the earth's atmosphere is not being emitted at those same wavelengths. Visible light, for example, absorbed by dark surfaces, is re-emitted at the much longer IR wavelengths.
You apparently like to throw mention of your research about, but whatever your sources, perhaps you should check if they've considered absorption followed by re-emission at longer wavelengths.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
This is all basic physics by the way, and really very simple.
Here, I'd venture to say, you're embarrassing yourself.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
But but... global waaarrrrmmmmiinnngg!
Sure. It's science that's the problem. Not that the theory they're trying desperately to prove is a steaming bunch of completely fabricated cowpie or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the BIG thing about science is that it says 'based on what we know today, this is what we think is happening' and things move forward based on that.
At any time of course the understanding can be criticized, in fact science positively welcomes criticism, and a mew understanding can be arrived at and a new direction taken. That's is sciences great strength, it is NOT a FIXED entity, it is a FLUID and MUTABLE entity. It is NOT a faith, it is a PROCESS.
So, we have had no warming for 17 years, time to reassess the facts, readjust our point of view, and move on. Nothing new about that, and no one need lose their jobs over it.
You don't have to be right in science, but you have to admit you can be wrong! 
modified 27-Jan-14 15:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
"Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer J. Simpson
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: So, we have had no warming for 17 years, time to reassess the facts, readjust our point of view
Nonsense
Erudite_Eric wrote: You don't have to be right in science
Which is in fact only meaningful if one is in fact a scientist and one is in fact taking another look at ones own field of expertise. And most definitely meaningless when political pundits cherry pick disparate pieces of evidence (and modify it as well) in a desperate attempt to prove that they themselves are right versus the actual scientists and science that they are attempting to defame.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Nonsense
It hasnt got ewarmer since 1998, thats obvious, and no one denies it. So I really dont see your point.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: It hasnt got ewarmer since 1998
Strange, you should really inform NOAA[^] (9 of the top 10 warmest years are since 1998, with 1998 being the other one), and NASA[^] ("With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.") of this fact.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Now. What were you saying?
That you're intentionally selecting 1998 every time as it was spike comparable to years this decade. Pick a different year, like say 1999.
That you're yet another great example why this graphic[^] was created.
Oh, and according to the "much more believable" UAH data: Quote: 2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era
That as I said earlier: your monomania is showing; and it's definitely not anything to do with data, science, or understanding.
That I'm done discussing this with you, as it's pointless trying to get you to understand basic physics.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
So what? Global temperature is global temperature whatever the cause. We know CO2 is causing some of the warming, we know solar some more, we know PDO causes cycles, we know ENSO does the same.
Of course there is a lot more we dont know, but we have to view it all togtether and this is how the moidels are programmed, with as many factors as are known.
And here is the point. The models predicted warming to continue post 1998 and it didnt. Therefore the models are quite inaccurate.
SO let me level the same criticism at you. Why do you cherry pick 1975 as the start date? Because for 30 years before that the earth was cooling.
But, here are the facts. There are many scientific papers recently published that have cast doubt on the assumption that climate sensitivity to CO2 is 4C per 100%, as was programmed into the original models and that now the concensus is somewhere beyween 1.5C and 3C.
Lioke I said, scince changes, it moves on, it is mutable. Getting hung up on decades old science, whic ios what you are doing, is akin to superstition.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: There are many scientific papers recently published that have cast doubt on the assumptio
There are many, many articles published.
Cherry picking some articles out of the vast array proves absolutely nothing.
Erudite_Eric wrote: Getting hung up on decades old science,
Yep no point is believing that the moon circles the earth nor that that earth circles the sun just because obviously "decades old science" says it is so.
Erudite_Eric wrote: whic ios what you are doing, is akin to superstition.
I am one of the Illuminati, I live inside the earths core and I am actually a mid-level manager in charge of managing superstition for the surface dwellers so I should know what is and isn't superstition
|
|
|
|
|
Are those supposed to be serious arguments?
Science changes, moves on. Why cant you?
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Science changes, moves on. Why cant you?
That isn't an argument. And it isn't science.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
