Extremism in Climatology

[Loudmouth]

According to the climate fear mongers, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Let me see if I get this straight.

CO2 only absorbs IR radiation when in the hands of climate fear mongers? This would be quite the scientific finding. If you have an IR spectrum for CO2 where it does not absorb IR photons, we would all love to see it.

Of course, CO2 is also what plants 'breathe'. Without CO2, plants die. Plants as in 'crops'. So 'controlling' CO2 results in quashing plant (crop) growth.

Plants drink water, so building dams to prevent flooding is quashing plant growth, right? If plants drink water, it means water poses no threat to any human since the very act of being plant food makes it inert. This means that drowning is just another story made up by floody drowny mongers.

I still don't understand why people think that plants using CO2 prevents CO2 from trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Just so you know, Self, the climate fear mongers also claim water vapor - the stuff that evaporates off the oceans - is a greenhouse gas. It doesn't get as much press as the climate fear mongers haven't figured a way to tax it yet.

It doesn't get much press as a long term climate forcer because water vapor only has a 2 week residence time in the atmosphere. Water vapor can not drive long term climate change. CO2, on the other hand, has an atmospheric residence time measured in decades. CO2 can drive long term climate change.

Of course, the science free climate denialists won't tell you this.

Just between you and me, Self; I think of the climate fear mongers in about the same way I think of YEC proponents. Good intentions, no actual knowledge; pain in a private place.

Except it is the science that is on the side of those who support an increase in global temps due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. You don't even understand the mechanisms involved, just as the YEC's don't understand the mechanisms involved in evolution.

 

[fargonic]

According to the climate fear mongers, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It must be controlled, regulated and carefully rationed.

Of course, CO2 is also what plants 'breathe'. Without CO2, plants die. Plants as in 'crops'. So 'controlling' CO2 results in quashing plant (crop) growth.

CO2 has a natural cycling. EXCESS CO2 is what is dangerous. Especially if it doesn't HAVE to be generated. For instance plant life acts as a natural sink for CO2 as does the oceans. But excess CO2 presented to the system too quickly for the system to adapt to is what is causing the problem.

In 150 years humans have put back into the atmosphere carbon that took millions of years to sequester and has not been in the carbon cycle for several million years.

The rate of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by humans is far in excess of the natural systems' ability to handle it. So we end up with excess CO2 which causes warming.

Just so you know, Self, the climate fear mongers also claim water vapor - the stuff that evaporates off the oceans - is a greenhouse gas. It doesn't get as much press as the climate fear mongers haven't figured a way to tax it yet.

Perhaps rather than insulting people you don't know you should actually read what they say instead. Water is more of a FEEDBACK than a forcing. Excess water in the atmosphere has a very quick and efficient means of coming back out....it's called precipitation.

The scientists (ie NOT climate fear mongers) will tell you this if you simply ask. Or read their materials. You can also go outside and see this in action if it is a rainy or snowy day.

Just between you and me, Self; I think of the climate fear mongers in about the same way I think of YEC proponents. Good intentions, no actual knowledge; pain in a private place.

I wouldn't say the people you are insulting are the ones with little knowledge.

 

[Heissonear]

A lot of discussion about all but the obvious Extremism presented in Post #1 about "ice age coming".

Face the obvious - the ice age promotion was hype and extremism.

Was it not? Did not people follow the hype and conjecture?

 

[fargonic]

A lot of discussion about all but the obvious Extremism presented in Post #1 about "ice age coming".

Incorrect. I addressed a couple of those points DIRECTLY. Please do not bear false witness.

Face the obvious - the ice age promotion was hype and extremism.

Was it not? Did not people follow the hype and conjecture?

You are obviously only interested in listening to yourself so why do you ask anyone anything?

I addressed this very point in my earlier post on this very thread!

 

[Non sequitur]

Incorrect. I addressed a couple of those points DIRECTLY. Please do not bear false witness.



You are obviously only interested in listening to yourself so why do you ask anyone anything?

I addressed this very point in my earlier post on this very thread!

You should see where following what and where that takes you.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

In the 1970's major scientific and climate organizations endorsed ice age concerns, which included NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, CIA, etc.

I think I need a source on this.

In the 1970's the fears of a coming ice age showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media. A few of the examples are as follows:

Here is one of the papers that came out in 1971 which fuelled much of this speculation in the 1970s. Its the Rasool & Schneider (1971) paper in the journal Science.

Here is the abstract:

"Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." (emphasis mine)

First of all, look at the bolded bit. Surprise, surprise, even in the 1970s people knew that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased the temperature of the Earth.

But hey, lets forget about the 40 year old science for a moment and actually look at some modern research because science generally progresses. Its rare that science returns to a debunked hypothesis.

So, here's a paper by Zhou & Savijarvi (2014). The abstract follows:

"The effect of aerosols on long wave (LW) radiation was studied based on narrowband LW calculations in a reference mid-latitude summer atmosphere with and without aerosols. Aerosols were added to the narrowband LW scheme based on their typical schematic observed spectral and vertical behaviour over European land areas. This was found to agree also with the spectral aerosol data from the Lan Zhou University Semi-Arid Climate Observatory and Laboratory measurement stations in the north-western China.

A volcanic stratospheric aerosol load was found to induce local LW warming and a stronger column “greenhouse effect” than a doubled CO2 concentration. A heavy near-surface aerosol load was found to increase the downwelling LW radiation to the surface and to reduce the outgoing LW radiation, acting very much like a thin low cloud in increasing the LW greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. The short wave reflection of white aerosol has, however, stronger impact in general, but the aerosol LW greenhouse effect is non-negligible under heavy aerosol loads."


Hmm, looks like aerosols in certain situations actually increase global warming. Darn, so much for your argument...

Here's another by Engelbeen (2013) which incorporates aerosols into a climate model. Abstract follows:

"There are indications that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols is
overestimated. This has fundamental consequences for estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 and thus for temperature forecasts. Current climate models reflect this uncertainty by a wide range of “projections”. Apart from cloud feedback, the largest uncertainty in these models is the effect of anthropogenic aerosols. The way current climate models implement the effect of different forcings is analyzed. This analysis is qualitative only, as there are major uncertainties in the quantity and effect of aerosol emissions and for confounding factors, such as ocean currents, which influence global heat distribution." (emphasis mine)

Here's a final paper by Novakov & Rosen (2013) which talks about Black Carbon.

Climate Extremism exists today: through news and printed media, international and national political groups, scientific organizations, and climate scientists.

I agree. There will always be extremists. That does not mean that AGW is false.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Nor is CO2 the control knob to control earth's global atmospheric temperature.

...sigh

Science is based on accurate, repeatable experimentations and observations. Extremism is based on the over promotion of speculations and conjectures. The past history of the "ice age is coming" shows what many can overly state from very limited data.

Extremism continues to be live and well today in Climatology. Why people jump on the bandwagon and resist to get off is socially and psychologically related to "group thinking", a problem in every age.

I've said before that there is a big difference between observational science and predictive science.

Observational science is clear: the Earth is warming up and anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the main driver.


NOW WHAT???

The observations are settled. You can't debate them. They were observed with a temperature gauge and satellites and laboratory measurements and ocean sensors and IR data and ice cores and tree rings on and on and on and on. The past is generally easy to observe (especially the recent past like the continuous data readings of CO2 ppm at the Mauna Loa observatory).


What is difficult is to predict the future. No one can do it. Its impossible. But we, as humans, have always tried to varying degrees. Climate scientists today are using computer models to try to predict how the climate will behave. It is very difficult and I take their predictions with a grain of salt.

Yes there are extremists. But the key is: the Earth is heating up. Please don't deny this. Maybe there are benefits to a warmer Earth, maybe there are drawbacks. That is the discussion we should be having in political and environmental circles. We should be discussing the effects of a warmer Earth, NOT whether the Earth is warming or not.

 

[Heissonear]

Notice that you can't even answer the simple questions.

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

What is the greenhouse effect?

This is the fourth thread you have brought this simpleton question to.

It is a 7th grade level question that has been thoroughly answered, even in the post you quoted above, but apparently you cannot understand how it was answered in a contexual perspective.

Again, the focus of this thread is about those who HAVE promoted extremism through climate predictions.

This topic of this tread is a problem many have been snared by. They have got on the bandwagon and most have yet to get off. But rather cling and support The Cause and Deception.

.

 

[selfinflikted]

So give a simple answer to a simple question, Heiss. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes? No?

 

[Heissonear]

I think I need a source on this.

Here is one of the papers that came out in 1971 which fuelled much of this speculation in the 1970s. Its the Rasool & Schneider (1971) paper in the journal Science.

Here is the abstract:

"Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." (emphasis mine)

First of all, look at the bolded bit. Surprise, surprise, even in the 1970s people knew that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased the temperature of the Earth.

But hey, lets forget about the 40 year old science for a moment and actually look at some modern research because science generally progresses. Its rare that science returns to a debunked hypothesis.

So, here's a paper by Zhou & Savijarvi (2014). The abstract follows:

"The effect of aerosols on long wave (LW) radiation was studied based on narrowband LW calculations in a reference mid-latitude summer atmosphere with and without aerosols. Aerosols were added to the narrowband LW scheme based on their typical schematic observed spectral and vertical behaviour over European land areas. This was found to agree also with the spectral aerosol data from the Lan Zhou University Semi-Arid Climate Observatory and Laboratory measurement stations in the north-western China.

A volcanic stratospheric aerosol load was found to induce local LW warming and a stronger column “greenhouse effect” than a doubled CO2 concentration. A heavy near-surface aerosol load was found to increase the downwelling LW radiation to the surface and to reduce the outgoing LW radiation, acting very much like a thin low cloud in increasing the LW greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. The short wave reflection of white aerosol has, however, stronger impact in general, but the aerosol LW greenhouse effect is non-negligible under heavy aerosol loads."


Hmm, looks like aerosols in certain situations actually increase global warming. Darn, so much for your argument...

Here's another by Engelbeen (2013) which incorporates aerosols into a climate model. Abstract follows:

"There are indications that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols is
overestimated. This has fundamental consequences for estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 and thus for temperature forecasts. Current climate models reflect this uncertainty by a wide range of “projections”. Apart from cloud feedback, the largest uncertainty in these models is the effect of anthropogenic aerosols. The way current climate models implement the effect of different forcings is analyzed. This analysis is qualitative only, as there are major uncertainties in the quantity and effect of aerosol emissions and for confounding factors, such as ocean currents, which influence global heat distribution." (emphasis mine)

Here's a final paper by Novakov & Rosen (2013) which talks about Black Carbon.

I agree. There will always be extremists. That does not mean that AGW is false.

...sigh

I've said before that there is a big difference between observational science and predictive science.

Observational science is clear: the Earth is warming up and anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the main driver.


NOW WHAT???

The observations are settled. You can't debate them. They were observed with a temperature gauge and satellites and laboratory measurements and ocean sensors and IR data and ice cores and tree rings on and on and on and on. The past is generally easy to observe (especially the recent past like the continuous data readings of CO2 ppm at the Mauna Loa observatory).


What is difficult is to predict the future. No one can do it. Its impossible. But we, as humans, have always tried to varying degrees. Climate scientists today are using computer models to try to predict how the climate will behave. It is very difficult and I take their predictions with a grain of salt.

Yes there are extremists. But the key is: the Earth is heating up. Please don't deny this. Maybe there are benefits to a warmer Earth, maybe there are drawbacks. That is the discussion we should be having in political and environmental circles. We should be discussing the effects of a warmer Earth, NOT whether the Earth is warming or not.

A fully sensible reply that I fully respect. I wish many others would be as clear, informative, and balanced in discussing AGW issues.

But you may want to see what other scientists are saying about the physics behind "CO2 induced atmospheric warming". To start, which might be surprising, is the references to the physics used by the GAGW camp. It will surprise you how such rigorous physics has not been petformed. Apparently the climatologists were already bias toward AGW and settled on incomplete and untested radiation and thermodynamic energy transfer physics.

An example of the sloppy science behind radiation energy transfer and conversion to mechanical energy is the erroneously used term "greenhouse". Without convection, like in an enclised car, radiation can build up mechanical energy and increase tempersture, as we well know by experience. But such does not occur aroynd the car. The reason is convection. Greenhouses reduce or eliminate heat transfer by convection. Such stsrt the history of incomplete and rigorous physics behing AGW.

The heat capacity of oceans on earth are hugh and have thermal momentum, be it cooling or heating, that are not easily changed in short time scales. The earths thermodynamic heat transfer and cooling processes are enormous, and are the first order parameters that control earth's temperature. 150 ppm additional CO2 since 1900 in collected watts/m2 is miniscule over the past century compared to the energy budget and heating and cooling processes already established in the earths climatic systems.

So Alarmism was premature, as you note. And I fully agree we cannot predict the future.

But observations will continue to teach us more about the net effects of increased atmospheric CO2, and more rigorous investigation of the physics will help us explain what we observe.

Additionally, we are no where near the point of acting on a potential problem when to date it does not exist other than through hype and extremism distortion. We have been in the Modern Warming Period brought about by natural factors, and no one has any idea of what 150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed, particularly in taking first order presidency over the enormous thermal heat transfer systems and cycles displayed on earth. Wirh the size of the Pacific Ocean, the miniscule amount of re-emitted down dwelling radiation is not even to be considered in creating an equator-pole gyre circulation, the amount of energy required is not even close to be considered - yet we do not see this energy transfer and energy budget prrsented clearly and in balance in Activism climatology publications and press releases.

I think we have another problem to face - the effects of Extremism and Alarmism in our atmospheric sciences, news median and political groups. Error in atmospheric science does not produce pure and effective governing of people and resources. In fact, we are seeing the opposite.

 

[Loudmouth]

An example of the sloppy science behind radiation energy transfer and conversion to mechanical energy is the erroneously used term "greenhouse". Without convection, like in an enclised car, radiation can build up mechanical energy and increase tempersture, as we well know by experience. But such does not occur aroynd the car. The reason is convection. Greenhouses reduce or eliminate heat transfer by convection. Such stsrt the history of incomplete and rigorous physics behing AGW.

How do you lose heat through convection when you are surrounded by a vacuum?

The only way that the atmosphere can lose heat is through black body radiation, not convection.

The heat capacity of oceans on earth are hugh and have thermal momentum, be it cooling or heating, that are not easily changed in short time scales. The earths thermodynamic heat transfer and cooling processes are enormous, and are the first order parameters that control earth's temperature. 150 ppm additional CO2 since 1900 in collected watts/m2 is miniscule over the past century compared to the energy budget and heating and cooling processes already established in the earths climatic systems.

As those oceans heat up, what happens? Does the Earth get cooler or warmer?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is the fourth thread you have brought this simpleton question to.

It is a 7th grade level question that has been thoroughly answered, even in the post you quoted above, but apparently you cannot understand how it was answered in a contexual perspective.

Again, the focus of this thread is about those who HAVE promoted extremism through climate predictions.

This topic of this tread is a problem many have been snared by. They have got on the bandwagon and most have yet to get off. But rather cling and support The Cause and Deception.

.

This is the 4th thread where you have avoided the question.

 

[dad]

As those oceans heat up, what happens? Does the Earth get cooler or warmer?

That depends totally on other things. Things like what the sun does, physics, and basically what God does with the universe. Yes, there were times that the climate changed on earth, and some changes happen now also. The climate change frauds and fear mongers simply obsess on the present world, and assume this is all there was or will be, and that there is no God who is in control, and has yet more changes on the way!

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends totally on other things. Things like what the sun does, physics, and basically what God does with the universe. Yes, there were times that the climate changed on earth, and some changes happen now also. The climate change frauds and fear mongers simply obsess on the present world, and assume this is all there was or will be, and that there is no God who is in control, and has yet more changes on the way!

Then please show us your climate models that include the actions of God. Show us the experiments that elucidated God's actions in the modern atmosphere. Show us how God changes the the spectra of CO2 so that it no longer absorbs the heat being given off by the Earth. Show us how God is causing thermodynamics to run the opposite of what they are supposed to in oder to keep the warming oceans from warming the planet.

 

[chalk2]

The IPCC Climate Change report, itself the touchstone of consensus oft-quoted by fanatics, reveals something very critical about this whole argument. This climate change is at its essence....not science.

What if I said to you someone has a scientific theory, repeatedly makes "claims" and predictions that do not match actual results? In fact not one prediction has matched actual results. Not one. Almost every one of them is waaaaaaaay off. Not even close.

That sure doesn't sound like the scientific method does it?

I just made a pretty staggering claim. I better man-up and post some evidence to support my claim. I agree! Time for where this information can be found.

Where is the evidence of this non-science and its lack of truth? Right in the heart of the global warming alarmist report. Like we say up here in the mountains: "How bout them there apples?"

I point you to Figure 11.25 in Chapter 11, on page 1010 of the IPCC report. Page 1027 for those of you sensitive to making a larger carbon footprint and following along in the PDF file. This handy little chart is only ONE example of evidence in this report showing the garbage that is "global warming" alarm-ism.

This chart shows, clearly, that a mass of garbage scientific projections when compared to ACTUAL RESULTS (The dark bold black line)... reveals the tomfoolery of this whole exercise.

Seems to me the lunatic climate change emotionalists are the people adverse to logic. Their claims about the environment certainly have a mechanical component that is scientific. The fact of how the earth's atmosphere operates and that various elements can scientifically be proven to impact the transfer of energy and temperatures such as "greenhouse gas effect" is VERY scientific. I grant you that.

Furthermore we most certainly should NOT pollute and have a DUTY to be good stewards of the Earth.

But the leap most make... is not science.

The IPCC REPORT reveals IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Climate change, global warming, global cooling, carbon taxes, wealth transfers based on "climate science"..... is something else.

It is not science.

 

[dad]

Then please show us your climate models that include the actions of God.

You assume we need climate models and are capable of producing them. That is foolish pride. You are not capable. Period.

The climates of the past are all a result of actions from God...creation, the flood, the nature change..etc. Who needs a model??

Show us the experiments that elucidated God's actions in the modern atmosphere.

Science does not look for God in experiments or include Him in any way. So who would be doing these experiments?? One angel spoken about in Revelation had power over the air, another over fire...etc. Apparently God uses angels to impact various phases of creation! Hey, they have vials too, just like the little men of science!


There is an angel in charge of the air. They can change things and presumably control the weather basics.

Show us how God changes the the spectra of CO2 so that it no longer absorbs the heat being given off by the Earth.

C02 is wholly dependent on the forces that govern atoms. The electric and nuclear strong and weak forces..etc. God controls the forces. That'll do er! Soon as a change in our laws occurs, you can forget how things now work, period.

Show us how God is causing thermodynamics to run the opposite of what they are supposed to in oder to keep the warming oceans from warming the planet.

Again thermodynamics as we know it is a feature of THIS present state only! The forces governing the atoms determine how they work.


Obviously your game is to try to enforce the present state rules on the past and future. You are busted. Is that clear??

We do not need to know the exact details of how God's laws will be in the future or were different from what we have today!

I could speculate. What if there was another force in the past, that was spiritual in nature? A force that worked together with the physical forces, and the end result was quite different? Who knows? If something like that were the case, I guess spirits could have lived on earth in a way that was more direct and 'physical' than is possible now.

If we changed the balance of forces by taking away the (let's call it S force for now) - that would leave only the forces left to work together. So when I think of a nature change, I do not think of a change IN our forces persay.

 

[fargonic]

The IPCC Climate Change report, itself the touchstone of consensus oft-quoted by fanatics, reveals something very critical about this whole argument. This climate change is at its essence....not science.

It actually is science. It is based on physics and chemistry at its core. It is based on known scientific principles (CO2 absorbs in the IR region and the First Law of Thermo says that energy cannot just disappear).

I just made a pretty staggering claim. I better man-up and post some evidence to support my claim. I agree! Time for where this information can be found.

The graph you posted seems to show the observational data still falling within the range of predictions. And remember even the IPCC doesn't have one single "prediction". They have what are called SRES's or SCENARIOS that roll into how people will respond or other exigencies that are not manifestly clear at the time of the prediction. So the IPCC gives MANY different scenarios.

It is not science.

20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists | First IPCC Report

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

 

[Loudmouth]

The IPCC Climate Change report, itself the touchstone of consensus oft-quoted by fanatics, reveals something very critical about this whole argument. This climate change is at its essence....not science.

What if I said to you someone has a scientific theory, repeatedly makes "claims" and predictions that do not match actual results?

Just so we are on the same page, why do you think scientists suspect CO2 as being capable of increasing global temperatures?

 

[Loudmouth]

You assume we need climate models and are capable of producing them. That is foolish pride. You are not capable. Period.

We do need them.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Strathos]

Apparently saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't wreck and pollute the planet, it might backfire on us" is now "extremism".

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't wreck and pollute the planet, it might backfire on us" is now "extremism".

The problem is that those who have a reflexive denial of anthropogenic global warming tend to be a moving target which makes these discussions difficult. Their position changes from any one of several positions:

1. Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not produce warming.

2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 will produce warming, but not that much.

3. Huge increases in temperature caused by CO2 will not cause us any harm.

As soon as you ask them to support one of those positions, they will bounce to another one. Challenge them on the claim that CO2 will not produce warming and they will move to the position that warming will not be that bad. Challenge them on the idea that warming will not be bad, and they will go right back to the claim that CO2 does not cause warming.

What they refuse to do is get stuck discussing the actual science for their momentary stage of denial.