Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Subduction Zone]

Freeman Dyson e.g.

Freeman Dyson was not a climatologist, not even close. And he was dead the last time I checked. Hold on a sec . . . yep, still dead. And of course he did acknowledge that man was the cause of AGW. So are you now claiming that AGW is a real thing? That man is responsible? If you don't you do not get to use Dyson as an authority. Cherry picking is not allowed in the sciences.

 

[lordjeff]

Freeman just passed 2 months ago. I did not say he was a climatologist. He is a physicist & I have watched his podcasts & he makes sense to me. Al Gore is not a climatologist either-he has his own agenda. No Freeman did not say it's all anthropogenic. In fact that was what the problem with all these surveys & then the media mis-reporting. Most scientists simply say it's complex with lots of sources & feedbacks. I can say there are x gigatons of co2 in the air & that is more than existed say than in 1900 but I also understand the feedback loops of the 4 different sciences & as I have said co2 alone cannot manifest this kind of change. Why pick on CO2? Why not pick on water? The earth has compensatory mechanism. Al Gore would be no different than an oil company. They're going to look for who supports their point of view. Please don't be naive to think that some politician is Jesus & looking out for you. Gore basically hates the internal combustion engine. Everyone is about preservation. Based on what I have studied, I don't believe that anthropogenic co2 is enough to faciliate a huge heating of the planet. Too many other things. I personally don't believe the planet is heating or cooling; I just observe that the climate changes. Here in New England, we are having our 4th consecutive year with a cold, raw spring. What I have observed as I run in the climate so it's something that I observe is that our seasons seem to be pushing forward into the year. I've noticed this pattern the last decade or so but it's not enough to make a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Freeman just passed 2 months ago. I did not say he was a climatologist. He is a physicist & I have watched his podcasts & he makes sense to me. Al Gore is not a climatologist either-he has his own agenda. No Freeman did not say it's all anthropogenic. In fact that was what the problem with all these surveys & then the media mis-reporting. Most scientists simply say it's complex with lots of sources & feedbacks. I can say there are x gigatons of co2 in the air & that is more than existed say than in 1900 but I also understand the feedback loops of the 4 different sciences & as I have said co2 alone cannot manifest this kind of change. Why pick on CO2? Why not pick on water? The earth has compensatory mechanism. Al Gore would be no different than an oil company. They're going to look for who supports their point of view. Please don't be naive to think that some politician is Jesus & looking out for you. Gore basically hates the internal combustion engine. Everyone is about preservation. Based on what I have studied, I don't believe that anthropogenic co2 is enough to faciliate a huge heating of the planet. Too many other things. I personally don't believe the planet is heating or cooling; I just observe that the climate changes. Here in New England, we are having our 4th consecutive year with a cold, raw spring. What I have observed as I run in the climate so it's something that I observe is that our seasons seem to be pushing forward into the year. I've noticed this pattern the last decade or so but it's not enough to make a theory.

He only "makes sense" because you are looking at what he says through a very biased and uninformed filter. When trying to support a scientific idea one goes to experts in the field. Not to experts in other fields, no matter how well qualified a person is in that field. Dyson could not support his beliefs. He only had an opinion and those are not worth much in the sciences.

And Al Gore is not an expert either. What he has to say has nothing to bear on this topic. I am willing to throw out non-experts on both sides.

 

[lordjeff]

But you are also buying into Drs Mann, Cook, & Hansen as if they're what the Holy Trinity of graphs. It's a false dichotomy. They could have easily chosen some other gas & lead people to the slaughter. Their models & graphs are only info on measurements. It does not explain process. They cannot tell me what the conditions are going to be in the year 3000 in Seattle. That is why it's bunk. What can only observable is the longterm movement of plates around the globe but we don't live that long now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're still missing the point: scientists have a major & then they begin specializing in whatever interests them. That does not make them idiots. You must know that Ms. Oreskes is not a climate scientist, but merely a professor of the history of science.

"Major"? Are you talking about an undergraduate major or something else? (Virtually *all* undergraduate students in the US have a major.)

I'm not sure who Ms. Oreskes is or why she's relevant (maybe its in some link I didn't follow), but as you say she is science historian, so I'm not sure why she'd be relevant to this discussion about the climate change.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Too many other things. I personally don't believe the planet is heating or cooling; I just observe that the climate changes. Here in New England, we are having our 4th consecutive year with a cold, raw spring. What I have observed as I run in the climate so it's something that I observe is that our seasons seem to be pushing forward into the year. I've noticed this pattern the last decade or so but it's not enough to make a theory.

Look past your nose! This isn't about one small region or one short time period.

 

[klutedavid]

The Sun is the culprit behind the modern warming trend. The Sun has been at a high output for a long time and has baked the earth hence the reason for the world wide increase in temperature. We have not increased in temperature sence the year 2000 . The world wide temperature has been a steady two and a half degrees above normal for twenty years.

This modern warming is only the latest in a long series of warming events in history. Before it was the Medival warm period and before that was the Roman warm period and before that was the Holocene maximum. These warming events happen every 1,500 years and are caused by the Sun. The good news is that the warming should stay the same for hundreds of years and nothing mankind does will change that. The Sun warming up two and a half degrees is good news for plants and animals which have a greater range of habitat and growing season.

Are you saying that if we have cut down most of the forests on earth. That there will not be an effect on global weather patterns and temperature?

If across the world we replace forests with dark roads and concrete, that over time, temperature will not rise around urban areas?

If we pump enormous amounts of pollutants and CO2 into the atmosphere, that there will be no effect on the climate?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can say there are x gigatons of co2 in the air & that is more than existed say than in 1900 but I also understand the feedback loops of the 4 different sciences & as I have said co2 alone cannot manifest this kind of change. Why pick on CO2? Why not pick on water? The earth has compensatory mechanism.

Do you know what a partial pressure is? What equilibrium vapor pressure is? If not I'll help you out...

The equilibrium vapor pressure of a substance is the pressure of that substance in a gas state when a liquid state is in equilibrium with a gas state at a particular temperature and total gas pressure. When the equilibrium vapor pressure is reached, no more of the liquid will evaporate. The ratio of the current vapor pressure to equilibrium vapor pressure for water is a well reported value in meteorology: the relative humidity. When the relative humidity reaches 100% the partial pressure of water reaches the equilibrium vapor pressure for water at that temperature. No more water can evaporate. Period. (If the equilibrium vapor pressure is lowered by for example lowering the temperature, water will condense out to make clouds, fog, rain, snow, etc.)

This means that we know the maximum amount of greenhouse effect that can occur from water as it very frequently saturates.

For carbon dioxide (at 0 C), the partial pressure of CO2 is 3500 kPa. The atmosphere at the surface has a pressure of 101 kPa, so CO2 is only going to saturate when its partial pressure is 35 times the current atmospheric pressure, or about 100,000 times the current CO2 levels.

Bottom line, water saturates frequently in the atmosphere, and CO2 is no where near saturation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But you are also buying into Drs Mann, Cook, & Hansen as if they're what the Holy Trinity of graphs. It's a false dichotomy. They could have easily chosen some other gas & lead people to the slaughter. Their models & graphs are only info on measurements. It does not explain process. They cannot tell me what the conditions are going to be in the year 3000 in Seattle. That is why it's bunk. What can only observable is the longterm movement of plates around the globe but we don't live that long now.

They chose CO2 because it is a long lived greenhouse gas (methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas).

I don't know about these three specifically, but determining the climate in the year 3000 in Seattle is EXACTLY what climate modelers do. (OK, not that far in to the future, but certainly a couple hundred years)

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you are also buying into Drs Mann, Cook, & Hansen as if they're what the Holy Trinity of graphs. It's a false dichotomy. They could have easily chosen some other gas & lead people to the slaughter. Their models & graphs are only info on measurements. It does not explain process. They cannot tell me what the conditions are going to be in the year 3000 in Seattle. That is why it's bunk. What can only observable is the longterm movement of plates around the globe but we don't live that long now.

Aren't you one that keeps calling every accurate temperature map the "hockey stick"? When you only have PRATT's and conspiracy theories no rational person will take you seriously.

 

[lordjeff]

Do you know what a partial pressure is? What equilibrium vapor pressure is? If not I'll help you out...

The equilibrium vapor pressure of a substance is the pressure of that substance in a gas state when a liquid state is in equilibrium with a gas state at a particular temperature and total gas pressure. When the equilibrium vapor pressure is reached, no more of the liquid will evaporate. The ratio of the current vapor pressure to equilibrium vapor pressure for water is a well reported value in meteorology: the relative humidity. When the relative humidity reaches 100% the partial pressure of water reaches the equilibrium vapor pressure for water at that temperature. No more water can evaporate. Period. (If the equilibrium vapor pressure is lowered by for example lowering the temperature, water will condense out to make clouds, fog, rain, snow, etc.)

This means that we know the maximum amount of greenhouse effect that can occur from water as it very frequently saturates.

For carbon dioxide (at 0 C), the partial pressure of CO2 is 3500 kPa. The atmosphere at the surface has a pressure of 101 kPa, so CO2 is only going to saturate when its partial pressure is 35 times the current atmospheric pressure, or about 100,000 times the current CO2 levels.

Bottom line, water saturates frequently in the atmosphere, and CO2 is no where near saturation.

The reason why CO2 can flood us like the greenhouse effect on Venus has to do with partial pressure. The partial pressure on Venus is much hire & that contributes to the global warmth there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reason why CO2 can flood us like the greenhouse effect on Venus has to do with partial pressure. The partial pressure on Venus is much hire & that contributes to the global warmth there.

And here.

 

[lordjeff]

"Major"? Are you talking about an undergraduate major or something else? (Virtually *all* undergraduate students in the US have a major.)
All scientists major in something, maybe more than one thing, & when they go into research they may be studying exactly what their degree is or something related. In other words they apply their knowledge. My particular specialty is environmental geology & public health because it is applicable to civilization. It does not mean I don't like other things...my head is always in a book..I like astrophysics...esp stellar cycles & relativity. I like biological oceanography & the science of the shoreline & I enjoy cloud studies & climate. BTW, Ms. Oreskes is a Harvard prof that was in one of those 97% surveys. She studies the history of science, not a science specialty itself.

 

[lordjeff]

Look past your nose! This isn't about one small region or one short time period.

Climate is relative to where one lives. It changes. We have regional climates & microclimates. We also have these things called anomalies such as El Nino. All these things that make up our weather are not driven by a single gas. It's a complex web of feedback cycles, energy, laws of physics, chemistry, earth materials. I have grown up through ice cold winters & balmy winters. I've seen snowless winters & winters with snow 5' in the driveway. I've run in summer weather where we have had heatwave after heatwave & then we just kind have the norm of 1 or 2 heatwaves. I've seen cold, rainy springs & i've seen 90 degree days early in April. I've seen balmy falls, cold falls, & normal falls. And i"ve seen the biggest anomaly yet a hurricane on a Friday in October which went overnight into a blizzard. This is weather & weather like the stars throws coniptions. Over a time period a geographical region adapts a fairly normal climate. Now if you wear down a few mountains or implant a few deep lakes, you're going to see a change. And also if you move a few plates, you're probably going to get a bigger change. But no one can predict what the weather will be in 3000 AD or 55000 AD. Computers can't do that. You're not going to be able to tell me what the dew point is going to be on that day or what speed the wind is at or whether El Nino is active on that day or the Polar Vortex. It's no different than a geologist trying to predict which day San Francisco is going to have the earthquake. SF has earthquakes daily of some sort but you can't tell the world on which day the 10.0 is coming. All you can do with these sciences is look at the basic concepts & then interconnect them.

 

[lordjeff]

Aren't you one that keeps calling every accurate temperature map the "hockey stick"? When you only have PRATT's and conspiracy theories no rational person will take you seriously.

How foolish stats lie? The planet has 7 continents & 5 oceans. To get even an average earth temp. would require implementation of gazillions of thermometers in more than 1 place on every land mass or ocean basis, high or low, forest or savannah, desert or glacier, cave or city street to backyard to prairie to volcano. Average temp is just bunk for the globe as it does not mean anything. Of course some of these stations were deliberately placed in open sunlit parking lots on asphalt. That is no way to get a temp. And of course if you go to the vent of a volcano you're going the info you seek. Hello-Mt. Pinatubo 1991. It put out so much ash & gas, that it produced a cold winter. Then all of a sudden everyone began panicking that they thought we were going to be an eternal winter. Well of course if it puts out large particles that are large enough to reflect radiation, yeah it may be a colder but it doesn't mean forever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Climate is relative to where one lives. It changes. We have regional climates & microclimates. We also have these things called anomalies such as El Nino. All these things that make up our weather are not driven by a single gas. It's a complex web of feedback cycles, energy, laws of physics, chemistry, earth materials. I have grown up through ice cold winters & balmy winters. I've seen snowless winters & winters with snow 5' in the driveway. I've run in summer weather where we have had heatwave after heatwave & then we just kind have the norm of 1 or 2 heatwaves. I've seen cold, rainy springs & i've seen 90 degree days early in April. I've seen balmy falls, cold falls, & normal falls. And i"ve seen the biggest anomaly yet a hurricane on a Friday in October which went overnight into a blizzard. This is weather & weather like the stars throws coniptions. Over a time period a geographical region adapts a fairly normal climate. Now if you wear down a few mountains or implant a few deep lakes, you're going to see a change. And also if you move a few plates, you're probably going to get a bigger change. But no one can predict what the weather will be in 3000 AD or 55000 AD. Computers can't do that. You're not going to be able to tell me what the dew point is going to be on that day or what speed the wind is at or whether El Nino is active on that day or the Polar Vortex. It's no different than a geologist trying to predict which day San Francisco is going to have the earthquake. SF has earthquakes daily of some sort but you can't tell the world on which day the 10.0 is coming. All you can do with these sciences is look at the basic concepts & then interconnect them.

Why try to project so far out? We are worried about the next couple of hundreds of years.

And of course you have failed to show that any stats lie. That is no way to win an argument.

 

[lordjeff]

And here.

Earth's pressure is not high enough per Prof. Emeritus Richard Lindzen to be like Venus. We are not Venus. Basic geology-oceans & vegetation plus limestone/dolomite. These are our 3 repositories for absorption. Now if you're the modeler, why don't guestimate what the climate is going to be once the North American collides with SE Asia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Earth's pressure is not high enough per Prof. Emeritus Richard Lindzen to be like Venus. We are not Venus. Basic geology-oceans & vegetation plus limestone/dolomite. These are our 3 repositories for absorption. Now if you're the modeler, why don't guestimate what the climate is going to be once the North American collides with SE Asia.

No one is claiming that we are going to be like Venus.

 

[lordjeff]

Why try to project so far out? We are worried about the next couple of hundreds of years.

And of course you have failed to show that any stats lie. That is no way to win an argument.

Don't you see it's all a game by politicians. The democratic party in the US has always despised oil companies. I don't know why--some of this stuff goes into pension checks. Do you see Nancy Pelosi stopping her weekly jets to California. How about Leo & his jet? Do you think Hollywood would stop flying? Of course not. It's a redistribution of wealth game. We have run out of things to tax. Politiicans appetites for money are never satisfied. So they got to make an enemy. In the 70s, Jimmy Carter he hammered the people by pretending that oil was in short supply. The earth is not going to change in 200 years. If you believe that, you should run for AOC's campaign manager.

 

[lordjeff]

No one is claiming that we are going to be like Venus.

Gee acc to AOC we only 12 years left. She has people convinced that we're going to see a daily temp of 100 degrees not going to happen.