Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Aussie Pete]

Arguably maintaining healthy forests requires good silviculture & strengthens the repository. Figure this the earth is maybe using a tad less paper given all the ipod tablets now. Urban landscaping must be the new field as to how to re-engineer city design to dissipate pollutants & heat caused by entropy. That is actually where I do see wind turbines come into play by situating them in the harbor. I have seen pix of buildings with vegetation on the roof, even the sides of bridges. It increases the repository. Incidently the main culprit here is entropy-a fact of physics. That accounts for the heat accumulation here so if something is constructed to advect the air thru the streets & between the tall buildings, who knows might get some effect. But the politicians would simply rather tax people or outlaw vehicles. Maglev trains will help too. As trains use diesel part of the time, if you convert to magnetism, you lose the diesel.

Maintaining healthy forests means not cutting them down. I see little hope for the human race if it is left to it's own devices. Changing from diesel to electric may make people feel better, but energy has to be produced in some manner. Even the cleanest has some environmental cost. Too many rulers are utterly corrupt. They bank the country's money instead of investing in projects that would help their nation. Many multinationals have no conscience. Their only interest is in money also. Change may be happening at the fringes. It's not happening where it matters.

 

[eclipsenow]

You're caught up in this stuff like a compulsion & that's too dangerous for one' health.

First of all - as it's now Christmas Day here - Merry Christmas!

But please, in remembering the birth of our Lord let's remember to play the ball and not the man. You don't know me. Stop Bulverising me. As CS Lewis said:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.​

Bulverism - Wikipedia.

Not all climatologists agree on cause.

Science is not a democracy - but the fact is that 97% of peer-reviewed climate papers agree with the consensus that it's the laws of physics around CO2's heat trapping abilities that is doing this. Those same laws of physics around Co2 discovered in 1856 by Eunice Foote. In other words, Al Gore didn't 'invent' global warming. Eunice discovered CO2's properties 164 years ago. The very beginning of understanding climate science is at least that old - and can probably be traced back to even earlier with Joseph Fourier studying why the earth was warmer than the moon - back in the 1820s!

Fact remains temp. records don't go for all eons of time-we don't know what it was like in 47,000,000 BCE on Dec. 25.

Fact remains - climatologists don't NEED thermometers to estimate with some reliability the paleoclimate by studying proxies.

The cardinal rule of geology is the processes of the past act today as well. Along comes Gore & tells people that this gadget we use is hurting the planet.

"Along comes Gore" is about as ignorant of climate history as your previous assertions that the sun's IR couldn't get through our atmosphere was ignorant of the physics of this. Do you know Joseph Fourier, and why a Fourier device is named after him? What does that device do? Stop and read this wiki on the history of climate science before you embarrass yourself any further.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia

That's his hypothesis.

Absolute poppycock - see the wiki above.

But he would need many more courses do understand the forcings.

He's a science populariser and activist - NOT a climatologist. It's like telling off the Newsreader for not having degrees in sociology or history of the subject he's just read from the tele-prompter!

Not all hypotheses turn out.

Which ones? You had better not just be parroting some redneck propaganda you've 'heard' but not actually read about yourself!

He has an m/o-he's out to make money.

And what are you and your friends out to do - make a killing on oil stocks?
(See how easy it is to flip a Bulverism around and attack the character of not just yourself or your heroes but the people you hang out with socially? I'll desist now.)

To label one gas as the cause of a planet going extinct

There are many greenhouse gases - CO2's just the biggest. Then there's the water vapour feedback that accelerates CO2's work, methane from our cattle, nitrous oxides from fertilisers, etc.

given that the planet has 3 repositories to counter any forcing is not using logic.

Oh logic and calculations and measuring the ocean's heat storing capacities are ALL subjects of intense climate study. Let me guess - you've never looked at an IPCC report have you? You don't know what negative forcings they measure as well as all the positive warming trends they study.

You need to watch those utube podcasts on logic & fallacies.

You need to calm down and read the history of climate science wiki for starters.

You simply want to follow 3 scientists because that is to your liking.

Go through and count up all the scientists names just in the major history of climate study below.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia

Then look up how many climate scientists write for the IPCC and from what fields. This is one of the largest scientific enterprises the human race has ever attempted - and you think I'm cherrypicking from 3 climate scientists! Wow. Just wow. You are so far out of your depth here.

I choose not to. 12 years from now the earth will still be here.

God willing - it will. But it will be considerably warmer, the sea level will have risen 4.3 cms, other natural feedbacks may have started to release even more greenhouse gases. By reducing the ice cover on the earth and warming up arctic tundra's and peat bogs and releasing extra CO2, we're very close to pushing the planet into a new climate state. Those natural feedbacks have some very large and scary amounts of CO2. The planet IS changing, whether you stick your head in the sand or not.

 

[lordjeff]

Silviculture involves taming the understory or the canopy so that it doesn't become fodder for fires. There is a way of doing that if the country cared enough to do so. I imagine we don't use as much wood now for furniture or construction because of the deterioration effect. They use composites. Our whole condo complex had this change down 5 years ago. Not a deck or wall is made of wood. It's all a composite. But it's very difficult to get stewardship actually down be it forests, cleaning up rivers & harbors & beaches, cleaning roadsides. There just does not seem to be the interest even thought they have invented some hi-tech vehicles that can get into tough spaces & do it in a jiffy. So yes i agree govt has just become about corruption.

 

[lordjeff]

Please play the ball and not the man.
You don't know me.
Stop Bulverising me.
As CS Lewis said:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.​

Bulverism - Wikipedia.




Science is not a democracy - but the fact is that 97% of peer-reviewed climate papers agree with the consensus that it's the laws of physics around CO2's heat trapping abilities that is doing this - as established in 1856 by Eunice Foote. In other words, Al Gore didn't 'invent' global warming. Eunice discovered CO2's properties 164 years ago. You're fighting the basic physics of CO2 and the discovery of this is now 164 years old.



Fact remains - climatologists don't NEED thermometers to estimate with some reliability the paleoclimate by studying proxies.


"Along comes Gore" is about as ignorant of climate history as your previous assertions that the sun's IR couldn't get through our atmosphere was ignorant of the physics of this. Do you know Joseph Fourier, and why a Fourier device is named after him? What does that device do?
Stop and read this wiki on the history of climate science before you embarrass yourself any further.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia



Absolute poppycock - see the wiki above.


He's a science populariser and activist - NOT a climatologist. It's like telling off the Newsreader for not having degrees in sociology or history of the subject he's just read from the prompter!


Which ones? You had better not just be parroting some redneck propaganda you've 'heard' but not actually read about yourself!


And what are you and your friends out to do?


There are many greenhouse gases - CO2's just the biggest. Then there's the water vapour feedback that accelerates CO2's work, methane from our cattle, nitrous oxides from fertilisers, etc.


Oh logic and calculations and measuring the ocean's heat storing capacities are ALL subjects of intense climate study. Let me guess - you've never looked at an IPCC report have you?


You need to calm down and read the history of climate science wiki for starters.


Go through and count up all the scientists names just in the major history of climate study below.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia

Then look up how many climate scientists write for the IPCC and from what fields.


Yes it will. But it will be considerably warmer, the sea level will have risen 4.3 cms, other natural feedbacks may have started to release even more greenhouse gases. By reducing the ice cover on the earth and warming up arctic tundra's and peat bogs and releasing extra CO2, we're very close to pushing the planet into a new climate state. Those natural feedbacks have some very large and scary amounts of CO2. The planet IS changing, whether you stick your head in the sand or not.
View attachment 291673

 

[lordjeff]

First of all, don't rely on wikipedia. All my profs frowned on that if one was using that as primary information in a term paper. This is where you're wrong. 97% of all scientists was an incorrect tabulation. And of course the politicians went wild with it. There is no 97% consensus. One version was arrived by science history professor. Naomi Orestes, who in her publication was not peer-reviewed. Likewise another grad student was working on a thesis of same. 10,000 surveys consisting of 2 questions were sent out globally. Many were not returned because scientists would not fall for filling out a simply Y/N survey. 3000 were returned (30%) which is not a great number. Of that amount 79 were reviewed as indicating yes there was warming & 75 of the 79 proposed that it was totally anthropogenic. This was reviewed around 2015 & debunked. It was not a valid survey & there are specifics on any kind of science proposal. Not many replied & in fact many felt the issue to complex to just point to a simple gas. This was about the time that climate change began to replace global warming. You can even find on Wiki plus other sources on the web just how bogus this figure was. Still another survey was sent out from down under. It was sent to anybody-not necessarily a credential person or person in the field & of course these people replied like journalists. The IPCC has an agenda-it's an income distribution scheme. Gore is about carbon markets. It has also been tracked down secret emails from Europe about the real scam. You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. I just do not believe there is enough evidence to say that climate change is manufactured by mankind's use of fossil fuels given the fields of meteorology, astronomy, geology, & oceanography. There are so many abiding concepts in these fields with the assistance of physics & atmospheric chemistry that control the process at large.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First of all, don't rely on wikipedia. All my profs frowned on that if one was using that as primary information in a term paper.

No one is "relying" on Wikipedia. We just sometimes use Wikipedia articles because they are 1) written at an appropriate level, 2) viewpoint neutral, and 3) fully cited internally to proper references. (My profs would have never said such a thing, mostly because they weren't visitors from the future.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Naomi Orestes, who in her publication was not peer-reviewed.

Prof. Oreskes is a *historian* who literally writes about the same people who have been messing with your mind and feeding nonsense about climate in to your thoughts so that the fossil fuel industry can confuse the issues regarding the role of humans in contemporary climate change. It doesn't matter if her study was peer reviewed or not (and it's not clear from the context what study you mean as your writing is awful and lacks references), as she is not a climatologist. Her studies and their qualities do not affect the reality of climate change.

 

[sjastro]

The earth's natural repositories for absorption of CO2 are a) oceans/seas/lakes, b) all vegetation including trees, plants, algae, plankton, grass, rushes & sedges, weeds, flower, vegetable & fruit crops, grain crops, flowers, c) sedimentary rocks of the minerals calcite/dolomite, namely limestone, spar, & dolstone. Carbon is pulled in under certain sea conditions & calcite forms. Large-scale formation leads to very pieces of limestone such as chalk or limestone strata. These repositories are the natural buffer to prevent the planet from attaining the status of a runaway greenhouse effect which occurs on Venus. The ocean comprises water which in vapor form is the largest greenhouse compound but we don't want to evaporate all that now.

And yet CO₂ levels are still increasing......
Given your three degrees you must have been asleep when your lecturer was discussing the continuity equation and unstable equilibria.

Of course you conveniently ignore practically all of the positive and negative feedback systems that result in positive or negative radiative forcing components.

 

[loveofourlord]

By the way the vortex is not caused by spontaneously engineered change. The vortex exists because of the Polar Easterlies, which a cyclonic semi-permanent belt at the poles.

the vortex wasn't caused by climate change, but the fact that it went so far south. WHICH you as many others like to pretend implies that global warming is false and they had to change. Despite the fact it went so far south WAS caused by climate change. Maybe if you guys learnt science you wouldn't look so silly.

 

[eclipsenow]

First of all, don't rely on wikipedia. All my profs frowned on that if one was using that as primary information in a term paper.

Listen lady - it's just a summary source! You can read it or not - but you don't seem to have a CLUE what you're talking about, and that's a really bad put down coming from me because I'm not even a scientist!

This is where you're wrong.

Says the lady who thinks climate change has 3 scientists and Al Gore is one of them!

97% of all scientists was an incorrect tabulation.

No - it's accurate. What are your sources? Some dude at your republican church in an oil state?

And of course the politicians went wild with it. There is no 97% consensus.

There is.

Also, you haven't disproved anything about Eunice Foote, the physics of CO2's radiative forcing, the math in the Radiative Forcing Equation or the fact that most scientists on earth verify that this equation says we are adding 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS PER SECOND worth of heat to the planet.

Other than that you're doing great in your arguments! (I'm almost at the point of invoking Poe's Law you're doing so bad!)

One version was arrived by science history professor. Naomi Orestes, who in her publication was not peer-reviewed.

Um, she's the Harvard Professor of the History of Science. As for whether or not she is reliable:-

An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peiser to retract his criticism of Oreskes' study.
What does Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus show?

By the way, Skeptical Science is led by a Christian.

Likewise another grad student was working on a thesis of same.

Naomi is not a grad student - so I don't know why you say 'Likewise'. But as you don't quote who this grad student is or where their work sits in the IPCC framework - I'll just ignore the following paragraphs where you attempt to poke holes in this non-quoted and therefore to me non-existent problem.

Gore is about carbon markets. It has also been tracked down secret emails from Europe about the real scam.

So there's the scientific facts of the actual climate emergency - facts you seem quite ignorant about for someone that feels entitled to critique them. Then there's the proposed solutions. Stop immediately jumping from one to criticise the other which makes you look transparently political on this yourself.

I don't really care HOW we get to net zero emissions, as long as we do. I'm open to various market mechanisms, through to the blunt force of a nation just plain Nationalising energy the way the French did in the 1970's oil crisis and rolling nukes off the production line! So stop trying to box me in about my politics - and analyse yourself. Why are you so opposed to climate change science - and why are you so afraid of the solutions?

Fossil fuels are dirty, cause cancer, kill millions of people globally a year, pollute, and are finite. They WILL run out!

I just do not believe there is enough evidence to say that climate change is manufactured by mankind's use of fossil fuels given the fields of meteorology, astronomy, geology, & oceanography.

You appear UTTERLY IGNORANT of the basic claims of the science let alone being in a position to judge whether there is enough evidence. I simply do not care what you say about it - you're so far out of your league this makes me think it must be Poe's Law.

 

[lordjeff]

Prof. Oreskes is a *historian* who literally writes about the same people who have been messing with your mind and feeding nonsense about climate in to your thoughts so that the fossil fuel industry can confuse the issues regarding the role of humans in contemporary climate change. It doesn't matter if her study was peer reviewed or not (and it's not clear from the context what study you mean as your writing is awful and lacks references), as she is not a climatologist. Her studies and their qualities do not affect the reality of climate change.

But the point is climate does change over now. The earth is not some static object but changes are not instantaneous. No one messing with my mind I just don't believe the anthropogenic forcing can produce that much change esp when it's just arbitrarily blamed on some particular molecule. Oreske wrote a book about 10 years which a lot of people bought into. No she is simply a professor who covers the history of science. You may not like my writing but this is not a forum for technical crap. You have to articulate in lingo that an audience can understand. I just don't buy into any of this alarmism about the climate as being markedly changed by co2.

 

[lordjeff]

Listen lady - it's just a summary source! You can read it or not - but you don't seem to have a CLUE what you're talking about, and that's a really bad put down coming from me because I'm not even a scientist!


Says the lady who thinks climate change has 3 scientists and Al Gore is one of them!


No - it's accurate. What are your sources? Some dude at your republican church in an oil state?


Have your tantrums, I'm smiling away. By the way I do not work or lobby for any oil or coal company & I'm not like lots of repubs who don't understand science. And as stated, this is a religious forum, I don't have to list sources. Just go thru a set of any textbooks in each of the 4 fields that compose earth science. As for Ms. Foote I don't have a problem with her. CO2 is absorbed by a narrow range of wavelengths in IR. I'm just not going get alarmed about it as you. You're worried that the world is going to blow up or something. You can't get to zero emissions w/o driving civilization back to the stone age. What for? To win some arbitrary title. You can't operate the electric grid solely on solar or wind. An advance in nuclear fusion would reduce any potential mishap by fission reactors & hydro works if you have water & elevation but the grid works best with a surplus of sources. One never puts their eggs in 1 box. Fossil fuels have allowed people to heat their homes, to use electricity to power their many appliances, gadgets, computers, medical machines, & to use AC, not to mention to drive a car, take a trip across the ocean, or mow the lawn. Granted hydrocarbons possess benzene which is not so good for you but fossil fuels do not kill a gazillion people each year. You obviously have an obscession with trying to get to zero emissions. You can't even get to zero pollution. Things tend to chaos. You've stumbled into somebody who simply does not agree with you & it's a free country. If you want to live like a hermit, then you should give up all forms of transportation & just walk. You should disconnect any electric device you have if you know it to be supplied by either coal or gas. I don't know where you live & what your climate is like but if you have to use heat, then get rid of your furnace. If you use AC, disconnect.
There is.

Also, you haven't disproved anything about Eunice Foote, the physics of CO2's radiative forcing, the math in the Radiative Forcing Equation or the fact that most scientists on earth verify that this equation says we are adding 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS PER SECOND worth of heat to the planet.

Other than that you're doing great in your arguments! (I'm almost at the point of invoking Poe's Law you're doing so bad!)


Um, she's the Harvard Professor of the History of Science. As for whether or not she is reliable:-

An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peiser to retract his criticism of Oreskes' study.
What does Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus show?

By the way, Skeptical Science is led by a Christian.



Naomi is not a grad student - so I don't know why you say 'Likewise'. But as you don't quote who this grad student is or where their work sits in the IPCC framework - I'll just ignore the following paragraphs where you attempt to poke holes in this non-quoted and therefore to me non-existent problem.




So there's the scientific facts of the actual climate emergency - facts you seem quite ignorant about for someone that feels entitled to critique them. Then there's the proposed solutions. Stop immediately jumping from one to criticise the other which makes you look transparently political on this yourself.

I don't really care HOW we get to net zero emissions, as long as we do. I'm open to various market mechanisms, through to the blunt force of a nation just plain Nationalising energy the way the French did in the 1970's oil crisis and rolling nukes off the production line! So stop trying to box me in about my politics - and analyse yourself. Why are you so opposed to climate change science - and why are you so afraid of the solutions?

Fossil fuels are dirty, cause cancer, kill millions of people globally a year, pollute, and are finite. They WILL run out!



You appear UTTERLY IGNORANT of the basic claims of the science let alone being in a position to judge whether there is enough evidence. I simply do not care what you say about it - you're so far out of your league this makes me think it must be Poe's Law.

 

[eclipsenow]

But the point is climate does change over now. The earth is not some static object but changes are not instantaneous. No one messing with my mind I just don't believe the anthropogenic forcing

Stop telling us what you do or don't believe, we don't care.
Your opinion? Meaningless. I could care less!
Whether you have any factual, evidence based arguments to get to your opinion is the question.

I just don't buy into any of this alarmism about the climate as being markedly changed by co2.

So which part of the Radiative Forcing Equation is wrong? See, even the Mythbusters know how to set up an experiment to test this.

4 greenhouses with ice-men in the middle, the same powered lamps shining on them, but with slightly different greenhouse gases in each. It's not my fault you're disagreeing with basic physics that can be demonstrated in backyard tests.

Oh, and remember this piece is 11 years old. CO2 has already moved from 350ppm to over 400ppm in that time!

 

[lordjeff]

Oh sticks & stones I do have a clue on these sciences because I took the courses & did well. We simply have a difference of opinion on what you think is happening to the planet. You have just bought into the stuff hook line & sinker. Earth science is a pretty deep field, you best get started on all the textbooks.

 

[lordjeff]

You must be suffering from some psych disorder if you're lashing out so much. You have fears that are a bit over the top. And you have deep anger. There's a lot of things we cannot control about the planet. Climate is one of them. This is not some science convention. You do seem to care enough about my opinion because it's bothering you with all the anger you spew out.

 

[lordjeff]

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientis
1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming - Econlib

97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs. (friendsofscience.org)

 

[eclipsenow]

You must be suffering from some psych disorder if you're lashing out so much. You have fears that are a bit over the top. And you have deep anger. There's a lot of things we cannot control about the planet. Climate is one of them. This is not some science convention. You do seem to care enough about my opinion because it's bothering you with all the anger you spew out.

Diddums. You're posting here and if you can't handle the temperature, get out of the climate lab.

AGAIN: Stop telling us what you do or don't believe, we don't care. Your opinion? Meaningless. We could care less! Whether you have any factual, evidence based arguments to get to your opinion is the question.

MYTHBUSTERS PROVED THE PHYSICS WITH A BACKYARD PHYSICS TEST.
ANY decent physics lab on the planet can tell us how much heat CO2 or methane traps.
According to you, they're all in on a conspiracy!

 

[eclipsenow]

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientis
1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming - Econlib

97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs. (friendsofscience.org)

Ha ha ha! Friends of Science? Really? That's your source? Ha ha ha!

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific conclusion that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol.[1] The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3] They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.[4][5]
Friends of Science - Wikipedia
​

Which leads me to ask - are you largely funded by the fossil fuel industry? In an oil belt somewhere?

Also, because you've studied this so thoroughly, what do you do about the fact that the sun was cooling second half of the last century while the planet warmed? "It's the sun" is only the top of the charts in the denialist hymn book - but like everything else in that hymn book - it's a rubbish claim debunked by all the pee-reviewed science.

 

[sjastro]

Oh sticks & stones I do have a clue on these sciences because I took the courses & did well. We simply have a difference of opinion on what you think is happening to the planet. You have just bought into the stuff hook line & sinker. Earth science is a pretty deep field, you best get started on all the textbooks.

Since you "did well" here is a simple quiz question for you.
From my previous post;

Why are the terrestrial biological carbon and hydrologic cycles which play a significant role in global temperatures not included as radiative forcing components?

 

[Hans Blaster]

. I just don't buy into any of this alarmism about the climate as being markedly changed by co2.

How does it feel to be glaringly and completely wrong?

These things have been known for a few decades. The "alarm" was raised a long time ago. (and given your comments about your profs and wikipedia long before you started any higher education)