What if it isn't the CO2?

[thatgui]

OI?!

What? Whatever did we do wrong to you?

I'm not obsessed, I'm discussing a major pillar of a propaganda campaign. The Al Gore movie was shown in schools and presented as 'truth' when it was not. This is government indoctrination of children and highly problematic. It took a lawsuit to stop this in the UK.

Then why bring it up that often, even if no else is addressing it ? This film came out in 2006 with the lawsuit happening in 2007. This was 10 years ago, and far after the whole conspiracy of global warming got track, which started in the early 1990s (maybe even the 80s). And as said before, no one gives a flying f*** about this film. Films are shown in schools all the time, for good or worse - heck I saw a big chunk of "1492: Conquest of paradise" in history class (for whatever reason). Btw. there was no lawsuit that stopped it, the film was critized for beeing "alarmist" but (at least according to "The Guardian") was deemed "broadly accurate". So much for your motivation to do research.

The topic of the thread is global warming due to man-made CO2.. The warmist PR-wing tries to obscure the fact that the climate has always changed and tries to present any measurements of changes - and any incidence of severe weather - as 'manmade and threatening'.

Then why bring up arguments that deny climate change alongside arguments that deny climate change is manmade ? If climate change is not happening at all, why bother with the rest?

You can be sure I know the difference between weather and climate.

Then why bring up singular weather incidents if you now they have no significance when discussing climate ?

Maybe you would like to point out where I have not dug deep enough? You're saying the warmer water melts more ice which then freezes to create more ice which is then not melted by the warmer water? ...

You do know that there can be different layers of water existing on top of each other, with different physical properties ?
I thought that this is called sience, but heck, what do I know. I even did not know that the first video you posted in this thread is

... history-changing discovery, and how it has been supressed by the climate consensus.

even if its part of the scientific discussion (and even experiments), like here, here, here, and here (and I can probably find a whole lot more, damn beeing oppresed must be hard) and without currently no one knowing whether the effect Svensmarks describes plays an important role or not.
That does not mean Svensmarks is wrong just that currenlty there is not enough evidence to support his pov on a broader basis. So maybe it is not that history changing ?
But then again, you did all the research there is and I posses only knowledge of magical things - hell I even always thought there is a difference between ice on land and on sea or that you can't just offset Arctic ice against Antarctic ice. I will try to be more like you and cite sources that cite the "Christian sience monitor" as source, if God isn't trustworthy anymore, who else is ?

I won't expand this reply any more by dissecting all of the claims you make in the last bullet-point - please tell us: What leads you to believe that the temperature in 1890 was the perfect temperature for the planet and that humanity must do everything imaginable to lock-into this temperature until the sun runs out of fuel?

Well, as you said earlier earth has a long history of climate change, and we are also "sitting" on a big pile of "evidence" what effects these changes had on the affected fauna, flora and spoiler alert: usually it wasn't a good thing for them, if the climate got more extreme.
In the end it all comes down from what point of view you evaluate the changes. Earth: "What do I care", Insects(as a group of species): "awesome we can expand our territories, of course a few billions of us will die more, but who cares we will fill the ranks up again, quickly", current maritime life the lives in water layers that will be directly affected: "shit everything goes down the drain", maritimee live that lives of the remains of the above sinking down: "awesome times", part of humanity that lives in (and adapted a long time ago to) moderate climate zones "this won't end well", humanity as a whole: "meh we will survive".
But maybe you can tell me about what benefits humanity can expect from a change in climate - if you believe it is happening at all, which I don't know because, you know, muddled discussions'n stuff....

 

[_jr_]

...

Obviously we are not able to productively communicate. To me your arguments are incoherent bullshit and vice versa. Therefore at least one of us has a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and since I cannot be sure it isn't me, I'll leave this discussion to thatgui who to me seems more competent.

 

[klapse]

Dude, answer my fukin question.

• By how much does net downward radiation by atmospheric CO2 increase (in percent change) if you double CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels? (ca. 280-335 ppmv - also a disputed estimate) And how many watts per square meter is the increase? (The total solar radiation when the sun is at zenith is about 1050 watts/square-meter)

This is one of the two key issues facing the warmist dogma.
[doublepost=1497603571,1497602917][/doublepost]@thatgui "like here, here, here, and here"

Great, you pulled a shotgun linkset of articles on cloud formation with a websearch - I'm not an expert on cloud nucleation (and neither are you). Why are you focusing on water vapor when the warmist dogma is that CO2 causes the warming? Why are the IPCC models exaggerating warming by a factor or two? And why do you insist on implementing policy based on wrong models?

Prove your thesis or go home.

 

[rygD]

Not sure if you are getting upset. If so, don't let internet debates get your blood boiling. From the perspective of things at the universal level this topic is irrelevant, as is the planet. If an asteroid shatters Earth tomorrow, opinions, alternate energy source funding, and penguins (because Linux, not global warming, which also fits my list) won't matter.

 

[benoitb]

If an asteroid shatters Earth tomorrow

His blood would still boil, wouldn't it ?

 

[thatgui]

Great, you pulled a shotgun linkset of articles on cloud formation with a websearch - I'm not an expert on cloud nucleation (and neither are you).

Is context a concept that is that complicated to grasp? There is no need for you nor me to be an expert on "cloud nucleation" as that was never the point. You made the, rather bold, claim that the work of Svensmarks is "history changing" and that it is "surpressed" (by whom btw. ?) And I gave examples that this is not true, that it is indeed part of the scientific discussion. And this was in the context of my assertion that your "research could be improved" (=> "dug not deep enough") not in the context of an argument between the both of us whats causing global warming (which we actually don't have).

But would be interesting to know what would have been an acceptable answer for you (except "yes, klapse, you are right") ?

Why are you focusing on water vapor when the warmist dogma is that CO2 causes the warming?

Again, context and you brought that topic up in the first place, so what should I do ? Drive to Ingoldstadt, force Ed to give me admin rights, so I can delete the stuff you posted from this thread ?

Why are the IPCC models exaggerating warming by a factor or two?

Do they actually ? I looked it up (again) and they are offering quite a variety of models with different predictions. Could you give me hint in the direction you are addressing (sorry if you already did, and I missed it) ?

"Sidequest": why does the IPCC need more then one factor to exaggerate on their numbers ?

And why do you insist on implementing policy based on wrong models?

Hmm, I can't remember insisting on implementing any policy and currently I am still leaning towards the conspiracy side (in a "better safe then sorry" kind of way)

Prove your thesis or go home.

What thesis are you referring to ? The thesises I made in this thread are still waiting to be discussed more

 

[ible]

This is a wonderful example of just how badly you are being lied-to.

• 1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

you can find anything you want on the internet...

And bio-ethanol wastes energy.

i'd also argue against ethanol for this same reason...

This is a wonderful example of just how badly you are being lied-to.
...
What if someone else, like me, shows they have been lying to you?
...
This 'clean energy movement' is promoting anti-energy to the rubes who do not understand science.

i hear this tone/verbiage (lie, rubes, etc.) a lot on the conservative side of the aisle. i believe one of the core fears (https://ajournalofthejourney.wordpr...-the-dna-of-relationships-by-dr-gary-smalley/) that conservatives are trying to spark is being cheated or being considered inferior.

I have a science backgound and am published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not distrust scientists, I discriminate between good and bad ones.

me too (or, at least i have a science background .). (though i have yet to meet a truly bad scientist, i do consider my field to have been one of the best in terms of people involved.) and i try to give the benefit of the doubt to those that aren't in my field. (of course, as a scientist you have to hold multiple views in your head at once, to allow the evidence to go where it may.)

this is a bit creepy, and you've posted it twice.

 

[klapse]

You made the, rather bold, claim that the work of Svensmarks is "history changing" and that it is "surpressed" (by whom btw. ?) And I gave examples that this is not true, that it is indeed part of the scientific discussion.

Thanks for those links. I'll have to weigh them against research that confirms Svensmark, like this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04...-ray-modulation-of-earths-climate-hypothesis/

It looks like we got past the 'First they ignore you' phase with cosmic rays. However those links do not refute the fact of systemic suppression of the research and researchers which call the AGW theory into question.
Just one example:
How about the media? Are they reporting on the cosmic-ray hypothesis? Did you ever hear of Svensmark before I brought him up?

Again, context and you brought that topic up in the first place, so what should I do ? Drive to Ingoldstadt, force Ed to give me admin rights, so I can delete the stuff you posted from this thread ?

You don't have to, we already had politicians and the US attorney general calling for legal prosecution of those who question AGW. http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/a...king-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/
Is this a neutral and unbiased climate to do research in? Doesn't this alone settle the case?

Do they actually ? I looked it up (again) and they are offering quite a variety of models with different predictions. Could you give me hint in the direction you are addressing (sorry if you already did, and I missed it) ?

The CIMP5 computer models are all wrong and on average exaggerate the warming by 2012 by what, a factor of three? They're even further off than the CIMP3 models. Unfortunatlely you won't see that on headline news.

[EDIT] Here's the latest lower tropospheric satellite dataset from NOAA (don't forget your grain of salt).

Note that these are 'corrected' data and 'stitched' from several satellites. Do the models match the 2017 readings? Oops nope - still off by a factor of 2.

But it's not just troposphere temperatures, CIMP5 models were wrong on land temps and sea temps as well;
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01...te-scientists-who-receive-government-funding/
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...ellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
If you really want to get into the weeds on this, Tisdale's book "Climate Models Fail" is now available for free as a pdf: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/

"Sidequest": why does the IPCC need more then one factor to exaggerate on their numbers ?

It's all about building the 'consensus'...
They like to say that the first audience member who stops clapping when Kim Jong Il makes an appearance gets shot. Massaging the data to favor AGW doctrine is well documented and is a political signal that a scientific group is 'Playing Ball'.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#4a4609a9988d​

"Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/3/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/16/editorial-climate-scientists-manipulate-data-to-su/

"The divergence problem can be partially circumvented by utilizing tree-ring data for dendroclimatic reconstructions from sites where divergence is either absent or minimal." (Wilson et al., 2007; Buntgen et al., in press; Youngblut and Luckman, in press)."
"You have to pick cherries to make cherry pie" - Rosanne D'Arrigo
https://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/

More cheery cherry-picking:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/20/people-and-data-cherry-picked-for-the-ipcc-political-agenda/

NOAA 'data massaging' and the science gatekeepers:

[EDIT] I can't resist adding the infamous "Hockey Stick"....

http://drtimball.com/2016/cherry-picking-in-climate-studies/
​

You still don't believe the ivory tower of science is politicized? Maybe reflection on the scientific research into medical cannabis can illustrate the process in a field where you may be more likely to be skeptical of the government?
Since the US federal government placed cannabis on the "Schedule I" classification of drugs with "No currently accepted medical use" in1971, the research funding has gone to lapdog scientists whose research proposals aim to prove harms: "If you're going to run a trial to show this is going to have positive effects, they're essentially not going to allow it" http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/why-its-so-hard-scientists-study-pot
“The reason we don’t have more data is because it’s quite difficult to study. The only legal source of cannabis is NIDA, which has a Congressional mandate to only study its harms” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/

Hmm...

What thesis are you referring to ? The thesises I made in this thread are still waiting to be discussed more

I'm referring to the thesis that man-made CO2 will cause runaway global warming

Also I don't think this one has been answered yet. Do I need to offer a prize for the right answer?

• By how much does net downward radiation by atmospheric CO2 increase (in percent change) if you double CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels? (ca. 280-335 ppmv - also a disputed estimate) And how many watts per square meter is the increase? (The total solar radiation when the sun is at zenith is about 1050 watts/square-meter)

 

[vcoleiro1]

Also I don't think this one has been answered yet. Do I need to offer a prize for the right answer?

• By how much does net downward radiation by atmospheric CO2 increase (in percent change) if you double CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels? (ca. 280-335 ppmv - also a disputed estimate) And how many watts per square meter is the increase? (The total solar radiation when the sun is at zenith is about 1050 watts/square-meter)

I presume you want to make a point about the answer , if so, why not tell us and then make your point

 

[Wally]

Yeah good luck getting any point out of him @vcoleiro1

Veritas Odium Parit.

 

[klapse]

Yeah good luck getting any point out of him @vcoleiro1

Veritas Odium Parit.

You ignored all my points and expect applause?

 

[Wally]

You ignored all my points and expect applause?

Cogito Ergo Sum.
[doublepost=1497772478,1497754472][/doublepost]This is going to end up some thread about Hilary isn't it? It always does with you.

 

[ElPoco]

I still wonder which actor would want to support a global warming hoax, and to what end.

If governments were so eager to fight global warming, they would do more than just spend a very long time making non-binding agreements without penalties then take a very long time to enact things (when they don't back out).
As for corporations, so far the biggest one have either support climate change deniers or done little more than small changes for advertisment purposes.

This leaves the concept of a group of eco-friendly scholars who try to use their only leverage (their authority in their field) to force change. I'm really doubtful about this, seeing how in so many fields research that are far less divisive as climate change research (such as the studies about the ineffectiveness of the jail system) are often ignored.

 

[klapse]

I still wonder which actor would want to support a global warming hoax, and to what end.

Thanks for your comments ElPoco!

I agree it's interesting to wonder about, but I think speculating about motives (which we can't observe directly) would only distract from our discussion of the questionable science and the propaganda we can observe and document.

If governments were so eager to fight global warming, they would do more than just spend a very long time making non-binding agreements without penalties then take a very long time to enact things (when they don't back out).

Maybe it looks like governments aren't doing anything because the Kyoto and Paris treaties didn't work-out as some hoped, but in reality they are intervening massively in the energy market: Did you know that since 2006, nearly 2500 billion dollars have been funneled into government mandated renewable energy programs globally?
http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/170607_GSR_2017_Full_Report.pdf

This doesn't include additional costs imposed on society by higher energy prices and increased carbon-dioxide taxes of various forms. Here's the results in Australia:

While some renewable energy investments have a positive economic return, most do not - otherwise you wouldn't need the government mandating them. That additional expense has an opportunity cost - it's money that could have been left in our bank accounts to let us enhance our own lives and financial security. We could have put a trillion dollars more into medical research, alleviating poverty, poor health care and inadequate education - instead of enriching the pockets of renewable energy billionaires.

Cheers

 

[rohezal]

Ok, lets write it down:

CO2 is a green house gas, it lets light from the sun come through, but absorbs the infrared energy which is emitted from the earth (and produced by the received sun light). Different materials let different wavelengths pass.

This is a fact.

This energy needs to go somewhere, it won't disappear. It becomes heat, which will change something on our planet. It can be melting icecaps, higher average temperature, more water evaporation, ...

The question is: how much energy does our CO2 absorb, which would be radiated away into space otherwise? Bad news:

The sun sends around 10^17 Watts. The CO2 we released absords around 0.15% extra of this energy. This means around 1.5 * 10^14 Watts. Every second. Do you know how much energy this is? The bigger atombomb (Fat Man), which was dropped over Japan in WW2, had 8,8 * 10^13 Watt (if you suppose the energy was set free in about 1 second). This is 0.88 * 10^14 Watt. So every second the energy of roughly two atombombs is aborbed into our atmosphere because we produced to much CO2. This is not good.

 

[WizardStan]

Therefore at least one of us has a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and since I cannot be sure it isn't me

I can. It's not you.

 

[klapse]

Ok, lets write it down:
The CO2 we released absords around 0.15% extra of this energy.

Yes the solar energy reaching earth is orders of magnitue larger than that of human bombs. Why does this scare you? The video is pure propaganda.

However you're the first person to come-up with an estimate for how much CO2 absorbs! Congrats!

 

[vcoleiro1]

@klapse

~0.2% is a lot of energy. , especially considering the CO2 increase heating effect would act as a catalyst to creating extra water vapous who's effect in total energy absorbtion would be perhaps orders of magnitude higher.

I find it odd that on one hand skeptic arguments you see online, say that CO2 in the atmosphere is in such small quantities that doubling it goes from practically nothing to practically nothing. But later it's discovered that the increase has a real - not nothing effect. It speaks volumes about the type of honesty and transparency you get in skeptical arguments. That said , glossing over happens on the other side of the fence also.

 

[klapse]

Thanks for the debating points!

@klapse

~0.2% is a lot of energy.

Yes it's a lot of absolute energy when compared to human scales. And the planet is big. And the sun even bigger. There are big numbers at play, we can agree on this.

I showed the graph to make it clear how small the relative increase in downward radiation is claimed to be, versus the total incoming and reflected radiation. The 3.7w/m2 claimed by the IPCC is itself highly problematic:

Radiative Forcing Update: I have now found this reference to the equations used to derive the 4 watts/sq m radiative forcing by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

rf = f * ln([CO2]/[CO2]prein)/ln(2) in watts/m ** 2

It would appear that in order to derive the factor f the IPCC assume that all of the 0.6 degrees warming apparently seen since the industrial revoluton is due to CO2 and thereby derive the constant

AF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 !

If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument !
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169​

especially considering the CO2 increase heating effect would act as a catalyst to creating extra water vapous who's effect in total energy absorbtion would be perhaps orders of magnitude higher.

Well that's a claim about a dynamical chaotic system with way more variables than we can get into here. Natural variation in cloud cover alone dominates the CO2 variabiility effects. The natural CO2 release/sequestration cycle also seems to dwarf man-made CO2 release. How confident can we be in the IPCC models of the CO2 cycle alone when their declared sequestration rate is 20 times slower than that calculated by independent researchers?

I find it odd that on one hand skeptic arguments you see online, say that CO2 in the atmosphere is in such small quantities that doubling it goes from practically nothing to practically nothing. But later it's discovered that the increase has a real - not nothing effect.

Unless I misunderstand Radiative Forcing completely, they estimate it at over max. 250W/m2 which is about 1/4 the max solar incident radiation of 1050W/m2. That's not "practically nothing". What I'm pointing out is that even at pre-industrial levels, CO2 is estimated to capture 95% of it's maximum potential energy. In other words, even if we burn every available piece of coal and oil, we can only get a tiny amount more net energy from the first-order effects.

But the heart of the issue is indeed that we are not talking about a linear cause-and-effect system. So why claim that CO2 is a linear driver, not a dynamic component? The IPCC is dogmatically (and publicly) defining CO2 as the driver - for of all their models which then try to magnify temps to thermageddon via feedback of hundreds of variables (many with arbitrarily set parameters), which then totally fail to match empirical data. Why would a scientific organization do this? Well it isn't a scientific organization - it is a political organization chartered to 'prove' man-made global warming is a threat to life on earth - one that abuses scientists and the scientific method.

Just think about it for a minute - this provably bent politicized clique is asking us to believe that the planet's dynamic, chaotic system is so unstable that increasing the captured energy by a couple of parts per thousand is going to cause it to spiral out of control. Does this pass the laugh-test when our planet already had CO2 levels over 10x of those which we have today, and didn't spiral out of control?

Just some thoughts to take with you... I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm saying we cannot find them within the current political framework.

 

[tigerroast]

We are in a cold period. Warmer periods supported more life. Warmer means more agriculture. Warmer means less fossil fuels spent heating.

That may be true for Germany if the climate up there suddenly resembled Louisiana's. No more snow to blight your crops. No more having to waste so much energy to keep warm during the winter (although the summer may provide a somewhat different challenge). Y'all will no longer have Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter. It's Hot, Hot, Hot with Cold Days, and Cold with Hot Days and Maybe Some Snow.

That being the case, it would be absolute hell down here. Seriously think about what you're saying. The oceans would also get warmer, resulting in stronger hurricanes with higher frequency. We can't handle many more of those on this part of the Gulf, no. The Tropical zone would also shift North, changing a region suited for a more "temperate" climate.

These finite resources can be used responsibily and cleanly, and letting people decide what is most cost-effective is the best thing we can do at this stage of our technological development. Unless the antiscience, antihuman zealots get their way, mankind will progress beyond this stage. I acknowledge that fossil fuels can be burned in ways which cause real pollution and harms - e.g. coal plants which lack scrubbers. Focusing attention on plant food instead of pollutants doesn't help fix these issues.

We should be developing efficient energy alternatives, not subsidizing implementation of bad technologies (fraudulently called 'green') which waste natural resources and harm the environment.

This is why I'm not replying to your whole post. It seems like, in the end, we both want the same thing. So why bother?

Read up on the null hypothesis. It is the warmists who claim a man-made harm requiring trillions of dollars of spending and supranational laws. If someone wants to sell me an expensive thing, they have to prove to my satisfaction that it's worth it; it is not I who have to prove to the huckster that it won't benefit me.

In the context regarding the statement of which this is a response to, the null hypothesis is completely irrelevant. Boiled down to the basics, your claim is that humans can't have a significant impact on the climate because the climate changed before. That's a non-sequitur.

The ice-core graph presented by Gore[...]

Last time, in plain English.

No one gives a lovely motherfuck about anything Al Gore says. You're the only one who does. THE. ONLY. ONE.

The greenhouse effect is real and we would be dead without it.

Gee-fucking-wilikers, who'da thunk? Answer the question. Other gases mankind puts into the atmosphere that are more harmful than CO2. Are they irrelevant?

I remind you of the null hypothesis again. It's their duty to prove that human contributions to CO2 levels causes rises with catastrophic harms.

Yeah, the burden of proof's on climate scientists, but you can't dismiss their claims with another non-sequitur.

The skepticism applies all around,[...]

With you, it clearly doesn't. You questioned the ability of scientists to accurately measure sea level changes, but you didn't think twice about the webpage you quoted, which has sea level measurements of its own.
[doublepost=1497840035,1497839740][/doublepost]

If governments were so eager to fight global warming, they would do more than just spend a very long time making non-binding agreements without penalties then take a very long time to enact things (when they don't back out).

You'd think that highly-industrialized nations, nations with globalized economies (therefore, massive-scale, globalized industry), and nations with high oil/fossil fuel wealth would be so willing to fight against man-made climate change caused by fosil fuel emmisions, right? I mean, I simply cannot understand why they'd drag their feet on this issue they so clearly care about.

Come on, now.