Page 2 of 12

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Sun 26 Mar 2017, 19:55:27
by Cid_Yama
Your lack of intelligence seems to indicate your mind will continue to be in continuous boggle. It may not be clear to you, but it's obvious to everyone else.

The constant repeating of your nonsense, that has been addressed AND DEBUNKED REPEATEDLY, needs to stop. I doubt you are a shill, requires you to be able to spin the nonsense.

Tell you what, go take a Mensa test. Then you will know what everyone here already does. You haven't got two brain cells to rub together. I dare you.

More like retired custodial engineer. It seems the closest you've been to a computer is to mop around them. (other than the one you are posting your nonsense on.)

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Sun 26 Mar 2017, 20:37:22
by Cid_Yama
Actually that might be too harsh. I know you hang out at the denier websites, and you know the old adage, garbage in garbage out. You may merely be unable to sort the wheat from the chaff, due to a lack of critical thinking skills, which may not reflect you actual intelligence. But critical thinking skills are a part of intelligence, so I guess you probably fit in with the center of the bell curve. Which is quite disturbing in it's own right. That most people are just like you.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 03:17:22
by KaiserJeep
Look, I don't read any denier websites. I never have, aside from a few quick peeks during earlier controversies in this very thread, which is over three years old, when I was running web searches.

I have had the highly dubious "pleasure" of knowing a few Mensa members, they were offensive and intolerant and generally incompetent to deal with the world that is.

One of them recruited me to be a judge at a local HS Science Fair. He was a Scandinavian physicist doing magnetics research at the local IBM disk drive laboratory. He was the exception to the rule, a nice guy - and a climate skeptic. He spiked my interest in matters of climate, and the two of us and a couple of retired IBM employees did the computer simulations after hours in his lab. We found no working climate models in three attempts.

This was five years before I saw the movie Collapse and became a forum member at peakoil.com. I have never believed in AGW, based on personal experiences, and I'm pretty darned sure that NONE of the other forum members have ever attempted to confirm any climate models, and after three years of this nonsense, I decided to try to find out. The reason for that is I believe that AGW is the best existing example of a psychological disfunction called groupthink. I understand that I am disruptive of group harmony here, somebody who refuses to share the common delusion, and who even dares to point out that we will never have an answer, or have certainty, or that what is happening in "climate science" is not at all scientific, and is now a football to be used in political power plays.

That's the short and sweet version. I could stoop to abusive behavior and ad hominem attacks as you did, but I won't.

So I repeat: Who here has had the experience of actually modelling climate? Beyond the attempt, do you know of a climate model that when we plug in historical data, we can predict future temperatures or even temperature trends?

Somebody must have done so, you are all so certain of your beliefs. I want to understand how you came to be this way. I have the time. I know where the NWS and NOAA and NASA datasets are located online. Let's do the math.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 06:03:30
by dohboi
What cid said. I'm about done here. Once again, take 'CC is a hoax' bs memes to the thread with that name rather than polluting all the others.

For those interested, here's the relevant graph that shows how solar irradiance has been flat to decreasing for over 50 years while global temps have been increasing markedly over the same period...so...it's not increases in solar activity are responsible for the current warming.

Image

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).




(double click and choose 'view image' if you can't see the whole thing)

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 06:13:45
by dohboi
And as we know, this is what the increase in CO2 concentrations have looked like over the same period:

Image

And from a longer perspective (though this is slightly out of date, since we are now above 400 and bound for above 410 in the next few weeks...literally off the chart):

Image

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 06:23:44
by Tanada
Kaiser I don't use computer models because the number of variables is too high for the current or even the next couple of generations of mainframe computers to manage. Instead as a historian I look at reports from deep time of what the paleoclimate was like when the continents were only slightly different position, the orbital mechanics were essentially the same and ask why the Earth was so much warmer then than today. The identified variable between 18 Million ybp and today is overall temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Yes the collision between South America and north America at Panama had not yet taken place and this did allow a different ocean circulation pattern. Is that difference enough to explain why there was no permanent ice cap in the Northern Hemisphere and semitropical conditions allowing palm trees and alligators to thrive at 60 degrees north in Greenland and Alaska? I think not because if you take out the Panama land bridge and return circulation to the precollision configuration the Gulf Stream temperature drops substantially. IOW less heat is transported to the Arctic by sea currents. That leaves only one other transport mechanism that I know if, which is atmospheric.

Something greatly altered the atmospheric circulation pattern about the same time the Panama Land Bridge was formed circa 3 million ybp. What was it? Well between 18 million ybp and 3 million ybp atmospheric CO2 fell substantially from the range of 450-420 ppmv down to 300 ppmv, then there was a sudden drop to 180 ppmv and major glaciation of North America, Europe and Siberian Asia.

Today we are back over 405 ppmv of CO2 on an annual basis and rapidly closing in on 450 ppmv, and if you account for the potential of all the other greenhouse gasses emitted by humans the cumulative total is substantially higher than 450 ppmv today. Like all large complex systems the Earth climate has quite a bit of resistance to change but at some time there is an abrupt change, a hysteresis discontinuity. I believe we are very near that point and once we step over we will stay on the other side for the forseeable future of at minimum several human lifespans duration.

https://youtu.be/vts0YHACsYY?list=PLw2B ... -mpxlRkXfV

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 06:24:10
by dohboi
"I have never believed in AGW, based on personal experiences..."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No further comment needed, really, except that, for the umpteenth time, you don't need models. Those are just to try to figure out details.

All you really need is the very basic physics of how GHG's work, which KJ says he accepts but for some mysterious reason can't seem to bring himself to connect the glaringly obvious dots.

And if you want something more than physics, you can look, as T points out so lucidly, at any number of hundreds of paleo-studies.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 09:08:58
by dissident
dohboi wrote:What cid said. I'm about done here. Once again, take 'CC is a hoax' bs memes to the thread with that name rather than polluting all the others.

For those interested, here's the relevant graph that shows how solar irradiance has been flat to decreasing for over 50 years while global temps have been increasing markedly over the same period...so...it's not increases in solar activity are responsible for the current warming.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png



This graph not only shows the anti-correlation since 1980 of the warming and TSI, but it is also misleading. Look at the TSI intensity variation in W/m^2, it is tiny compared to the W/m^2 variation indicated by the temperature anomaly plotted on the same graph. This is something the denier fanatics never bother addressing in their tin foil hat conspiracy theory ranting about climate scientists being frauds engaged in a vast criminal conspiracy. All the solar variation over the last 150 years cannot begin to approach as an explanation for the temperature anomaly that we observe with measurements, in case the dead horse flogging excuse of it being "model-dependent" is invoked.

The TSI anomaly has to be divided by a factor of 4 right off the bat because 1) only half the Earth is illuminated by the Sun and 2) the Earth has a spheroid shape such that less and less solar radiation is intercepted by the surface as one moves from the equator to the poles. Then we have the additional 30% reduction due to albedo from surface snow and ice and from clouds. So any TSI variation is reduced by a factor of 0.175.

Ignoring the anti-correlation after 1980, let's take the largest spread in TSI from 1850 extending to the 1970s, namely 0.3 W/m^2. The 11 year (actually 22 year) solar cycle has to be removed since it has been there for long enough not to matter and only trends in the TSI can affect the energy balance on Earth. So the TSI can account for at most 0.0525 W/m^2 of thermal emission at the top of the atmosphere, which is directly proportional to global mean temperature.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pic ... 80ppmv.jpg

The above is the thermal emission spectrum of the atmosphere and black body emission curves based on the US Standard Atmosphere vertical distribution. Using something more fancy with better representation of 3-D distribution will not shift these curves enough to change the conclusions being discussed here. Ignore the deviation of the Earth's atmosphere from a pure black body and consider what the total top of the atmosphere thermal flux change will be from a 1 C warming. The flux change will be the integral with respect to wavelength of the difference between the new black body curve shifted and the original one which corresponds to black body temperature of about 288 K. You can eyeball from this graph that the flux change at each wavenumber is rather substantial compared to 0.0525 W/m^2 and that the integral will be much larger.

There is a formula for the integral of Planck's function:

R(T) = 5.67e-8 * T^4 (W/m^2) where T is in Kelvin

So a warming of 1 K from a baseline of 288 K gives

dR = R(289) - R(288) = 5.45 W/m^2

Even though this is an approximation which omits the CO2, O3 and H2O valleys you see in the Earth's thermal spectrum, it is a number that simply cannot be explained by the 0.0525 W/m^2 produced by variation of the TSI. Incoming solar energy is balanced by outgoing IR energy very quickly aside from the ocean sink. The oceans hide the full thermal signal from the atmosphere. Since they take centuries to equilibrate, this implies that the 1 C warming of the atmosphere that we have observed is substantially less than its equilibrium level (keeping everything else fixed; but the accumulation of thermal energy is increasing since greenhouse gases are increasing). That means that the 5.45 W/m^2 above is actually a serious underestimate. There is likely over 2.5 C baked in the cake already.

There is no way that 0.0525 W/m^2 in TSI can account for this thermal energy accumulation if one swallows the denier fanatic claims that human CO2 emissions are not important. It is important to point out that H2O by itself cannot act as a TSI amplifier since it actually does act like an IR iris. Higher temperatures imply more H2O reaching the tropopause level and actually increasing its altitude; this results in a cooling of the tropopause and enhanced IR flux to space (the middle atmosphere is optically thin to IR). In addition, the deep convection experiences more precipitation under these conditions due to easier nucleation of ice particles and more condensation due to colder temperatures. This IR valve effect of H2O takes us back to the first millions of years of the Earth after it coalesced. Instead of remaining as a vapour and maintaining a Venusian atmosphere regime, we had formation of the oceans. So the water was an efficient heat pump dumping IR out to space even when the Earth's atmosphere was 95% CO2. Venus lost most of its water or never had enough, so it is trapped in a hot regime until the Sun burns out (actually until the Sun becomes a red giant).

Looking at this another way, the Sun was 30% less luminous 4.5 billion years ago. If 0.0525 W/m^2 of TSI contribution can result in 100 times more thermal energy accumulation, then the Earth should have been roasted. A 1051 W/m^2 TSI increase should would produced 105,100 W/m^2 of thermal energy accumulation or about 900 K higher global mean temperature. You can throw any sort of hand waving adjustment you want at this, but it will not give you what you want.
Even if the thermal energy accumulation was 1:1 corresponding to 1051 W/m^2, that would require a global mean temperature of 400 K, i.e. beyond boiling point of water; this would of course take us straight to Hell. You can thank both God and Satan that water damps the solar heating instead of amplifying it.

The clown chirping about people being unable to do math clearly can't do any himself.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 09:34:19
by Tanada
Kaiser this is a video you should watch as many times as it takes to sink in. Climate nor weather are a smooth mathematical function, which is why computer models are so inadequate.

https://youtu.be/s9OW8vaRVdQ

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 10:05:49
by dohboi
"the TSI intensity variation in W/m^2 ... is tiny compared to the W/m^2 variation indicated by the temperature anomaly plotted on the same graph. "

Thanks for pointing that out, dis. I meant to make that point myself, but was suddenly called away.

And this: "the Sun was 30% less luminous 4.5 billion years ago. If 0.0525 W/m^2 of TSI contribution can result in 100 times more thermal energy accumulation, then the Earth should have been roasted"...is a particularly nice point.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 12:48:34
by KaiserJeep
Silly people. There was nothing analogous to weather 4.5B years ago when the Earth was condensing out of debris. Nor are there any fossil records of any species to use for derived paleotemperatures. Nor has ANYBODY even nominated a climate model for consideration. Tanada is halfway there, she at least understands that we lack the computer tools, the understanding of earthly climate, the understanding of the Sun, and the data to construct a working climate model. Chances are really really good that we won't have those things during the next few centuries, either.

But really, what a disappointment. The lot of you have been hammering me for more than three years with the silly AGW models, the IPCC reports, and the bogus "consensus of scientists" argument. To find out that there was NOTHING WHATSOEVER behind your silly groupthink about AGW is actually pretty amazing. You all were, after all, so devout about worshiping AGW "science".

I tell you what, I'll leave the climate model challenge in place a full 72 hours, before I heap more scorn upon you. Not everybody reads the Forum every day, after all. Meanwhile I am reading and carefully assessing anything and everything said in this thread.

By the way, to any of you who have already been reduced to ad hominem attacks, you already have your credibility hovering near zero.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 14:00:00
by jedrider
Chances are really really good that we won't have those things during the next few centuries, either.


The optimist you really are!

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 18

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 14:03:23
by clif
your credibility hovering near zero.


KJ, meet the man in the mirror.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 22:43:21
by GHung
In executive order, Trump to dramatically change US approach to climate change

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will sign a sweeping executive order Tuesday at the Environmental Protection Agency, which looks to curb the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations by putting American jobs above addressing climate change.
The order represents a clear difference between how Trump and former President Barack Obama view the role the United States plays in combating climate change, and dramatically alters the government's approach to rising sea levels and temperatures -- two impacts of climate change. .....

.....Tuesday's order will initiate a review of the Clean Power Plant initiative, rescind the moratorium on coal mining on US federal lands and urge federal agencies to "identify all regulations, all rules, all policies ... that serve as obstacles and impediments to American energy independence," the official said.

Pruitt: Trump to sign order on power plant regulations Tuesday

Specifically, the order will rescind at least six Obama-era executive orders aimed at curbing climate change and regulating carbon emissions, including Obama's November 2013 executive order instructing the federal government to prepare for the impact of climate change and the September 2016 presidential memorandum that outlined the "growing threat to national security" that climate change poses. .....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 23:12:52
by dissident
Clearly I can't do math. I meant 315 W/m^2 and not 1051 W/m^2 as the TSI ramp due to solar intensity increase. For the unphysically small 1:1 case this requires a black body temperature increase of 46 K. Any H2O feedback would push this past 100 K. The Earth must have been an ice Hell in the distant past but we know that it wasn't in spite of "Snowball Earth" periods. What made the Earth able to sustain above freezing temperatures was the presence of CO2 at levels higher than today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

The chemical transformation of the atmosphere was mostly done by about 2.5 billion years ago. And that is when the first ice age appeared. Crudely, the solar intensity was about 15% less than today. The CO2 levels must have been higher than today to compensate for the TSI being lower, otherwise the Earth would have been in an ice age for most of the last 2 billion years.

Deniers have not proposed any alternative to CO2. They keep repeating solar variation, like a broken record, ad nauseam. Clearly solar variation cannot explain the temperatures over the history of the Earth, and especially not in the last 40 years.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Mar 2017, 23:39:46
by dohboi
Again, good points.

Also, solar variation should have heated the stratosphere more than the troposphere, raised day time temperatures more then night time temperatures, and raised summer temperatures more than winter temperatures. But the opposite of all these (and a few other I'm forgetting right now) are in fact true.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 11:20:18
by onlooker
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 5413a07486
The idea is that climate change doesn’t merely increase the overall likelihood of heat waves, say, or the volume of rainfall — it also changes the flow of weather itself. By altering massive planet-scale air patterns like the jet stream (pictured above), which flows in waves from west to east in the Northern Hemisphere, a warming planet causes our weather to become more stuck in place. This means that a given weather pattern, whatever it may be, may persist for longer, thus driving extreme droughts, heat waves, downpours and more.

Isn't that what we are already seeing in many places

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Thu 06 Apr 2017, 05:52:08
by dohboi
What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction?

Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.


https://robertscribbler.com/2017/04/05/ ... ent-111796

If we burn all the fossil fuels “not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years...

...climate today is changing at rates well above the geological norm. If humanity fails to tackle rising CO2 and burns all the readily available fossil fuel, by AD 2250 CO2 will be at around 2000 ppm — levels not seen since 200 million years ago.

However, because the Sun was dimmer back then, the net climate forcing 200 million years ago was lower than we would experience in such a high CO2 future. So not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.”” — Gavin Foster
(Complex life only evolved about 600 million years ago,iirc)

From rs, and the below links are culled from the comment section there:

Four years of current emissions would be enough to blow what’s left of the carbon budget for a good chance of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5C.

That’s the conclusion of analysis by Carbon Brief, which brings the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) carbon budgets up to date to include global CO2 emissions in 2016.

Our infographic above shows how quickly the budgets for 1.5C, 2C and 3C will be used up if emissions continue at the current rate. For 1.5C, this could be a soon as four years’ time.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fo ... bon-budget

A target of 2½ °C is technically feasible but would require extreme virtually universal global policy measures
. From William D. Nordhaus

https://www.scribd.com/document/3356882 ... -economics?

Richard Alley:
There’s momentum in the energy system; there’s momentum in the climate.

We really are committed to that second degree fairly clearly already.


At 36:40 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IcPrEM2_p4

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Mon 10 Apr 2017, 09:44:36
by dohboi
frozen farmers’ fields are an unexpected culprit in climate change

Scientists have previously underestimated the nitrous oxide emissions from thawing frozen croplands.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -new-study

the thawing of frozen cropland burps nitrous oxide into the atmosphere at rates far greater than previously thought, meaning agriculture’s role in producing the greenhouse gas has been greatly underestimated, according to University of Guelph research.

Nitrous oxide — commonly known as laughing gas and used as a dental anesthetic — accounts for well under 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. But it’s almost 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping energy, the greenhouse effect believed to be warming the planet.

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Apr 2017, 21:44:37
by dohboi

Climate change preceded Ice Age megafauna extinction



Melting glaciers and permafrost may have destroyed the grasslands that fed the giant prehistoric beasts of Eurasia and the Americas


https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontolog ... extinction