Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Has Global Warming Peaked?

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 06:06:53

onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?
I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 06:37:47

Newfie wrote:You could have just said “I don’t know, we will just have to wait and see what happens. Science is totally ineffective as a practical planning tool.

And as to the Arctic ice melting before human intervention please provide proof.

You got ice extent and volume data back to 1850 or so?

And yes correlation does not mean causation, but you need it to prove your point. As you are disputing the claim it’s up to you to show an alternative theory consistent with observations.

Which takes me back to my earlier question to you:

1- Do you think Earth is warming, stable, or cooling. So you think it is warming. Good, one answer.
2-What is your hypothesis to substantiate the above. In less than a thousand words please.


Rocdock123,

How about answering the above question?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 08:19:25

rockdoc123 wrote:There is not enough work done at this point in time to allow someone to come up with a unifying theory for climate change that doesn't have tremendous holes in it. If that was not the case you would not see scads of papers appearing each year that point to inadequacies in models, measurements, assumptions as they apply to almost every area of the science.


I would agree that there is still a high level of uncertainly as to what is going to happen over the next few decades if we continue to burn large amounts of fossil fuels. So in this regards the science is not settled. However, almost all the research shows temperature increases and sea level rise -- it is just the rate of change that is not agreed on. Therefore, the prudent thing would be to work towards reducing carbon emissions even though we are not entirely certain what will happen if we don't.

To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 09:27:47

Well Clif, you have a special insight, I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to not understand the post was about challenging science to make science better and not about the challenge itself. The point is when we have Relativity the most celebrated theory in the history of the world still being challenged 100+ years after the fact and its still considered a theory despite all the accumulated proofs, how can anyone say with honesty the science is settled on climate change?

Don’t be a denier of the scientific method Clif!



Sorry but you as usual totally miss the point.

By allowing the rest of the story to be allowed into the discussion I showed how the scientific method actually works. The questionable test results were put to the scientific method and shown to be very wrong just like when most of the crap deniers try to foist upon the actual climate science is also shown to be crap. See my replies to rockdoc123 for further enunciation. But you are not interested in the actual science, no all you want is to try to discredit the actual science that does the best explaining what we are facing. Your posts illustrate that fact very clearly.

PS as I just showed, I'm not a denier of the scientific method as you so WRONGLY state, but someone who believes the WHOLE STORY must be included, not just the cherry picked parts that you want to point out, to make your very partisan point.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 11:14:59

However, almost all the research shows temperature increases and sea level rise -- it is just the rate of change that is not agreed on. Therefore, the prudent thing would be to work towards reducing carbon emissions even though we are not entirely certain what will happen if we don't.


That is not actually the case. I like to separate “research” from “modeling”. The “research” is basically observations….temperature, sea level, ice mass balance etc. That research just tells us what is happening, not why. The inputs and subsequent outputs from models and ensembles is what drives the notion of why. It isn’t the rate of change that is as uncertain as the magnitude of change. The ECS/TCS studies speak to that magnitude directly..i.e. how much warming would come with a doubling of CO2 and those numbers are quite variable, all the way from unnoticeable to potentially quite nasty.

To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?


Not really the same thing given we are absolutely sure that at some point an 8.0 earthquake will strike related to one of the two subduction zones off the west coast, we have evidence of it in past history, continual evidence of minor earthquakes etc. and we know what the impact would be. Mitigating through construction changes (which are effective) doesn’t require people to adjust their lifestyles nor give up anything. Climate preemptive mitigation, on the other hand, would be conducted with not actually knowing what the outcome is going to be and it would almost certainly have serious impacts on people and their lifestyles. As an example, a large carbon tax would impact the disposable income of everyone in Canada and the total impact (according to Bjorn Lomborg's calculation) of Canada on its own would be around 0.009 degrees by 2100 based on current climate models. Doesn't seem like tax money well spent to me.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 15:29:35

yellowcanoe wrote:
To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?


By this example then we should adapt to climate change by better preparing our cities, build dams, dikes, flood gates and such, for some likely natural disaster(s), which I totally agree with. What's true for earthquakes is true for Climate Science none of these experts can tell us when or where that _________ will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Taxing carbon and giving the money back in rebates or building solar parks isn't protecting our cities from the natural disasters that will happen at some point and history has shown us they always do happen.
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 20:16:59

vtsnowedin wrote:
onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?
I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere. But that's not all: The longer the melt season, the more solar radiation is absorbed, although for the winter, the thin layer of ice that does form - it always seems to work out the wrong way, such perverse facts that they are - which I presume insulates the oceans and prevents them from radiating their heat as well. It's very perverse. Hard to understand if you are a believer in the good will of God, I suppose.

I'm not stating 'facts' as I'm no scientist, but I do believe that may be the way it works?
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 00:13:57

rockdoc123 wrote:OK. How many times do I have to explain to you how science advances?
Please find for me somewhere where it states that in order to critique some aspect of science you must have an alternative theory? It doesn’t exist because if such a requirement existed science would stand still. Have you ever bothered to read a Discussion published in any scientific journal? The rules generally around such Discussions are you can only address what was put forward in the paper your Discussion refers to, you can critique, make corrections, argue against the math or introduce other references but one thing you cannot do is offer up an alternative theory. Science advances in this manner.

But somehow, Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger managed to get their alternate theories published. Not to mention many Nobel prize winners since.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 01:56:56

jedrider wrote:
Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 08:15:59

jawagord wrote:Taxing carbon and giving the money back in rebates or building solar parks isn't protecting our cities from the natural disasters that will happen at some point and history has shown us they always do happen.


This elevates the whole conversation to a new level and we have an Adaptation thread and Degrowth thread for such discussions.

Your comment begs the questions of not only What will happen? But When? And Why? And most importantly What do we Do now Ollie?

What we do know is that the climate is changing in percetable ways caused by human activity, specifically release of green house gasses. We are effecting our habitat in other manners as well such as resource depletion (oil, water, etc.) and more factors. It’s a clear case of the Tradgedy of the Commons tuning its course.

What to do? First educating the public to the dangers and then proposing rational measures that fit the problem. I find very little positive in the GND, and much negative, it has made finding a solution much more difficult because it politicized the agenda. That’s gonna make education difficult

We need solutions that reach across the range of problems we are facing, it just climate change.

Ideas for the USA, elsewhere will have different solutions. In no particular order:
Set a max population, cease all immigration until we fall below that population.

Seek to reduce our energy use. We sent many billions aboard annually to buy oil. Stop, keep that money home to pay down the self.

Rationalize our transportation infrastructure to meet our current needs. No more expansion simply to grow undeveloped areas. Make mass transit less expensive or FEEE. It’s an underutilized public investment.

Don’t invest in fighting Mother Nature. Let New Orleans go. Ditto Miami. Stop all development of barrier islands. And quit spending untold billions trying to move people into and out of NYC. SLR will eventually make it untenable. Use our money to build sustainable elsewhere, not pouring it down an inundated subway line.

Cease trying to be the World’s Breadbasket. Not stop all export but why are we depleting our soils to feed places like Saudi Arabia, which has no hope of feeding itself. Obviously this would have to be stepped down over time. But we need to lower the stress on our souls, go towards sustainable agriculture, even if it costs more.

Build out nuclear energy. Figure out how to use the old nukes, make another try at meeting our treaty commitments with Russia. Build out wind and solar where it makes sense. Solar canopies over parking lots, doubles the usage out of a piece of otherwise worthless land. Parking lots scale with population.

Stop trying to export Democracy. Scale back the military. Mind our own business.

ALL new housing needs to be vastly more energy efficient.

Vastly improve our communications infrastructure so we cane make better use of video conferencing vs. flying to meetings.

And maybe even a carbon tax. And much more

To do any of these things we need a national awareness of the need to do them, the advantages of long term planning, understanding of the consequences. It’s not just about climate change, it’s about a whole array of interlocking problems. And many of the solutions are overlapping.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jedrider » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 10:01:44

vtsnowedin wrote:
jedrider wrote:
Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?


Of course not. But to compare that to the EXTRA quantity of heat absorbed during an ice free Summer is, perhaps, absurd.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 10:16:16

But somehow, Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger managed to get their alternate theories published. Not to mention many Nobel prize winners since.


and somehow many more scientists have spent years publishing critics of said papers and many others. If you are going to suggest Einstein and Heisenberg's theories were "alternative" theories to something then it means each and every theory that has ever been published is an "alternative" to some other theory. That is not what is being discussed here. Simply put someone posits a theory and someone else picks it apart and tests it against empirical and other evidence. If it holds up great, if it doesn't then the theory needs revisiting. Numerous scientists of late have been testing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, some coming up with support others coming up with further questions...just look up the work of Ozawa, Hasegawa, Rozema or Wiseman. Richard Feynman stated the scientific method very eloquently in his lecture to that subject:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it(audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. 

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.


Einstein stated it slightly differently:
No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.


As I have said previously the Discussion portion of technical journals is for exactly that...critiquing published papers and their theories. The Discussion will generally not get published if you bring forward a new theory (many journals have explicit rules around this). Science has advanced in this manner for many, many years.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 10:20:41

jedrider wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
jedrider wrote:
Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?


Of course not. But to compare that to the EXTRA quantity of heat absorbed during an ice free Summer is, perhaps, absurd.

To compare two or three weeks (none of which have happened yet) of ice free conditions in late summer when the sun is already low in the sky to 175 days (4200 continuous hours)of darkness is what is absurd.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 08:20:06

Nice article from NASA looking at the thawing Arctic has opened it to shipping. Good graphics.

The annual maximum and minimum ice extents for the Arctic region have become steadily smaller over the past 40 years, and the percentage of thick, multi-year ice has been shrinking considerably. This thinning and retreating ice has opened the Arctic Ocean to new opportunities, but also serious environmental concerns. Shipping traffic fits into both categories.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... ce-decline
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 08:27:51

hiwnthe
?? :roll:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 08:35:13

For something that is supposedly not happening (Arctic ice retreat) it seems a lot of countries and companies are paying a lot of attention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_resources_race

Climate change is making Arctic resources more accessible. For example, in Denmark the retreating of the ice caps has exposed mineral deposits, such as rare-earth metals, that can be extracted and used for technologies like cell phones or military guidance systems.[54] Another effect of climate change on the Arctic will include the creation of new trade waterways through the north, further exploiting the area. Changes in the Arctic will affect resource competition and conflict in the upcoming years.[55]
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 08:37:45

vtsnowedin wrote:
hiwnthe
?? :roll:


“The”

nit·pick
/ˈnitˌpik/Submit
verbINFORMAL
engage in fussy or pedantic fault-finding.
"the state is nitpicking about minor administrative matters"
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 08:50:57

Nah not nit picking. Just poking fun at your fat thumbs and small phone.
I try to read all of my posts as soon as they go up and strain out all the typos I see but that lets quite a few through. A simple :oops: or :razz: will do.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 17:29:37

Ditto. I have a damn tough time with my fat thumbs. My speellljng is bad enough in its own.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 14 Mar 2019, 17:36:38

Newfie wrote:Ditto. I have a damn tough time with my fat thumbs. My speellljng is bad enough in its own.
Without spell checker and the aid of my Catholic school educated wife I would come across as a uneducated idiot.
Yes I know some will say I still do, but their own post level that field.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi and 9 guests