Forum Index » Chaff » The Carbon Flame War


Display Avatars Sort By:
Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"The Carbon Flame War" on 11/12/2013 17:36:24 MST Print View

+1 Kat, the most sensible voice on here, as usual.

"Denier" is a pejorative term intentionally used to demean. Wouldn't it be fair to also use the term "Believer" for someone on the other side?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/12/2013 20:35:43 MST Print View

Roger prefers the term "skeptic"

just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear) - M
Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/13/2013 15:59:22 MST Print View

I'm far from being an expert on global climate change, but I've wondered why there seem to be only two black and white camps on the issue. Isn't it possible that its both a natural long term cycle and some human influence at the same time? Why does it have to be either or?

Also, even if humans aren't the primary cause, that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our act for other very important reasons like our collective health including humans and all other life forms. The more toxins/pollution we dump into the earth, the more problems we will have in those other areas. So either way, changes are important and necessary.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/14/2013 08:46:57 MST Print View

Kat P: Thanks. I've decided that for now I just won't interact with people who can't keep a civil conversation going. It means they'll get away with the many falsehoods they spread, but so long as my silence isn't taken as agreement with their assertions, I can live with that.

Justin Asks: "I've wondered why there seem to be only two black and white camps on the issue. Isn't it possible that its both a natural long term cycle and some human influence at the same time? Why does it have to be either or?"

Spot on. The question is actually; how much of each? The original remit to the IPCC was just to look at human influence. Then they claim to have looked at both for later reports, but in fact their research base is woefully lacking on the natural variation side of the equation. In their latest report, they've said the effect of a doubling of co2 could be between 1.6 - 4.5C. But unlike previous reports, they haven't given a 'best estimate'. This means their science has got vaguer, not more certain. It also means they expect it'll be lower then the 3C they gave as the 'best estimate' in the last report, but they don't want to admit it.

My research tells me it's the solar variation which is responsible for nearly all changes in Earth's climate, not trace gas levels in the atmosphere. That's partly because it's obvious from the IPCC's own 'basic physics' that large negative feedbacks are in operation. Their 'basic physics' tells us we should already have seen a 6C rise if it wasn't for negative feedbacks. Since we've only seen 0.8C or less in 100 years, it's pretty obvious net feedback is negative not positive, even according to their own 'basic physics'.

even if humans aren't the primary cause, that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our act for other very important reasons like our collective health including humans and all other life forms. The more toxins/pollution we dump into the earth, the more problems we will have in those other areas.

If we weren't wasting billions on the co2 chimaera, we'd have a lot more resources to deal with the actual important pollution issues.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: lots of it on 11/14/2013 09:16:18 MST Print View

Jerry says:
doing the easy things.Like...More windmills, and figure out how to work around the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time


Figuring out how not to kill endangered species of birds and bats would be a good move too. In fact, how about stopping all windmills until these two issues are resolved? Since they contribute so little to the energy requirement, it'll hardly be noticed.

Meantime read this (and weep):

http://www.masterresource.org/2013/09/hiding-avian-mortality-altamont-pass/

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/14/2013 09:43:41 MST Print View

Justin Asks: "I've wondered why there seem to be only two black and white camps on the issue. Isn't it possible that its both a natural long term cycle and some human influence at the same time? Why does it have to be either or?"

Climate scientists just look at data and try to figure out what causes climate change, acknowledge CO2 and natural effects both cause change, not either or.

Even Roger acknowledges CO2 increases temperature - 0.8C rather than 6C - due to negative feedback. But, for example, one of those negative feedbacks is the ocean has been absorbing CO2. At some point, it will become more saturated and absorb less, so the temperature will start increasing more. And there are positive feedback effects, like as it warms a little, methane will be released from the artic and deep ocean, which has even more of a greenhouse effect so temperature increase will accelerate.

We are living a huge science experiment. No one knows what the results will be. Better to at least take the easy steps to reduce CO2 emissions.


"If we weren't wasting billions on the co2 chimaera, we'd have a lot more resources to deal with the actual important pollution issues."

Fortunately, if we make more fuel efficient cars and buildings, use more windmills, burn less coal,... it will produce less CO2, Sulfur, Mercury,...

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/30/2013 05:49:39 MST Print View

Jerry says: Even Roger acknowledges CO2 increases temperature - 0.8C rather than 6C - due to negative feedback.

Nearly all that 0.8C rise since 1900 is due to natural variation (mostly solar and cloud). Even the IPCC think co2 didn't do anything until around 1950.(I don't think it has done much since either, most of the late C20th warming was just the positive phase of the ocenic 60 year oscillations).

So get your facts straight Jerry.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 11/30/2013 08:34:44 MST Print View

That's not what you said:

"Their 'basic physics' tells us we should already have seen a 6C rise if it wasn't for negative feedbacks. Since we've only seen 0.8C or less in 100 years, it's pretty obvious net feedback is negative not positive, even according to their own 'basic physics'."

If you really believed it was natural, then you wouldn't be talking about negative feedback at all

Sounds to me like you're accepting there would have been a 6C rise (due to CO2) but it's been reduced by negative feedback. Or there was a 6C or whatever rise due to something???

If you thought it was just natural, you would have a plot of the 60 year cycle and how actual temperatures fit that and wouldn't be talking about negative or positive feedback at all

Actually, what it is, is you are a skeptic and will try to disprove anything climate scientists say

Sort of like I'm a Roger Tatersall skeptic : )

Except I spend most of my time hiking, in the yard, making stuff,... rather than sitting in front of my computer all the time trying to prove climate scientists are idiots - and who is it that pays you for your expenses?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/13/2014 14:18:56 MST Print View

Happy new year everybody!

Well, what exciting climatic times we live in. North America has been freezing it's buns off while large swathes of Australia and Siberia have had above average temperatures. Curiously, despite these 'extremes' (they were more extreme in the 1890's) the avergae temperature over the whole globe has been remarkably stable over the last 15 years.

Which is a bit odd, since airborne co2 has risen over 10% during that time. Still waiting for greenhouse.

A while back, Kevin 'travesty' Trenberth said this was because the missing heat must be hiding in the deep ocean. Problem being, there's a little thing called the second law of thermodynamics to get around if that's the case. How would less energy be absorbed by the top 700m of ocean as it headed down to the deep than was stored in the deep? This problem seems to have finally sunk in, because Kevin has more recently published a paper in which he has finally acknowledged that the current cooling of the surface is due to the major oceans overturning cycles.

2/3 of the way there. Now he needs to acknowledge that most of the warming 1975-2005 was also due to the major oceans overturning cycles and we can stop wasting billions of dollars on a non-problem and turn our attention to more pressing issues.

Jerry: No-one cover my expenses except me. The joy of scientific discovery is its own reward. I've had my two papers published in a physics journal, and they, along with other papers published by my colleagues in a special edition of 'Pattern Recognition in Physics' propose a new celestial theory to explain the underlying causes of the ~60-66 year oceanic cycles and the longer term cycles which govern climate change on Earth.

The journal is open access, so the papers are freely downloadable.
Please feel free to enjoy the fruits of my labour, for which I make no charge and ask for no fee.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/13/2014 15:33:05 MST Print View

The recent cold weather in the central and Northeast U.S. is because there was a "blocking high" off the coast of the Pacific Northwest. Nice here - very little rain.

But then the weather systems went further North into Canada, around the blocking high, and then flowed Southeast into central and Northeast U.S. When the weather systems flow straight through the Pacific Northwest, it's warmer. Since they flowed through Canada, it was colder. North Canada is colder than Pacific Northwest.

Shows how local weather is hard to correlate with global climate change due to increased CO2. This probably had nothing to do with increased CO2.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/13/2014 17:06:24 MST Print View

Uh, oh

Just listening to TV weather report, blocking high is re-establishing

Sorry, I think that means more cold weather for middle and Northeast U.S.?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/14/2014 08:24:07 MST Print View

Sure does. I was just discussing this on researchgate where I added this:

It's noticeable that the Arctic Dipole (pressure gradient between Kara sea and Canada/Greenland) tends to go positive at solar minimum, and has gone more strongly and frequently positive during the long solar minimum around 2009 and the following low cycle 24.

This tends to bring southerly winds off the Pacific in the Asian quarter and Northerly winds off the pole into the Atlantic US/European quarter. I don't think this is the whole explanation, but it's certainly a strong contributing factor.

just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear) - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/14/2014 12:53:13 MST Print View

nm

Edited by ArcturusBear on 01/14/2014 13:16:23 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 01/24/2014 08:05:34 MST Print View

Okay, blocking high is supposed to fade. Rain next Tuesday here in Oregon.

That means the cold weather in midwest and east should ease a few days later - in one week?

No one knows if increased CO2 level will make this condition more frequent.

If it does, we will have to adapt to lower precipitation levels. We have severe drought in California and Oregon. Not so much in Washington. Forests will become more sprase or replaced by meadow. Less water for agriculture and power. Not enough water in California so some of you people are going to be moving North.

You people in midwest and east better get more cold weather clothes and snow removal equipment.

Maybe we should at least take the easy steps to reduce CO2 emissions - like improving efficiency of cars (we're making major progress already), replace coal with natural gas (doing that because of glut of natural gas), replace incandescent lights with CFL/LED (almost done with that),...

We could do a lot more things without hurting the economy.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 02/20/2014 18:51:30 MST Print View

NOAA - 10 hottest years globally in the period 1880 to 2013 are in the last 15 years:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

2013 was tied for fourth.

Interestingly, Eastern U.S. was a little colder than everage, but you can see how the rest of the globe with some exceptions was much warmer:
global temps

David Olsen
(bivysack.com) - F

Locale: Channeled Scablands
1962 oil advertisement that boasts about melting glaciers on 02/27/2014 11:08:16 MST Print View

http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down-earth/2014/feb/26/bizarre-1962-oil-advertisement-boasts-about-melting-glaciers/

"This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries. Yet the petroleum energy Humble supples—if converted into heat—could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! "

David Olsen
(bivysack.com) - F

Locale: Channeled Scablands
30,000-year-old giant virus 'comes back to life' on 03/03/2014 19:10:44 MST Print View

"The researchers say this region is under threat. Since the 1970s, the permafrost has retreated and reduced in thickness, and climate change projections suggest it will decrease further.

It has also become more accessible, and is being eyed for its natural resources.

Finding a virus still capable of infecting its host after such a long time is still pretty astounding”

Prof Jonathan Ball
University of Nottingham
Prof Claverie warns that exposing the deep layers could expose new viral threats.

He said: "It is a recipe for disaster. If you start having industrial explorations, people will start to move around the deep permafrost layers. Through mining and drilling, those old layers will be penetrated and this is where the danger is coming from."

He told BBC News that ancient strains of the smallpox virus, which was declared eradicated 30 years ago, could pose a risk.
"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26387276

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: 30,000-year-old giant virus 'comes back to life' on 03/03/2014 20:30:13 MST Print View

Uh oh. Isn't this pretty similar to how John Carpenter's The Thing starts?

1

Edited by xnomanx on 03/03/2014 20:30:48 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
NOAA says 2013/14 winter was a warm one in the US on 03/16/2014 13:28:05 MDT Print View

Some people are getting very skeptical about their data adjustments.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: I'll stick with the majority on this one. on 03/18/2014 07:01:46 MDT Print View

Long ago, back in the mists of time, at the start of this thread, Dean Fellenbaum said:

"I'll stick with the majority on this one. on 04/08/2008"
here is a list of scientific organizations of national or international stature endorsing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement, to whit, that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the rise in temperature through the latter half of the 20th century:

[Omit long list of worthy science institutions]

On the list was the APS, the American Physical Society, who are about to embark on a big review of their position on global warming.