Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doc Socks Junior]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Then what is specifically wrong with the Myhre Paper vs. Reinhardt Paper? Be specific!

So you admit that Myhre does take into account collisions, and you just didn't bother to read the paper?

Nothing is wrong with the Myhre paper.  I suppose it's a little crude, given that it was written in 1998, but I see nothing specifically wrong with the Myhre paper.

[Doc Socks Junior]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Then what is specifically wrong with the Myhre Paper vs. Reinhardt Paper? Be specific! 

I couldn't resist.

Assuming you actually meant what is wrong with the Reinhart blog post versus the Myhre paper, I already gave you a specific example.  That is, Reinhart assumes an isothermal atmosphere at 288 K.  You attempted to deflect this by saying that the IPCC (by extension, Myhre, because they're using his example) also assumes an isothermal atmosphere.

One problem: they don't actually assume that.  I'll explain, for you, and hopefully for more receptive people also.

Myhre et al. (1998) utilizes (among other methods) the LBL (line-by-line) transfer model of Edwards (1992).  Digging into the Edwards model, one quite easily finds that they take into account vertical change in temperature - specifically mentioning profiles standardized by Anderson et al. (1986). 

So, you are completely incorrect that an isothermal atmosphere is utilized to derive the IPCC (i.e. Myhre estimate) value.

So, until you can actually quantitatively demonstrate that the Reinhart assumption is valid, I'd cool your jets.  I'd ask Reinhart to explain, but given that he doesn't want his paper scrutinized by actual scientists, I can only assume what the answer would be. 

References:

Anderson, G.P., S.A. Clough, F.X. Kneizys, J.H. Chetwynd and E.P. Shettle (1986). AFGL Atmospheric Constituent Profiles (0-120 km)", AFGL-TR-86-0110, Optical Physics Div., Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA.

Edwards, D. P. (1992). GENLN2: A general line-by-line atmospheric transmittance and radiance model. Version 3.0: Description and users guide. Unknown.

Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., & Stordal, F. (1998). New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical research letters, 25(14), 2715-2718.

[lost_shaman]

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Myhre et al. (1998) utilizes (among other methods) the LBL (line-by-line) transfer model

Finally a specific. And who disregards the LBL model? Myhre? The IPCC? Me? Reinhardt? 

Let me guess, everyone but you goy?

Edited April 24, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doc Socks Junior]

56 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Finally a specific. And who disregards the LBL model? Myhre? The IPCC? Me? Reinhardt? 

Let me guess, everyone but you goy?

Take a minute, read the post (the whole thing) and re-formulate your thoughts.

Then, write an intelligible question.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Doc Socks Junior

[marsman]

Quote

 

Greenland's ice is melting six times faster than in the 1980s and its glaciers have caused sea levels to rise by half an inch since 1972, experts say

    Greenland's glaciers alone have contributed to a 13.7 millimeter rise in sea levels
    The Earth's second largest ice sheet has lost ice at an increasingly fast pace  
    If all of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, the sea level would rise about 20 feet
    Glaciers in Greenland dumped about 51 billion tons of ice into the ocean between 1980 to 1990, compared to 286 billion tons between 2010 and 2018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6950663/Greenland-ice-melting-six-times-faster-1980s.html

 

 

[tmcom]

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I'd like to see that link, if you don't mind.

Doug

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/wind-turbines-contribute-to-climate-change-study-finds-1.777393

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Science, like everything else, advances one death at a time.  There is nothing quite so sad as watching a senior scientist who has spent his entire professional life working on a line of research that just got demolished.  His dreams of immortality just went up in smoke.  And that applies to nearly everybody.  You deniers are no different.  So what's left?  Follow the data!

Doug

Certainly better than not following it.

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The world is not going to end.  It has been here billions of years and will be here billions more.  Let's keep this in perspective.

There is still time to take effective action, but as is being noted, the door is closing.  Ten years?  Thirteen years?  The earth has no use-by date.  All the 2030 deadline means is that we are expected to cross two-degrees of rise about then.  The world won't end, but climate-related disasters will get gradually worse.  Remember "Super Storm Sandy?"  Those will be more common, as will hurricanes like Rita and Katrina and Maria.  There will be more crop failures.  In America, prices will climb as the market adjusts.  In poorer countries, some people might have to do without.

The sea will not rise 10 meters in 12 years.  It's going to take a lot longer than that.  But it will rise.

And there's a lot we can and will do.  New York is doing the planning work for a coffer dam around lower Manhattan.  And storm barriers.  So is London and Venice.  These are billion-dollar projects.  You complain about doing something about global warming costing a lot of money.  We are paying for these because we didn't do anything.

We are writing off Staten Island.  It will become a shoal-water for fish.  And we are arguing about saving New Orleans (costly) or letting the sea have it and moving all those docks and industries to Baton Rouge (costlier).  To New Orleans, sea-level rise is sort of irrelevant.  They're sinking and will disappear either way.

And Washington DC is only a few feet above sea level.  Eventually, we'll have to move the Washington Monument.  But there will be lots of time for that later.  A 125,000 year-old cypress log was recovered from the lot next to the National Geographic headquarters - Washington used to be a cypress swamp.  Still is a swamp, but the cypresses are gone.

After 2030, we can expect to see the extinction rate rise and see changes in our plant ecologies.  You know - the ones that make oxygen for us to breath.  Where, exactly, the breaking point is, nobody knows, but somewhere above four degrees.

Doug

Based upon the heat wave in the middle ages, it is more likely we will see record crop harvests in the year 2033, than the other nonsense.

I guess by then the actors and so called scientists will band together again, and say, the world will end in 2043, gotta keep the slush trough full.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

So NASA lies and withholds vital information, and some here trust them completely, l guess that Cox should have been aiming for the toilet.

[marsman]

Quote

 

United Nations report: One million species at risk of extinction

The devastating impact of human activity on the Earth’s biodiversity has been laid bare in a shocking new report by the United Nations.

Up to one million species face extinction due to human influence, according to a draft UN report obtained by AFP that painstakingly catalogues how humanity has undermined the natural resources upon which its very survival depends.

The accelerating loss of clean air, drinkable water, CO2-absorbing forests, pollinating insects, protein-rich fish and storm-blocking mangroves — to name but a few of the dwindling services rendered by nature — poses no less of a threat than climate change, says the report, set to be unveiled May 6.

Indeed, biodiversity loss and global warming are closely linked, according to the 44-page summary for policymakers, which distils a 1800-page United Nations (UN) assessment of scientific literature on the state of nature.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/united-nations-report-one-million-species-at-risk-of-extinction/news-story/d9f8a97f5c53fe42bcd0fda8957f1e25

 

 

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Quote

I guess by then the actors and so called scientists will band together again, and say, the world will end in 2043, gotta keep the slush trough full.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

So NASA lies and withholds vital information, and some here trust them completely, l guess that Cox should have been aiming for the toilet.

How dumb do you have to be to misinterpret what NASA is saying here. Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate, as a simple thought experiment imagine what would happen to the climate if the sun suddenly stopped burning. That however is a very different thing to saying that a given climate event is always driven by the Sun. Its called a logical fallacy to assume that one factor always causes all outcomes.

The reason the website is no longer there is simple, web pages stop been maintained and get expunged from the servers they are on. This usually happens when they are superseded by another web page. 

Your line of reasoning is so dumb on so many levels that it defies my ability to understand how you manage to survive in a complex world.

Br Cornelius

[marsman]

Disturbing Animation Shows What Earth Would Look Like if All The Ice Melted

In 2015, NASA revealed that Earth's oceans are rising faster than expected, and the space agency projected that we're now "locked in" to at least 90 cm of sea level rise in the coming decades.

 

That in itself would be enough to displace millions of people around the world, but if this trend continues and all our polar ice caps and glaciers melt, it's been predicted that the oceans will rise by a mind-blowing 65.8 metres (216 feet). So where will all that water end up?

The Business Insider video team created this animated map to take us on a virtual tour of what all the continents would look like without any ice, and we have to admit it's kind of terrifying.

Some of the areas that go under first are probably unsurprising - low-lying islands and already water-logged cities such as Venice are quick to disappear. And at first glance, the planet doesn't really look that much different. 

But when the globe spins around to Asia around the halfway mark, things get pretty real, with huge cities like Calcutta and Shanghai disappearing into the ocean altogether (that's a combined population of almost 19 million people). And suffice it to say, the US also gets a whole lot smaller. You can pretty much kiss Florida goodbye.

https://www.sciencealert.com/disturbing-animation-shows-what-earth-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted

 

[Saru]

Thread cleaned again

Last time we're going to clean this thread up before we start dishing out warnings.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Br Cornelius said:

How dumb do you have to be to misinterpret what NASA is saying here. Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate, as a simple thought experiment imagine what would happen to the climate if the sun suddenly stopped burning. That however is a very different thing to saying that a given climate event is always driven by the Sun. Its called a logical fallacy to assume that one factor always causes all outcomes.

The reason the website is no longer there is simple, web pages stop been maintained and get expunged from the servers they are on. This usually happens when they are superseded by another web page. 

Your line of reasoning is so dumb on so many levels that it defies my ability to understand how you manage to survive in a complex world.

Br Cornelius

Long time, no see.  Where have you been these last few years?

Doug

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/wind-turbines-contribute-to-climate-change-study-finds-1.777393

Certainly better than not following it.

Based upon the heat wave in the middle ages, it is more likely we will see record crop harvests in the year 2033, than the other nonsense.

I guess by then the actors and so called scientists will band together again, and say, the world will end in 2043, gotta keep the slush trough full.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

So NASA lies and withholds vital information, and some here trust them completely, l guess that Cox should have been aiming for the toilet.

The Medieval Warm Period did not reach the highs we are currently getting.  On what do you base your conclusions that crop productivity will increase?  During the middle ages crop productivity was probably lower than now, mostly due to advancing technology.  But that means we have no direct way to compare productivity then with productivity now (or in 2033).

The sun is a driver of climate change.  We can measure changes in the earth's temperature that correlate with sunspot activity.  And there are other metrics that may produce a better correlation.  That being said, changes in solar output do not have a nig effect on temps/climate.  A small one - yes, but not a big one (0.3 degrees of variability).  Websites go up and down for maintenance all the time.  There are times I cannot access my own chronologies because the site is down for maintenance.  And old web pages get replaced by new ones.  The fact that a page is no longer available is evidence only of it not being online.

Doug

[Guest Br Cornelius]

26 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Long time, no see.  Where have you been these last few years?

Doug

Working, nothing spectacular but putting the bread on the table. I checked on this thread about a year ago and was staggered at the groundhog day feel of the discussion. Anyone left in denial is only deserving of ridicule at this stage so saw no point in sticking around to get banned for abusing the dim, will probably be a flying visit this time to.

 

Br Cornelius

Edited April 24, 2019 by Br Cornelius

[tmcom]

22 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The Medieval Warm Period did not reach the highs we are currently getting.  On what do you base your conclusions that crop productivity will increase?  During the middle ages crop productivity was probably lower than now, mostly due to advancing technology.  But that means we have no direct way to compare productivity then with productivity now (or in 2033).

The sun is a driver of climate change.  We can measure changes in the earth's temperature that correlate with sunspot activity.  And there are other metrics that may produce a better correlation.  That being said, changes in solar output do not have a nig effect on temps/climate.  A small one - yes, but not a big one (0.3 degrees of variability).  Websites go up and down for maintenance all the time.  There are times I cannot access my own chronologies because the site is down for maintenance.  And old web pages get replaced by new ones.  The fact that a page is no longer available is evidence only of it not being online.

Doug

[Doug1029]

19 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Someone said "this thread is not about increasing CO2 levels but "Climate Change is a Hoax."  I would counter that CO2 is the only argument you true believers have brought to the table.  It's unfortunate that you have trapped yourself in this logic. CO2 levels have risen and fallen all through the ages. So it has risen since 1950. What's the number?  From 250 to 400 ppm?  Man caused or natural variation?  You cannot absolutely prove the former and highly qualified scientists point this out in many of the video I and others have posted.

Co2 rise is really what global warming is all about.  Everything else stems from that.

CO2 concentrations recovered from the Vostok ice core:

It was 278.66 in the year 1000.

1880 - 290.8 ppm

1900 - 295.7 ppm

1920 -  303.7 ppm

1940 - 311.3 ppm

1950 - 311.3 ppm

1959 - 316.18 ppm; Keeling - 315.97 ppm

1960 - 317.07 ppm; Keeling - 316.91 ppm

1980 - 338.99 ppm; Keeling - 338.68 ppm

2000 - 369.64 ppm; Keeling - 369.40 ppm

2010 - 389.21 ppm; Keeling - 389.78 ppm

We are now above 410 ppm

Somewhere I have ice measurements going back to the ice age, but I can't seem to find it just now.

It's a smooth exponential curve.  Not much rising and falling in it, except for the seasonal ups and downs caused by leaves developing and dying in the Northern Hemisphere.

Isotopic studies of atmospheric carbon show that it mostly came from coal deposits.  How does carbon from coal get into the atmosphere?  We assume that burning had something to do with it.  If that's a reasonable assumption, then people are the cause of CO2 rise.  But you are right:  that is an assumption and if there's a tiny chance that it is wrong, then the link is not proven.

But that's one thing about real-world science:  there's no such thing is "proof."  If you are going to use science as a basis for anything, then you must accept that tiny chance that it is wrong.  So it all comes down to probabilities.  What are the chances that there is another, still unidentified, source of carbon that bears coals' isotopic signature?  Zero, as far as I know.

There have been major advances in isotopic chemistry in the last few years.  We should one day be able to track a carbon dioxide plume to the particular coal bed the coal came from.  Stay tuned.

About your highly-qualified scientists:  please name them so I can look up their qualifications.  I'd like to know EXACTLY what they are.

Doug

Edited April 24, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

20 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Finally I would like to leave you with this little cartoon that sums up what the plebs are thinking.  Enjoy!

Science advances.

Doug

[Doug1029]

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Honestly, I don't know. It is a good question. It just was not the "Rainforest" it is today. 

Lots of reasons are possible.  Nutrients washed out of the soil so that grass took the site.  Repeated burning.  Heavy grazing/trampling of seedlings.  Drier climate.

The important thing is that it really doesn't matter what the site was 2000 years ago.  These sites retain their fertility, but the fertility is stored in plant tissues.  Remove those plants and you remove the fertility.  So how long does it take to clear 10 acres of rainforest?

Doug

[Doug1029]

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Hey I'd tell you this is NOT BEING QUIETLY done around Vernon, Texas! I'm absolutely surrounded NOW by Windmills to the N,E,S,and W!!! I'm able to see about 400+ now. It is CRAZY and my electric bill is not any lower.

Most of that power is being shipped east.  Up here, we're still powered by coal plants.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Saru said:

Thread cleaned again

Last time we're going to clean this thread up before we start dishing out warnings.

Just a thought here:  I suspect some of us may not even be aware of how our posts are being received by others. 

LS insults me, then when I shoot back, he threatens to report me - oh, really?  Does he know how he is being perceived?

Derek Willis and I have gotten tangled up in language differences.  He's from Britain and even though we call it English, American is not really the same language as spoken in Great Britain.  His fault - my fault - nobody's fault.

A little more care in how we say things would be in order.

Doug

[marsman]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Just a thought here:  I suspect some of us may not even be aware of how our posts are being received by others. 

LS insults me, then when I shoot back, he threatens to report me - oh, really?  Does he know how he is being perceived?

Derek Willis and I have gotten tangled up in language differences.  He's from Britain and even though we call it English, American is not really the same language as spoken in Great Britain.  His fault - my fault - nobody's fault.

A little more care in how we say things would be in order.

Doug

 

some posters here have done same to me...insults get used when their arguments are logically broken down

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

There are a tiny few scientists who sincerely do not believe that humans have caused global warming.  That's maybe a half-dozen qualified climate specialists.  There are quite a number of "climate experts" who are economists, not climate scientists.  The denier community loves to quote them without mentioning that when it comes to climate, they are laymen, just like everybody else.  And there are physicists and chemists who are qualified scientists in their own fields, but not so in climate.  And then there are those who have a Ph.D., but have never published anything and never had to defend their ideas in peer review.  So what makes a climate scientist?  Probably the best definition would be publication on climate in a peer-reviewed climate journal.  That leaves me out.  But at least, I ALMOST made it.

I haven't got the time right now, but I will listen to this when I get the time.  I have a hunch the "carbon drought" has more to do with definitions than science, but I'll see.

Doug

Just noticed:  the first face to appear and be interviewed is that of Stuart McNish.  He's a commentator and journalist, not a climate scientist.  I'll have to figure out who the others are.

Doug

Edited April 24, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

16 minutes ago, marsman said:

 

some posters here have done same to me...insults get used when their arguments are logically broken down

I think Socks knows of somebody who fits the description.

Doug

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

There are a tiny few scientists who sincerely do not believe that humans have caused global warming.  That's maybe a half-dozen qualified climate specialists.  There are quite a number of "climate experts" who are economists, not climate scientists.  The denier community loves to quote them without mentioning that when it comes to climate, they are laymen, just like everybody else.  And there are physicists and chemists who are qualified scientists in their own fields, but not so in climate.  And then there are those who have a Ph.D., but have never published anything and never had to defend their ideas in peer review.  So what makes a climate scientist?  Probably the best definition would be publication on climate in a peer-reviewed climate journal.  That leaves me out.  But at least, I ALMOST made it.

I haven't got the time right now, but I will listen to this when I get the time.  I have a hunch the "carbon drought" has more to do with definitions than science, but I'll see.

Doug

Just noticed:  the first face to appear and be interviewed is that of Stuart McNish.  He's a commentator and journalist, not a climate scientist.  I'll have to figure out who the others are.

Doug

Tini, lol, l believe that the number in this video was 31,000 climate scientists, (Hartland institute) don't believe it. Most if not all publish papers and some are considered to be experts on the subject.

And 55% of Americans don't fall for it anymore, (30% in my country with latest newspaper/political polls).

And the guy in the previous video is an expert on Carbon, and gives some pretty good views on exactly what it can and can't do.

Edited April 24, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

42 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Tini, lol, l believe that the number in this video was 31,000 climate scientists, (Hartland institute) don't believe it. Most if not all publish papers and some are considered to be experts on the subject.

And 55% of Americans don't fall for it anymore, (30% in my country with latest newspaper/political polls).

And the guy in the previous video is an expert on Carbon, and gives some pretty good views on exactly what it can and can't do.

Heartland Institute is one of those paid denier websites.  They are well-known for their false and often-misleading statements.  That being said, once in awhile they come up with something worthwhile.  I have referenced them in a paper on climate change, myself.

It would be interesting to get some real statistics on how many do/don't accept human-caused climate change.

Sorry I don't have time to go into this deeper just now.

Doug

Edited April 24, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

A quick thought here:

It may sound like I'm dismissing sites like wattsupwitthat and the Heartland Institute without a hearing, but I have been reading their stuff for 14 years.  Unqualified "experts" are only part of their problems.  Someone can always do the studying and become knowledgeable on a subject and some people do.

Whether you should listen to what they say is another question.  To make that determination, see if they list sources for their opinions.  With no sources, even a legitimate expert opinion must be suspect.  Check what those sources actually say.  Misquotes and ficticious quotes are common on these two sites.  ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.  At the very least, that gets rid of third-party spins.  Then look up other opinions on the same topic.  If people you have investigated and consider legitimate are saying the same thing, then it might be true.  But if nobody agrees with them, it's probably not.  That way, even if untrue, those opinions are at least consistent.

Many actual scientific papers refuse to list global warming as a cause of an observation, saying only that findings are consistent with human-caused global warming.  That way, they avoid political traps.

Doug