Al Gore: Lord Carbon Credit Former Vice President Al Gore’s crusade against carbon dioxide emissions could make him millions of dollars. With help from friends at Goldman Sachs, Gore has established a network of organizations to promote the “climate crisis”—and keep himself in the spotlight. Gore’s crusade already has had an enormous impact on corporate decision-making and government policies.
dear morono please recheck the mideval data.. that was only taken from europe you dipshit if you actually look into it you will find this.. if you want some real evidence of global cite russia rhode island delware have the warmest summers on record so far.. record floods in pakistan record low acrtic ice extent.. the warming is being caused by heat generated by burning stuff(fuels) and blacktops and rooptops duh!
"I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer...In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
--- Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences
A further response to the point regarding Phil Jones, from his interview:
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
The common point that has been made is that Mr. Jones' statements are some sort of reversal of position. I fail to see how any rational person who actually read the interview in question could reach that conclusion.
A general comment regarding feedbacks seems appropriate, prompted by the words:
"temperatures would continue to increase with no cooling"
We can be represent a feedback with a geometric series. An intial change (call it S) is increased by a factor f. So the total change is the sum of the series:
S+fS+f^2S+f^3S+ etc. If the absolute value of f is less than one the series converges, and diverges otherwise.
1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+ etc is an example of a series that converges.
Given your last statement regarding feedbacks of CO2, how can you in turn argue that we'll have a runaway greenhouse effect? Tell me, where is the science that states higher levels of CO2 can cool?
Honestly, no scientific body possesses the knowledge of the climate necessary to make long-term projections about the climate. Period. Let's stop pretending we can and stop the wasteful gov't funding of research. I'm guessing that will make you unemployed.
One little problem with your theory. Why would feedbacks of CO2 decrease when CO2 are at higher levels? What does "S" represent? What causes "S"?
Additionally, if the decreasing feedbacks of CO2 have always occurred following a drop in temperature wouldn't one logically conclude that temperature drives CO2 levels?
Basically, your theories make no sense. When cornered, you hide behind scientific jargon.
What I was showing you was a geometric series, which gives a nice way of thinking about feedbacks.
If S is an increase in temp f would represent so process the caused a further increase in temp. You could make S negative and use the same math to describe a decrease in temp.
If you take the time to play with the math it is a help in thinking about a variety of subjects.
Did a little research in the interim. There are two forms of feedback, negative and positive. Positive feedback indicates a relatively small input can cause big changes. Negative feedback is basically a self-correcting system. Based on millions of years of life on this planet it is obvious we have a negative feedback of CO2 going on. Wild swings of CO2 (Cambrian 7000ppm) yielded relatively small changes in temp and later returned to normal.
Such evidence as exists is contradictory. For example Uranus seems to be cooling & I know of no trend for Venus, which is prima fascia evidence that a single driving force is not a work.
It seems too silly for words that tenuous evidence is latched onto with fervour while good evidence from credible sources is dismissed.
It is quite well documented that Venus and Mars were warming during our warming trend. Plenty of links if you were willing to look. Now we have entered a cooling trend (see climategate) so your evidence regarding Uranus is telling. You keep mentioning good evidence, but never seem to deliver the goods. Please do so and don't hit me with the consensus nonsense. That isn't science.
For the sake of completness. There were 3 colossal (VEI 6) eruptions during the 20th century. Santa Maria 1902 Novarupta 1912 Mt Pinatubo 1991. I know of five paroxysmal eruptions (VEI 5) during the same period. Mt Hudson 1991 Lake Nyos 1986 El Chichon 1982 Mt St. Helens 1980 Mt Agung 1963 Where Augustine fits in this Volcano Explosivity Index I do not know.
The comments and the video all ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room and talk about science in BS terms without getting to the point. The accepted graphs on the topic show CO2 changes trail temperature changes, ergo CO2 does not meaningfully drive temperature. Case closed. Debate the science all you like, it doesn't change anything. You're just beating a dead horse.
Personally, I'm not going to waste my time. Perhaps you could sum up their excuses. Additionally how about the climatic changes that occurred before man's existence or how about the warming that other planets experienced while ours warmed. The warmest recorded temperatures believers always sight go back about 150 years or to the end of the little ice age. As the name would imply, it was a cold period hence warming since then is to be expected, correct? Youtube: The Cloud Mystery.
Although it does at time give me heart burn I have taken the time to listen to lectures by Lindzen and Spencer. The heartburn comes from Lindzen's attitude, I found Spencer a pleasant guy to listen to, although I do disagree. If you are not willing to give the opposition a hearing how can you claim to be informed?
If all you took away from the lecture was your like or dislike of the speaker, you wasted your time. Perhaps if that silver-tongued Barrack Obama has said those words you'd be more moved? This isn't an emotional argument, it's about facts. You haven't presented anything to answer the questions I've posed to you.
I've noticed you mentioned volcanic eruptions to explain the cooling from the mid-40's thru the mid 70's. One little problem though. The largest eruption by far in the 20th century occurred at Novarupta in 1912. Others in descending order: Pinatubo - 1991, Augustine - 1976, Mt. St. Helens - 1980. None line up with your explanation. Those pesky facts get in the way of your agenda again.
I do not recall ever making the assertion that volcanic eruptions explain mid century cooling.
What I have said is that polution of a purely man made sort counter acted green house gas emissions during this period. These negative forcings are called listed as Strarospheric Aerosols, & Reflective Tropospheric Aerosols. There is also what is called an indirect effect of aerosols which is the effect on cloud formation.
Apparently, we've licked the pollution problem, right? Apparently, pollution from Volcanos or forrest fires doesn't count? Interesting that you should mention aerosols. Youtube "The Cloud Mystery" to observe (not theorize) on how clouds are formed by cosmic rays passing through them.
There is no correlation between temperature and sunspots or any other measurable solar activity that could account for changes in global average temperature for the past several decades.
This is not to say that the whole subject of Cosmic Rays isn't of great interest, but the evidence that they account for our current warming is completely absent.
Point being there is no correlation and therefore there can be no causality.
Yes I have heard the phrase Maunder Minimum. The consensus view (I do know that you hate those words) is that in the past fluctuations in climate including the exit from the little ice age were due to the natural forcing of the sun. Through geologic history changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, natural fluctuations in GHGs, and orbital changes have induced climate change and these forcings are accounted for in models of both past and present climate.
Current warming? Perhaps you missed the slip contained in the Climate Gate e-mails? "It's a travesty that our models don't predict the current cooling trend." Perhaps you should check out the video I suggested you to see clear evidence of the correlation. You know, as you're very open-minded.
Kevin Trenberth the man who said "It's a travesty ..." had the following to say:
"The quote refers to our observation system which is inadequate to observe Earth's energy flows at the accuracy needed to understand SMALL fluctuations in climate; it does not mean there is no global warming ..."
Perhaps you should refrain from quoting out of context, because you're very open-minded.
Let me ask you something, blue. Why is it you see man as the cause of all bad things in the world? Progressives like to think in ancient ways. They believe man must sacrifice to nature. It goes back to human sacrifice to hurling virgins into volcanos thinking it will appease the nature gods. Today, "progressives" believe in de-population and a return to living like our ancestors. Parallels, anyone? How is that progressive? You even stand in the way when we do want to build wind farms.
How else you do explain your theories on climate? Everything you mention, positions man as the culprit. You will not discuss climate changes before man's existence as your "theory" does not address them. So basically, you're asking people to believe in a theory which we can prove does not apply to 99% of all climatic changes in the earth's history, over others that possibly can. See the dilemma?
If you think that climatologists can not explain natural changes in the cliamate or are not concerned to understand the causality of such events that only goes to show how deeply uninformed you are.
See Richard Alley's lecture on paleoclimatology and global warming at the AGU website of December 2009, "The bigest control knob" which speaks to the olace of CO2 in the understanding of natural climate changes.
The very men who developed the ice core data which allows you to speak of lags between temperature and atmosphric carbon dioxide, both expected to find this in the proxy record, and regard it to be evidence of a feed back process necessary to explain the magnitude of temperature changes during the transition between interglacial and glacial periods.
see "Timing of Atmospheric Co2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination iii"
Another words this author is willing to suspend the cause / effect relationship when it is convenient to ensure his continued gov't funding. BTW, still waiting for answers to my questions.
the process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input in order to regulate its further output.
Notice the word further. It didn't say previous. Unless the feedback could go back in time (800 - 2000 years), your theory is pure hogwash. Please put your the mechanics of your theory of feedback into layman's terms, instead of hiding behind nonsensical scientific jargon.
The notion of how we enter a period of glaciation is that orbital variations (Milankovitch Theory) act as a trigger, which in turn is amplified by feedbacks.
As water, including ocean water, is warmed the solubility of gases decreases. Conversely as water cools the solubility of gases increases. This along with the release of CO2 from warming soils and melting permafrost account for the increase in CO2 and the resulting planet wide warming during transition to an interglacial.
So you freely admit temperature drives CO2? There may be hope for you yet. If your arguing that this is the feedback effect with CO2 as the driver, there are numerous fatal flaws to that theory. 1. Why was the earth warming in the first place? The feedback effect doesn't work when there's no warming in the first place as you clearly stated. The graphs tell us it was not due to increased CO2 levels. [continued]
1 During transition to an interglacial warming is initiated by orbital variations, i.e. more warmth from the sun. The word used is insolation (incident solar radiation). The 3 factors are eccentricity of orbit (effects distance from the sun), obliquity (axial tilt), and precession.
The effect of precession is that the tropical year (cycle of the seasons) is twenty minutes shorter that the sidreal year (time for one orbit).
2. Why did the temperatures decrease while CO2 levels were very high. Under your scenario, temperatures would continue to increase with no cooling. Apparently, the feedback effect only works when it is convenient to your theory? 3. How does this disprove the theory that temperature always drives CO2? The graphs make it perfectly clear that that is the relationship. Please use the graphs to dispel that statement.
The general point regarding CO2 is that an increase of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increment of warming. A decrease in atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling. When the magnitude the response is smaller than the original forcing, regardless of what its origin is average global temperature will stabalize (the series will converge). A decrease or increase in insolation will set off a variety of feedbacks which have lags on different time scales.
When CO2 levels have been high temperature changes were initiated by Milankovitch Cycles. Conversly when they are low they are also initiated by Milankovitch Cycles.
These Milankovitch cycles by decreasing or increasing insolation are necessary but not sufficient for a interglacial or glacial period to be established and maintained.
Because sea ice always forms during winter and because it is winter in the Southern Hemisphere while it is summer in the North, the seasonal sea ice can increase while permanent ice continues to wane. The result is a greater area of sea ice, with continued sea level rise.
There are those who like use this situation to generate confusion.
Were you aware that during the majority of this planets existence there have been no ice caps at either pole? I'm sure it was due to man though [sarcasm off].
This has been witnessed by the dramatic melting of the Artic Sea Ice.
The models are codified physics. Keep this in mind when you hear the scornfull comments of men like Mr Morano. What they are expressing scorn for are physics. What they are expressing scorn for are direct hands on lab work which demonstraits the nature of greenhouse gases.
The models are not codified physics. Most importantly the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 is very much in doubt. Models could range from scary ina hypersensitive model and ho hum in a less sensitive model.
True. There are a variety of notions regarding sensitivity. These range from the minority reports of fellows like Mr. Lindzen, who expects a very small sesitivity, to those who expect a change in global climate of a magnitude similar to the move from interglacial to glacial climate.
It is understood that these models do not tell us all that we would wish.
Classical physics does not answer all. And superconductivity is not fully understood. Partial understandings are of use.
Owing to there geography of the North and South Poles they have for many million years been different. The artic ice cap floats on water which moderates the growth of ice. In the the antartctic the ice rests on land, which allows the accumulation to progress unchecked. In addition the geography of the antarctic allows for colder temperatures. The Antarctic has the lowest temperatures of any continent. Any good encyclopedia will give a description of the details.
The reason why the arctic is look at so closely is two fold. First has to be because it is where dramatic changes have taken place. Discusions of this can be found at the NSIDC and NOAA.
The other reason is that back in the early 80s climatologists (including Hansen) predicted that the effects of Global warming would be see in the lose of Artic Ice and in the Antarctic Peninsula.
A distinction is made between sea ice which is seasonal, and multi year or permanent ice.
The odd thing with regard to ice extent is that globally because the Antarctic is so cool and dry (it is in fact a desert) a warming of Antarctica increases humidity which has lead to more snow fall.
For these same reasons the higher inland regions of Greenland have see an increase in ice formation while those areas closer to the sea have had accelerated melt.
Point being an increase of sea ice can happen while land ice continues to decrease.
It is interesting, seeing as the big concern, is that less of the surface of the earth would be covered by white, which lets more sun in, which causes more warming
And melting ice, releases more CO2, causing warming
So if the antarctic is still growing, different geography, or no; it still negates the problem. It still reflects sunlight, and it still freezes more CO2 into the ice
Which is why, Global Ice Extent, is what we should be looking at
My understanding is that the big concern is that increased atmospheric CO2 yeilds increased temperatures.
For recent times (the past 5 years) the SH winter sea ice area has increased. My research into the literature on sea ice shows that significant declines in SH sea ice area took place during the three decades before satelite observations began.
If you would like to point out were to look for more info I'll take the time to look.
CO2 does yield higher temps, it just does very little
The concern is, you get these feedback responses, like, you warm the ocean a little, you get more water vapor, which is the most powerful green house gas there is
You melt the glaciers, less sunlight is reflected, etc
just search "global warming feedback spiral". But, if the IPCC is correct about feedbacks, technically we shouldn't be able to get out of ice ages
With regard to the size of feedbacks I do know that the Milankovitch effects are not thought to be enough to account for all of the warming going out of a glacial period or to account for all the cooling going into a glacial / out of an interglacial. Hence the need for a CO2 feedback. Warmer seas release CO2 & Cooler seas take up CO2 if the sea & air are in equilibrium with respect to CO2 content.
If you know of any articles where Mr Lindzen, Mr Spencer, or Mr Christy speak on the subject of glaciation and paleoclimatology I would be very interested.
It is only fair of me to say that part of the reason for this is that I have heard the assertion that paleo-climatology does not support the assertions of Mr Linzen. The reasoning for saying this is that climate sensitivity for the past 800,000 years argues against his Iris Hypothesis.
With the warming of oceans there are two feedbacks. One is the out gassing of CO2. The other feedback is dependent on air temp. Warmer air temps allow for larger quantities of water vapor while mantaining a relatively constant relative humidity. I think that this is something we agree about.
The thing about feedbacks is that to evaluate them it is necessary to quantify the W/m^2 for each forcing and feedback.
Pay scale? Yeah, this stuff has been above my pay scale for awhile, one of the reasons I'll come clean, I haven't read any of their scientific reports, I listen to them give presentations, they tend to be lighter on the calculus, and focus more on the over all results
Roy Spencer deals with the Iris, along with other theories based on clouds
Lindzen's big thing is measuring climate sensitivity directly, using a satellite measuring outgoing heat energy, then comparing it to temp
If you haven't heard about Zero-Point Energy yet, that is some cool stuff. You know how every electron, in every atom, is always in motion?
ZPE, is what keeps them in motion. It exists everywhere. you know the 99.9% of the atom that is empty space? It has ZPE
With this technology, you can literally build a motor that runs on empty space. NOW THAT, is an investment. But this what happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country
I am more than suspicious of any thing that sounds remotely like a free lunch which is why on the face of it a moter that runs on nothing sounds to good to be true.
Research into fusion seems worthwhile to me.
For reasons you know of I would like to see action on alternatives like conventional nuclear, wind, and solar thermal on a big scale. All of which seems more worthy than bailing out investment banks.
I'm skeptical too, but it wouldn't be running on nothing. It would be running on the ZPE field. If I understand it correctly, the ZPE field is a field of churning energy
So it would work kinda like hydroelectric, the water flows, and turns the turbine. The ZPE would flow over the 'turbine' and create electricity
I too am skeptical, it is a pretty extraordinary claim, and I would want to see it work before I got on board
I'm ok with wind and solar, but only if they are building it because it makes sense. If they are doing it because they think everything else will be out lawed, and they want to be the only power producers left, so they can charge super high prices
or, if they are doing it because they expect to get Gov hand outs, like carbon credits, or to avoid carbon taxes, etc
Then I don't like it. Then we're just wasting resources and making every body more poor
don't you think the arrival of "Climate Change", as a term is an admission that the skeptics won the debate?
I mean, CO2 is a green house gas, if you add it to the atmo, you will get SOME warming, so, if "global warming" isn't what you're concerned about, then CO2 is not the issue
If global warming proponents, have not horribly lost the debate, why did the term "Climate Change" arrive on the scene?
I have gardened in Oklahoma for 30 years - things are changing. This last year we had the wettest spring ever, my bees and pollinators were missing, we've had two ice storms in this state and I have no respect whatsoever for Inhofe. I will Vote for ANDREW RICE to take inhofe's office.
How long has tar creek people been sitting on zinc and lead piles while Inhofe was in office and he wanted to distribute that chat on every road in Oklahoma. Inhofe was one of four senators to vote against energy assistance. Inhofe and Coburn voted against healthcare for Native Americans - in the Land of the Red Man. I have a lot of reason for not voting for this moron. At least you realize that the earth isn't just 6,000 years old. Good for you.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
dear morono please recheck the mideval data.. that was only taken from europe you dipshit if you actually look into it you will find this.. if you want some real evidence of global cite russia rhode island delware have the warmest summers on record so far.. record floods in pakistan record low acrtic ice extent.. the warming is being caused by heat generated by burning stuff(fuels) and blacktops and rooptops duh!
livingproofof 1 year ago
"science" ? mark morono? lol?` why not rush limbaugh?
______________________________________________________________
"I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer...In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
--- Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences
btw:
climate . nasa . gov / evidence /
aerobique 1 year ago
A further response to the point regarding Phil Jones, from his interview:
"I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
The common point that has been made is that Mr. Jones' statements are some sort of reversal of position. I fail to see how any rational person who actually read the interview in question could reach that conclusion.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
A general comment regarding feedbacks seems appropriate, prompted by the words:
"temperatures would continue to increase with no cooling"
We can be represent a feedback with a geometric series. An intial change (call it S) is increased by a factor f. So the total change is the sum of the series:
S+fS+f^2S+f^3S+ etc. If the absolute value of f is less than one the series converges, and diverges otherwise.
1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+ etc is an example of a series that converges.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
The point here is that feedbacks can ultimately result in either a stable situation (convergance) or a runaway (divergance).
bluetwinky 2 years ago
It's a joke that this guys calls himself "informedskeptic"
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Perhaps you could make a convincing argument in support of your position? Nah, didn't think so.
informedskeptic 1 year ago
@informedskeptic
You're probably making the convincing argument for me :)
In all seriousness though, I posted that a month ago. I don't even remember what idiocy I was referring to.
Woobaka 1 year ago
@bluetwinky
Given your last statement regarding feedbacks of CO2, how can you in turn argue that we'll have a runaway greenhouse effect? Tell me, where is the science that states higher levels of CO2 can cool?
Honestly, no scientific body possesses the knowledge of the climate necessary to make long-term projections about the climate. Period. Let's stop pretending we can and stop the wasteful gov't funding of research. I'm guessing that will make you unemployed.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Any of you geniuses read the interview from the BBC of Phil Jones? Game. Set. Match.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Do you know what he ment by "statistical significance"?
Yes I read the interview.
Did you? Did you understand what you read?
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Do you understand what he meant by cooling?
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@bluetwinky
One little problem with your theory. Why would feedbacks of CO2 decrease when CO2 are at higher levels? What does "S" represent? What causes "S"?
Additionally, if the decreasing feedbacks of CO2 have always occurred following a drop in temperature wouldn't one logically conclude that temperature drives CO2 levels?
Basically, your theories make no sense. When cornered, you hide behind scientific jargon.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
What I was showing you was a geometric series, which gives a nice way of thinking about feedbacks.
If S is an increase in temp f would represent so process the caused a further increase in temp. You could make S negative and use the same math to describe a decrease in temp.
If you take the time to play with the math it is a help in thinking about a variety of subjects.
bluetwinky 1 year ago
@bluetwinky
Did a little research in the interim. There are two forms of feedback, negative and positive. Positive feedback indicates a relatively small input can cause big changes. Negative feedback is basically a self-correcting system. Based on millions of years of life on this planet it is obvious we have a negative feedback of CO2 going on. Wild swings of CO2 (Cambrian 7000ppm) yielded relatively small changes in temp and later returned to normal.
informedskeptic 1 year ago
Regarding Warming of other planets:
Such evidence as exists is contradictory. For example Uranus seems to be cooling & I know of no trend for Venus, which is prima fascia evidence that a single driving force is not a work.
It seems too silly for words that tenuous evidence is latched onto with fervour while good evidence from credible sources is dismissed.
And yes, informedskeptic, I am speaking to you.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
It is quite well documented that Venus and Mars were warming during our warming trend. Plenty of links if you were willing to look. Now we have entered a cooling trend (see climategate) so your evidence regarding Uranus is telling. You keep mentioning good evidence, but never seem to deliver the goods. Please do so and don't hit me with the consensus nonsense. That isn't science.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic,
Here are some of the goods:
"Solar Activity and Terrestial Climate: An Analysis of some Purported Correlations"
Peter Laut 4 February 2003
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar -Terrestial Physics 65 (2003)
Which is a disscussion of how Henrik Svensmark is wrong and why.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
bluetwinky 2 years ago
The comments and the video all ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room and talk about science in BS terms without getting to the point. The accepted graphs on the topic show CO2 changes trail temperature changes, ergo CO2 does not meaningfully drive temperature. Case closed. Debate the science all you like, it doesn't change anything. You're just beating a dead horse.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic
If you want to understand the thinking of the other side on this issue go to the skeptical science website and read the article on CO2 lags.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Personally, I'm not going to waste my time. Perhaps you could sum up their excuses. Additionally how about the climatic changes that occurred before man's existence or how about the warming that other planets experienced while ours warmed. The warmest recorded temperatures believers always sight go back about 150 years or to the end of the little ice age. As the name would imply, it was a cold period hence warming since then is to be expected, correct? Youtube: The Cloud Mystery.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic
Although it does at time give me heart burn I have taken the time to listen to lectures by Lindzen and Spencer. The heartburn comes from Lindzen's attitude, I found Spencer a pleasant guy to listen to, although I do disagree. If you are not willing to give the opposition a hearing how can you claim to be informed?
bluetwinky 2 years ago
If all you took away from the lecture was your like or dislike of the speaker, you wasted your time. Perhaps if that silver-tongued Barrack Obama has said those words you'd be more moved? This isn't an emotional argument, it's about facts. You haven't presented anything to answer the questions I've posed to you.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Comment removed
bluetwinky 2 years ago
My dear friend,
You are assuming a lot from my comment without cause.
I remind you of my earlier question:
If you are not willing to give the opposition a hearing how can you claim to be informed?
bluetwinky 2 years ago
I've noticed you mentioned volcanic eruptions to explain the cooling from the mid-40's thru the mid 70's. One little problem though. The largest eruption by far in the 20th century occurred at Novarupta in 1912. Others in descending order: Pinatubo - 1991, Augustine - 1976, Mt. St. Helens - 1980. None line up with your explanation. Those pesky facts get in the way of your agenda again.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Dear Skeptic,
I do not recall ever making the assertion that volcanic eruptions explain mid century cooling.
What I have said is that polution of a purely man made sort counter acted green house gas emissions during this period. These negative forcings are called listed as Strarospheric Aerosols, & Reflective Tropospheric Aerosols. There is also what is called an indirect effect of aerosols which is the effect on cloud formation.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Apparently, we've licked the pollution problem, right? Apparently, pollution from Volcanos or forrest fires doesn't count? Interesting that you should mention aerosols. Youtube "The Cloud Mystery" to observe (not theorize) on how clouds are formed by cosmic rays passing through them.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
There is no correlation between temperature and sunspots or any other measurable solar activity that could account for changes in global average temperature for the past several decades.
This is not to say that the whole subject of Cosmic Rays isn't of great interest, but the evidence that they account for our current warming is completely absent.
Point being there is no correlation and therefore there can be no causality.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Ever heard the phase Maunder Minimum? So much for your equally viewing both sides.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic
Yes I have heard the phrase Maunder Minimum. The consensus view (I do know that you hate those words) is that in the past fluctuations in climate including the exit from the little ice age were due to the natural forcing of the sun. Through geologic history changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, natural fluctuations in GHGs, and orbital changes have induced climate change and these forcings are accounted for in models of both past and present climate.
:)
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Current warming? Perhaps you missed the slip contained in the Climate Gate e-mails? "It's a travesty that our models don't predict the current cooling trend." Perhaps you should check out the video I suggested you to see clear evidence of the correlation. You know, as you're very open-minded.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic,
Kevin Trenberth the man who said "It's a travesty ..." had the following to say:
"The quote refers to our observation system which is inadequate to observe Earth's energy flows at the accuracy needed to understand SMALL fluctuations in climate; it does not mean there is no global warming ..."
Perhaps you should refrain from quoting out of context, because you're very open-minded.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Let me ask you something, blue. Why is it you see man as the cause of all bad things in the world? Progressives like to think in ancient ways. They believe man must sacrifice to nature. It goes back to human sacrifice to hurling virgins into volcanos thinking it will appease the nature gods. Today, "progressives" believe in de-population and a return to living like our ancestors. Parallels, anyone? How is that progressive? You even stand in the way when we do want to build wind farms.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Dear Skeptic,
I don't see man as the cause of all that is bad in the world. You are attacking a strawman, not me.
What I assert is that mankind is capable of ceasing to do things that are harmfull to mankind.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
How else you do explain your theories on climate? Everything you mention, positions man as the culprit. You will not discuss climate changes before man's existence as your "theory" does not address them. So basically, you're asking people to believe in a theory which we can prove does not apply to 99% of all climatic changes in the earth's history, over others that possibly can. See the dilemma?
informedskeptic 2 years ago
@informedskeptic
If you think that climatologists can not explain natural changes in the cliamate or are not concerned to understand the causality of such events that only goes to show how deeply uninformed you are.
See Richard Alley's lecture on paleoclimatology and global warming at the AGU website of December 2009, "The bigest control knob" which speaks to the olace of CO2 in the understanding of natural climate changes.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Your extended rant about "progressives" is again an attack on a strawman. I do not hold any of these views which you ascribe to me.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
My friend,
The very men who developed the ice core data which allows you to speak of lags between temperature and atmosphric carbon dioxide, both expected to find this in the proxy record, and regard it to be evidence of a feed back process necessary to explain the magnitude of temperature changes during the transition between interglacial and glacial periods.
see "Timing of Atmospheric Co2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination iii"
Nicolas Caillon lead author.
enjoy!
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Another words this author is willing to suspend the cause / effect relationship when it is convenient to ensure his continued gov't funding. BTW, still waiting for answers to my questions.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Definition of feedback:
the process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input in order to regulate its further output.
Notice the word further. It didn't say previous. Unless the feedback could go back in time (800 - 2000 years), your theory is pure hogwash. Please put your the mechanics of your theory of feedback into layman's terms, instead of hiding behind nonsensical scientific jargon.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
The notion of how we enter a period of glaciation is that orbital variations (Milankovitch Theory) act as a trigger, which in turn is amplified by feedbacks.
As water, including ocean water, is warmed the solubility of gases decreases. Conversely as water cools the solubility of gases increases. This along with the release of CO2 from warming soils and melting permafrost account for the increase in CO2 and the resulting planet wide warming during transition to an interglacial.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
So you freely admit temperature drives CO2? There may be hope for you yet. If your arguing that this is the feedback effect with CO2 as the driver, there are numerous fatal flaws to that theory. 1. Why was the earth warming in the first place? The feedback effect doesn't work when there's no warming in the first place as you clearly stated. The graphs tell us it was not due to increased CO2 levels. [continued]
informedskeptic 2 years ago
In response to your objections:
1 During transition to an interglacial warming is initiated by orbital variations, i.e. more warmth from the sun. The word used is insolation (incident solar radiation). The 3 factors are eccentricity of orbit (effects distance from the sun), obliquity (axial tilt), and precession.
The effect of precession is that the tropical year (cycle of the seasons) is twenty minutes shorter that the sidreal year (time for one orbit).
bluetwinky 2 years ago
2. Why did the temperatures decrease while CO2 levels were very high. Under your scenario, temperatures would continue to increase with no cooling. Apparently, the feedback effect only works when it is convenient to your theory? 3. How does this disprove the theory that temperature always drives CO2? The graphs make it perfectly clear that that is the relationship. Please use the graphs to dispel that statement.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
In reply to points 2 & 3.
The general point regarding CO2 is that an increase of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increment of warming. A decrease in atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling. When the magnitude the response is smaller than the original forcing, regardless of what its origin is average global temperature will stabalize (the series will converge). A decrease or increase in insolation will set off a variety of feedbacks which have lags on different time scales.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
In reply to points 2 & 3.
When CO2 levels have been high temperature changes were initiated by Milankovitch Cycles. Conversly when they are low they are also initiated by Milankovitch Cycles.
These Milankovitch cycles by decreasing or increasing insolation are necessary but not sufficient for a interglacial or glacial period to be established and maintained.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Quite honestly, if you can't see the truth yet you'll never see it. I imagine it's tough to see through those ideological blinders you have on.
informedskeptic 2 years ago
Because sea ice always forms during winter and because it is winter in the Southern Hemisphere while it is summer in the North, the seasonal sea ice can increase while permanent ice continues to wane. The result is a greater area of sea ice, with continued sea level rise.
There are those who like use this situation to generate confusion.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Were you aware that during the majority of this planets existence there have been no ice caps at either pole? I'm sure it was due to man though [sarcasm off].
informedskeptic 2 years ago
The Artic has cooled?
This has been witnessed by the dramatic melting of the Artic Sea Ice.
The models are codified physics. Keep this in mind when you hear the scornfull comments of men like Mr Morano. What they are expressing scorn for are physics. What they are expressing scorn for are direct hands on lab work which demonstraits the nature of greenhouse gases.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
The models are not codified physics. Most importantly the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 is very much in doubt. Models could range from scary ina hypersensitive model and ho hum in a less sensitive model.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
True. There are a variety of notions regarding sensitivity. These range from the minority reports of fellows like Mr. Lindzen, who expects a very small sesitivity, to those who expect a change in global climate of a magnitude similar to the move from interglacial to glacial climate.
It is understood that these models do not tell us all that we would wish.
Classical physics does not answer all. And superconductivity is not fully understood. Partial understandings are of use.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
isn't global sea ice extent more important than arctic or antarctic ice extent?
I don't know what either is, I'm just wondering why the hyper sensitivity to arctic ice
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Owing to there geography of the North and South Poles they have for many million years been different. The artic ice cap floats on water which moderates the growth of ice. In the the antartctic the ice rests on land, which allows the accumulation to progress unchecked. In addition the geography of the antarctic allows for colder temperatures. The Antarctic has the lowest temperatures of any continent. Any good encyclopedia will give a description of the details.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
The reason why the arctic is look at so closely is two fold. First has to be because it is where dramatic changes have taken place. Discusions of this can be found at the NSIDC and NOAA.
The other reason is that back in the early 80s climatologists (including Hansen) predicted that the effects of Global warming would be see in the lose of Artic Ice and in the Antarctic Peninsula.
A distinction is made between sea ice which is seasonal, and multi year or permanent ice.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
The odd thing with regard to ice extent is that globally because the Antarctic is so cool and dry (it is in fact a desert) a warming of Antarctica increases humidity which has lead to more snow fall.
For these same reasons the higher inland regions of Greenland have see an increase in ice formation while those areas closer to the sea have had accelerated melt.
Point being an increase of sea ice can happen while land ice continues to decrease.
I think it is interesting.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
It is interesting, seeing as the big concern, is that less of the surface of the earth would be covered by white, which lets more sun in, which causes more warming
And melting ice, releases more CO2, causing warming
So if the antarctic is still growing, different geography, or no; it still negates the problem. It still reflects sunlight, and it still freezes more CO2 into the ice
Which is why, Global Ice Extent, is what we should be looking at
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Time, as they say, will tell.
My understanding is that the big concern is that increased atmospheric CO2 yeilds increased temperatures.
For recent times (the past 5 years) the SH winter sea ice area has increased. My research into the literature on sea ice shows that significant declines in SH sea ice area took place during the three decades before satelite observations began.
If you would like to point out were to look for more info I'll take the time to look.
Thanks
bluetwinky 2 years ago
CO2 does yield higher temps, it just does very little
The concern is, you get these feedback responses, like, you warm the ocean a little, you get more water vapor, which is the most powerful green house gas there is
You melt the glaciers, less sunlight is reflected, etc
just search "global warming feedback spiral". But, if the IPCC is correct about feedbacks, technically we shouldn't be able to get out of ice ages
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
earth covered in white, water vapor sucked out of the atmo, CO2 sucked out of the atmo by oceans cooling and getting trapped in ice
If the feedbacks are the driving force, I don't know how you exit an ice age, but the planet has done it multiple times
The only explanation that makes sense to me, is there is a bigger player in the climate that makes the feedbacks look bitty puzzle pieces
As far as more info, The skeptic side; Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy. These are the best
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
With regard to the size of feedbacks I do know that the Milankovitch effects are not thought to be enough to account for all of the warming going out of a glacial period or to account for all the cooling going into a glacial / out of an interglacial. Hence the need for a CO2 feedback. Warmer seas release CO2 & Cooler seas take up CO2 if the sea & air are in equilibrium with respect to CO2 content.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
If you know of any articles where Mr Lindzen, Mr Spencer, or Mr Christy speak on the subject of glaciation and paleoclimatology I would be very interested.
It is only fair of me to say that part of the reason for this is that I have heard the assertion that paleo-climatology does not support the assertions of Mr Linzen. The reasoning for saying this is that climate sensitivity for the past 800,000 years argues against his Iris Hypothesis.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
With the warming of oceans there are two feedbacks. One is the out gassing of CO2. The other feedback is dependent on air temp. Warmer air temps allow for larger quantities of water vapor while mantaining a relatively constant relative humidity. I think that this is something we agree about.
The thing about feedbacks is that to evaluate them it is necessary to quantify the W/m^2 for each forcing and feedback.
At the moment that is above my pay scale. ;)
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Pay scale? Yeah, this stuff has been above my pay scale for awhile, one of the reasons I'll come clean, I haven't read any of their scientific reports, I listen to them give presentations, they tend to be lighter on the calculus, and focus more on the over all results
Roy Spencer deals with the Iris, along with other theories based on clouds
Lindzen's big thing is measuring climate sensitivity directly, using a satellite measuring outgoing heat energy, then comparing it to temp
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Honestly, it would simple things up so much, if they just stopped talking about doing things stupidly
Cap and trade? Carbon taxes? Investing? INVESTING, in a 2000 year old technology; windmills? Since when is that investing?
If they just acted with a brain, we wouldn't even need this debate. Why aren't they talking about investing in Fusion? We almost have it working
What about Zero-Point Energy? The physics is done, its just engineering, aka, keep throwing money at it until you get something
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
If you haven't heard about Zero-Point Energy yet, that is some cool stuff. You know how every electron, in every atom, is always in motion?
ZPE, is what keeps them in motion. It exists everywhere. you know the 99.9% of the atom that is empty space? It has ZPE
With this technology, you can literally build a motor that runs on empty space. NOW THAT, is an investment. But this what happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
@LordVigeous666999
I am more than suspicious of any thing that sounds remotely like a free lunch which is why on the face of it a moter that runs on nothing sounds to good to be true.
Research into fusion seems worthwhile to me.
For reasons you know of I would like to see action on alternatives like conventional nuclear, wind, and solar thermal on a big scale. All of which seems more worthy than bailing out investment banks.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
I'm skeptical too, but it wouldn't be running on nothing. It would be running on the ZPE field. If I understand it correctly, the ZPE field is a field of churning energy
So it would work kinda like hydroelectric, the water flows, and turns the turbine. The ZPE would flow over the 'turbine' and create electricity
I too am skeptical, it is a pretty extraordinary claim, and I would want to see it work before I got on board
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I like fusion
I'm ok with wind and solar, but only if they are building it because it makes sense. If they are doing it because they think everything else will be out lawed, and they want to be the only power producers left, so they can charge super high prices
or, if they are doing it because they expect to get Gov hand outs, like carbon credits, or to avoid carbon taxes, etc
Then I don't like it. Then we're just wasting resources and making every body more poor
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Wow this guy rocks!
behaack 2 years ago
blablabla how lame!
simonpra 3 years ago
don't you think the arrival of "Climate Change", as a term is an admission that the skeptics won the debate?
I mean, CO2 is a green house gas, if you add it to the atmo, you will get SOME warming, so, if "global warming" isn't what you're concerned about, then CO2 is not the issue
If global warming proponents, have not horribly lost the debate, why did the term "Climate Change" arrive on the scene?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I have gardened in Oklahoma for 30 years - things are changing. This last year we had the wettest spring ever, my bees and pollinators were missing, we've had two ice storms in this state and I have no respect whatsoever for Inhofe. I will Vote for ANDREW RICE to take inhofe's office.
okiedragonlady2 4 years ago
10,000 years ago where I live in Ohio was underneath a glacier. Let me guess you think man made it warm 10,000 years ago.
tubfalbusen 4 years ago 3
How long has tar creek people been sitting on zinc and lead piles while Inhofe was in office and he wanted to distribute that chat on every road in Oklahoma. Inhofe was one of four senators to vote against energy assistance. Inhofe and Coburn voted against healthcare for Native Americans - in the Land of the Red Man. I have a lot of reason for not voting for this moron. At least you realize that the earth isn't just 6,000 years old. Good for you.
okiedragonlady2 4 years ago
re: tubfalbusen
==Let me guess you think man made it warm 10,000 years ago.==
Changes in the earth's orbit.
greyfalcon. net/ milankovitch
However that's way too slow the explain climatic behavior on the decades or centuries timescale.
greyflcn 2 years ago
I bet that would happen even if you weren't in Oklahoma.
johan404 2 years ago