Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

Ah, so your presumption is that the proposed "green new deal" is the real problem?

I'll stick to one.

States and Countries are banning ICE cars and fossil fuel power plants. They are pushing EV's. EV's need electricity. See the problem? More demand for electricity and less generating capacity. All to supposedly stop catastrophic "climate change" Which right now tends to be warming.

What is that going to do to the warming?

What is all that new demand going to do to the price of electricity?

What is the benefit?

Does the benefit out weigh the harm?

Have to ask some questions.

Can we stop or start global warming? If yes how.
Can we start global cooling? If yes why are we not doing this?

It's all politics, I drive a mustang the cost of fuel has gone up over a dollar per gallon simply due to policy decisions that relate directly to "climate change"

We are punishing ourselves for something we cannot control.

Someone will twist this out of shape I'm sure.

Sponsored

 

[CJJon]

I'll stick to one.

States and Countries are banning ICE cars and fossil fuel power plants. They are pushing EV's. EV's need electricity. See the problem? More demand for electricity and less generating capacity. All to supposedly stop catastrophic "climate change" Which right now tends to be warming.

What is that going to do to the warming?

What is all that new demand going to do to the price of electricity?

What is the benefit?

Does the benefit out weigh the harm?

Have to ask some questions.

Can we stop or start global warming? If yes how.
Can we start global cooling? If yes why are we not doing this?

It's all politics, I drive a mustang the cost of fuel has gone up over a dollar per gallon simply due to policy decisions that relate directly to "climate change"

We are punishing ourselves for something we cannot control.

Someone will twist this out of shape I'm sure.

These are mostly all valid questions. The issue is when you deny the science because you either don;t know the answers or they are inconvenient.

As soon as you devolve into politics and claims that there isn't anything that can be done about it is where you run astray. Your energy would be better placed by accepting what the facts seem to show and then try and work on solutions to your questions.

 

[CJJon]

Just caught this on a site regarding some climate data

"Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda—political, religious or economic."

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-iconic-graph-center-climate-debate.html

 

[Burkey]

The sun may offer key to predicting El Niño, groundbreaking study finds (msn.com)

Hello; Here is a new report from scientists. There is one line which struck me as fitting for the way this thread has been going.

It seems when the early evidence was presented to a "climate scientists" he responded that 60 years of study (on sun cycles I suppose) is not good enough for a 20 years (sun) cycle.

Let me think about that. The climate models are made on computers which have not been in use all that long. The computer climate models are making statements about climate cycles that can take hundreds of thousands of years. Sorry about that.

Ok, I read the article and I see nothing contained in it that seems like it might overturn the theory of AGW.
It seems to me that there’s some confusion amongst those who don’t accept/outright reject/are sceptical of the theory...

Correct me if I’m wrong here because I would hate to misrepresent your position...but...here goes.
It seems that you‘re conflating two separate (yet intertwined) topics.
I’ve numbered my questions for simplicity.

1. For absolute clarity, can we agree that AGW refers to the relationship between human emitted CO2 (specifically) and the impact it has on the various other GHG’s in circulation (eg. A warmer climate releases more sequestered methane, allows for a higher concentration of water-vapour and releases more of the sequestered CO2, as a few examples)? If not, please point out which part/s you object to specifically.

2. Can we agree that if the Earth is indeed warming, as shown by every observation we have available, it would by its very nature, precipitate a change in climactic patterns?

3. Can we agree that the theory of climactic change by CO2 was established well before the computer arrived?
I’ll actually just cut and paste so that we can be clear about the age of these observations and how our understanding has evolved as we’ve (I say “we” as if any of us have anywhere near the aptitude for this as these guys) been able to hone in more specifically on each contributing factor.

“In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5–6 degrees Celsius.

By the late 1890s, Samuel Pierpoint Langley along with Frank W. Very had attempted to determine the surface temperature of the Moon by measuring infrared radiation leaving the Moon and reaching the Earth. The angle of the Moon in the sky when a scientist took a measurement determined how much CO2 and water vapor the Moon's radiation had to pass through to reach the Earth's surface, resulting in weaker measurements when the Moon was low in the sky. This result was unsurprising given that scientists had known about infrared radiation absorption for decades.

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5–6 degrees Celsius.

Further, Arrhenius' colleague Arvid Högbom, who was quoted in length in Arrhenius' 1896 study On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth had been attempting to quantify natural sources of emissions of CO2 for purposes of understanding the global carbon cycle. Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources. Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.“

So yeah, it seems that these guys were insanely brilliant and not one of them was using a computer to make their predictions.
Yes, they made some mistakes in their analysis, which stemmed from a lack of available data and at times, what appears now to be inductive reasoning (“CO2 is good for plants, therefore more of it must be better” type stuff) Here we are, 150 years of data collection later, with NOTHING that refutes their basic premise and EVERYTHING we’ve since learned further confirming that they were fundamentally correct.

Meanwhile, we have one bloke arguing that “it’s water vapour” and that “the scientists aren’t allowing for it“, despite the fact that an understanding of water vapour has existed for about as long as the whole damn theory.

4. Do you accept that AGW attempts to solve the riddle of why the planet is warming while the sun is cooling?

5. Do you accept that CC is the expected result of a warmer/cooler planet?

6. Do you accept that certain predictions CAN be made?
Eg. If we understand the precursor events that lead up
to the formation of a tornado (as one example), we can be reasonably confident (by a combination of observation and physics for example) that if we change one of the precursors (temperature as one example) that it will cause that event to occur either more/less often and with more/less intensity?

7. Do you accept that if we can do #6, it’s entirely possible to make predictions as to which regions are most likely to see the changes, due to latitude/altitude or other geographical indicators?

These aren’t trick questions. I’m asking them because you seem the most reasonable of the responders and I’m genuinely interested to see where your understanding or interpretation varies from mine.

Enquiring minds ask questions.
I’ve seen you ask plenty. I’m asking out of respect for your capacity for critical thought.

On the flip side, I don’t see so many coming from the resident nutcase though. He seems to think he has all the answers already. A pointless discussion if I’ve ever seen one.

Also, for any of the scientifically literate people on this thread, if you feel I’ve failed to word this adequately/misrepresented certain aspects, please dive in and correct me.
@CJJon
@RPDBlueMoon
@HiTekExec
I’m sure there are others, apologies for failing to tag you.
The alcohol and cigarettes have taken their toll on my mind. At The current rate, I could lose enough grey-matter to become a YEC before I die.

 

[sk47]

Ok, I read the article and I see nothing contained in it that seems like it might overturn the theory of AGW.

Hello; Let me address this part first. I was making a very specific point when I cited that article about the one statement. That data collected for 60 years is not good enough for a cycle lasting 22 years. I have directly quoted it in a different post.
It was the irony of that particular statement which struck me. Here was a study which put sun cycles up as a potentially significant factor of climate effect on earth. That the author found a way to effectively dismiss the study by saying 60 years of data on a 22 year cycle was not good enough to draw conclusions.
The irony is the climate cycles most recently have been the glacial advances and retreats over hundreds of thousands of years for one cycle. There have been at least five advances of the ice sheets on North American.

Best I can recall from memory is the ice sheets retreated around ten thousand years ago. back a few decades ago I was reading that we were about to head into another cooling period. The climate scientists of the time. Human written history is far shorter than even that most recent interglacial period. It would seem that even if from the earliest written time of humans had they been keeping data on climate it would fall short of the authors standard. If data from three cycles of sun activity is not good enough for a 22 year cycle, then data from only a fraction of a glacial ought to be in question.

I will concede that we can get some old data from ice cores. Even if it was completely reliable data and from places all over the globe it would still be only a fraction of one glacial cycle. The ice has only persisted in a few places and best I can recall is not that old. The ice in a glacier is like a slow river. The very old ice has been cycled thru as the ice slides along and falls into the sea.

 

[CJJon]

More nutty personal attacks. What...A...Total...Kook!

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Let me address this part first. I was making a very specific point when I cited that article about the one statement. That data collected for 60 years is not good enough for a cycle lasting 22 years. I have directly quoted it in a different post.
It was the irony of that particular statement which struck me. Here was a study which put sun cycles up as a potentially significant factor of climate effect on earth. That the author found a way to effectively dismiss the study by saying 60 years of data on a 22 year cycle was not good enough to draw conclusions.

But..you...are...wrong. The study was NOT dismissed! Certainly no one is taking issue with the study design or the data interpretation that has been done thus far. They just want to see more data.

Folks, we have a reading comprehension problem here.

I will post one more time. Show me where it says the study was dismissed? What you are seeing is a scientist being skeptical! It isn't a bad thing they just want more data. They are not jumping to conclusions... They are doing it right!

Good grief...

"Mathew Barlow, a professor of climate science at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, described the findings as a “potentially interesting empirical relationship,” but said the proof is in the pudding when it comes to using those findings.

What does it mean when the sun is spotless and serene?
“We have yet to see whether the relationship, even if truly robust, can measurably improve current forecasts,” he wrote in an email. “My own personal interest level would tick up noticeably based on … the identification of a plausible physical mechanism underlying the relationship.”

Others point to the short time scale over which observations were used to draw conclusions. Among them is Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an El Niño expert.

“Intuition should warn you that roughly 60 years of data is not enough to tell you anything conclusive about a 22-year cycle,” he wrote."

 

[martinjlm]

I said I’d stay out of this thread. Dammit.

I'll stick to one.

States and Countries are banning ICE cars and fossil fuel power plants. They are pushing EV's. EV's need electricity. See the problem? More demand for electricity and less generating capacity. All to supposedly stop catastrophic "climate change" Which right now tends to be warming.

States have not “banned” ICE cars. California, Maine, and Washington state have all directed their regulatory agencies to investigate what it would take to enact a ban. None of those regulatory agencies have reported back yet. Their reports can range from “this is how you would do it” to “here’s how you should modify the legislation” to “we advise that you not do this”.

It should also be pointed out that most (if not all) states are adding electricity generation, but not adding coal powered plants. Most states are decommissioning coal plants as they bring hydro, solar, and other renewable energy generation online. TLDR-The grid will be bigger and with different forms of generation, mostly renewable.

What is that going to do to the warming?

What is all that new demand going to do to the price of electricity?

Probably go up. Somebody’s gotta pay for all the new plants. But it won’t approach the relative cost of gasoline in our lifetimes.

What is the benefit?

Does the benefit out weigh the harm?

Renewable energy trumps (no pun intended) non-renewable energy. It’s difficult to say that anything man-initiated will not cause some harm somewhere. The issue will become one of balance. I would expect that it is intended that the benefit outweighs the bad. Can I guarantee that this will be the case? Not my job. My opinion is that it will.

Have to ask some questions.

Can we stop or start global warming? If yes how.
Can we start global cooling? If yes why are we not doing this?

. First, the answer to the questions asked is “no”. But then the questions are not well focused. The issue is GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, not just global warming or global cooling. There will always be some climate change. Has been since the beginning of time. The question is, is the climate changing faster than is safe and is the acceleration in change driven by man’s intervention? My opinion is yes and yes.

It's all politics, I drive a mustang the cost of fuel has gone up over a dollar per gallon simply due to policy decisions that relate directly to "climate change"

If it was “all politics” it would be the first time that the political bodies of pretty much every European nation, most South American nations, the US, Canada, and even China agree on something. If so, who benefits and how? Mankind, maybe? Just spit-ballin’.

We are punishing ourselves for something we cannot control.

Someone will twist this out of shape I'm sure.

 

[CJJon]

More personal attacks. Guy must be a riot around the house.

 

[sk47]

But..you...are...wrong. The study was NOT dismissed! Certainly no one is taking issue with the study design or the data interpretation that has been done thus far. They just want to see more data.

Folks, we have a reading comprehension problem here.

Hello; Yes we do have a reading comprehension issue here. I wrote the study was "effectively" dismissed. If three cycles of a 22 year cycle is not enough then how many cycles will it take? Five cycles. Six cycles or more? At 22 years a cycle the study will be in limbo for at least 22 more years, maybe 44 years or even 66 years. Seems pretty "effective" to me.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Also, for any of the scientifically literate people on this thread, if you feel I’ve failed to word this adequately/misrepresented certain aspects, please dive in and correct me.
@CJJon
@RPDBlueMoon
@HiTekExec
I’m sure there are others, apologies for failing to tag you.
The alcohol and cigarettes have taken their toll on my mind. At The current rate, I could lose enough grey-matter to become a YEC before I die.

I would say that for the most part generally you are on, however one thing you didn't mention is the effects of the ocean. The ocean 70% of the earth and is responsible for the majority of photosynthesis, and absorbing the heat (taking up CO2). Ocean acidification is a side effect of excess carbon in the atmosphere, due to it increasing hydrogen ions in the ocean. Water has a very high heat capacity, meaning it can "hold in heat" before increasing in temperature. This is why coastal areas have a more milder climate than places that are inland. On land the heat cannot be absorbed by the ground or cement which is why inland temperatures fluctuate more.

As I have mentioned before too many people get wrapped up in just observing land temperature or atmospheric temperature and making quick judgments which doesn't make sense as Nature is not simple and is in a constant state of flux and variation. You cannot view a global problem under one lens. Processes influence one another, which is why I mentioned the positive feedback loops of what is occurring (ice reflects sunlight, ice is melting so less sunlight is reflected meaning more heat or something like photosynthesis decreasing in the ocean because of ocean acidification, nutrient pollution/runoff creating deadzones in rivers and oceans, loss of biodiversity which leads to loss of nutrient exchanges). You cannot deny the effects that are happening because the of excess carbon that is entering the environment. More CO2 is put in than it can be transferred into its organic form. The arguments that I have seen are purely political or strawman fallacies.

Climatology and meteorology are specialized sub disciplines, and is a relatively small field compared to the wider scope of Biology. The processes are extremely complex which is why the classes and majors aren't usually offered for undergrads. Most of my knowledge is in marine biology which means that there is alot of overlap with oceanography. There are effects that are seen in other disciplines of biology. Phenology is changing, flowers are blooming earlier in the year causing a mismatch between the plant and pollinators, animals such as a rabbit or fox that change their coat for the summer/winter are doing it later and earlier making it them easy prey or hard to catch prey, there is a increase in tropical diseases in climates that are not tropical, poleward expansion of organisms. The list goes on. These are not normal.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Hello; Let me address this part first. I was making a very specific point when I cited that article about the one statement. That data collected for 60 years is not good enough for a cycle lasting 22 years. I have directly quoted it in a different post.
It was the irony of that particular statement which struck me. Here was a study which put sun cycles up as a potentially significant factor of climate effect on earth. That the author found a way to effectively dismiss the study by saying 60 years of data on a 22 year cycle was not good enough to draw conclusions.
The irony is the climate cycles most recently have been the glacial advances and retreats over hundreds of thousands of years for one cycle. There have been at least five advances of the ice sheets on North American.

Best I can recall from memory is the ice sheets retreated around ten thousand years ago. back a few decades ago I was reading that we were about to head into another cooling period. The climate scientists of the time. Human written history is far shorter than even that most recent interglacial period. It would seem that even if from the earliest written time of humans had they been keeping data on climate it would fall short of the authors standard. If data from three cycles of sun activity is not good enough for a 22 year cycle, then data from only a fraction of a glacial ought to be in question.

I will concede that we can get some old data from ice cores. Even if it was completely reliable data and from places all over the globe it would still be only a fraction of one glacial cycle. The ice has only persisted in a few places and best I can recall is not that old. The ice in a glacier is like a slow river. The very old ice has been cycled thru as the ice slides along and falls into the sea.

What temperature data are you talking about though? There are data sets from the ocean temperature that goes way back into the 1880s, thats 140 years and you can clearly see the rise on temperature over the baseline in the base 3 decades. There also data sets measuring pH that go way back as well and its clear that the pH has been steadily dropping abnormally in the past decades. Fluctuations in temperature and the pH are normal however, when you have massive die offs and the increased rate of marine heatwaves that is abnormal.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Yes we do have a reading comprehension issue here. I wrote the study was "effectively" dismissed. If three cycles of a 22 year cycle is not enough then how many cycles will it take? Five cycles. Six cycles or more? At 22 years a cycle the study will be in limbo for at least 22 more years, maybe 44 years or even 66 years. Seems pretty "effective" to me.

Semantics now?

Here is the quote...where does it say it was dismissed, effectively or otherwise? He is just cautioning not to be conclusive until we have more data.

'Others point to the short time scale over which observations were used to draw conclusions. Among them is Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an El Niño expert.

“Intuition should warn you that roughly 60 years of data is not enough to tell you anything conclusive about a 22-year cycle,” he wrote." '

Sheesh!

 

[sk47]

What temperature data are you talking about though? There are data sets from the ocean temperature that goes way back into the 1880s, thats 140 years and you can clearly see the rise on temperature over the baseline in the base 3 decades. There also data sets measuring pH that go way back as well and its clear that the pH has been steadily dropping abnormally in the past decades. Fluctuations in temperature and the pH are normal however, when you have massive die offs and the increased rate of marine heatwaves that is abnormal.

Hello; OK so data from 140 years out of climate cycles of hundreds of thousands of years if we limit to only the most recent ICE AGE climate events. I know this will not be a good analogy so do not make a federal case out of it.
This might be like taking the temperature for 15 minutes one day and then making calls for a year. Weak analogy to be sure.

Now if the data is used to say there is an absolute gradual warming of oceans, then you might have a case. I use a sports analogy. If records are kept in sports for s long time you can have a way to compare past players to current players unless some standard has changed. Lets use college baseball. In the past they all used wooden bats and now they use aluminum bats. Makes it hard to do direct comparisons.

If the temperature measures of the oceans were taken using a standard procedure at the same places and times of the year and other such standards have been in place then we can have confidence in the data.
It is part of using significant numbers. If I measure something using feet as my smallest unit and you measure using inches as the smallest unit, then the confidence of the combined results cannot have a confidence any closer than a foot.

I am not saying the oceans are not getting warmer. It seems they are. This is not in dispute as far as I can tell.

 

[HiTekExec]

I may be on the short side, but I don’t recall ever stating that I’m an atheist or a climate-change addict, or any type of an addict for that matter; once again, you’re assuming facts not in evidence... Overruled

Sponsored