CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Oneiric 3 · 31-12-2019 10:19pm

Happy New Year everyone!

Thargor · 31-12-2019 10:33pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you're admitting again that they're ill-judged predicitions, yet we should all be following them.

God it is nauseating reading your constant semantics and whataboutery.

Gaoth Laidir · 31-12-2019 10:44pm

Thargor wrote: »

God it is nauseating reading your constant semantics and whataboutery.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Happy New Year everyone!

You too!

Akrasia · 01-01-2020 12:46am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You didn't quote directly from the IPCC, you posted this link, in which the first line reads

That is what I said was incorrect. It has not lost ice in every decade, only two out of the four. It should read that the average decadal decrease has been 12.8%. Pedantic, yes, but one is more accurate than the other.

So you're admitting again that they're ill-judged predicitions, yet we should all be following them.

I replied to that message with a direct quote and a link and you said it was wrong

DIF · 01-01-2020 1:32am

The recent record breaking night time high temperatures in Scotland.... breaking the previous record high from 1948 by 0.5c.... the thing that troubles me is what happened in the 1940's to create nearly similar temperatures.... long before plastics / record air travel / motoring emissions etc etc.... maybe... just maybe climate change is natural phenomena.

Birdnuts · 01-01-2020 1:56am

DIF wrote: »

The recent record breaking night time high temperatures in Scotland.... breaking the previous record high from 1948 by 0.5c.... the thing that troubles me is what happened in the 1940's to create nearly similar temperatures.... long before plastics / record air travel / motoring emissions etc etc.... maybe... just maybe climate change is natural phenomena.

Near record cold over large parts of India ATM - doesn't get much attention as it doesn't fit the climate alarmism agenda I guess:rolleyes:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-to-record-coldest-day-in-over-a-century-imd-1632627-2019-12-30

Gaoth Laidir · 01-01-2020 2:26am

DIF wrote: »

The recent record breaking night time high temperatures in Scotland.... breaking the previous record high from 1948 by 0.5c.... the thing that troubles me is what happened in the 1940's to create nearly similar temperatures.... long before plastics / record air travel / motoring emissions etc etc.... maybe... just maybe climate change is natural phenomena.

This month's high was purely down to the Föhn effect, so very localised and nothing to do with ghg.

SeaBreezes · 01-01-2020 2:27am

Came across this today:

Links to many peer reviewed papers...
https://www.sott.net/article/426597-2019-science-Absolutely-no-climate-alarm

Happy New Year!!

Akrasia · 01-01-2020 10:55am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Came across this today:

Links to many peer reviewed papers...
https://www.sott.net/article/426597-2019-science-Absolutely-no-climate-alarm

Happy New Year!!

I clicked on a bunch of those links, every one of them went to the blog ’notrickzone’

A site that is 100% full of sh1t

SeaBreezes · 02-01-2020 3:16pm

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have sparked a storm of controversy in climate science by publishing a study describing a mathematical model that accurately predicts Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature for all rocky planets in the Solar System, including the Earth.
They are accurate to 1 degree Celsius.

They say temp is due to distance from sun and atmospheric pressure only.

They talk about it briefly, and their struggles to get published, except under pseudonyms here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww

Found links to their presentations at Porto 2018 conf for anyone interested:
https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/6-_porto_cc_day_1_1140_nikolov-zeller_sep2018.pptx

M.T. Cranium · 02-01-2020 3:40pm

Well this entire recent furore is about a temperature increase of about 1 C deg, give or take.

That Pentagon 2004 thing must have come from a loose cannon somewhere within the general realm of climate experts loosely defined, because it doesn't seem to match the party line of the IPCC all that closely, does it?

I don't recall in those days hearing much about a Siberian future for Britain, it was more like they would never see winter again (then came 2010).

My thoughts turn increasingly to a more political and less science-based emphasis for what I feel I should be trying to do, since the political aspects of the climate change movement trouble me more than the raw science. Other than the fact that I believe the warming is likely to be unalterable in part because of its natural components and in part because the changes to human behaviour required are very unlikely to happen (perhaps 10% might happen), I might not be that much opposed to their conclusions, but the political stance is not only illogical but seems dangerous to me. It creates false hopes that if we do certain things, then various outcomes can be avoided. This is a bit like saying to a driver in a car with no brakes, if you roll the window down and toss out your mobile phone, you might be able to stop.

Akrasia · 02-01-2020 7:32pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have sparked a storm of controversy in climate science by publishing a study describing a mathematical model that accurately predicts Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature for all rocky planets in the Solar System, including the Earth.
They are accurate to 1 degree Celsius.

They say temp is due to distance from sun and atmospheric pressure only.

They talk about it briefly, and their struggles to get published, except under pseudonyms here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww

Found links to their presentations at Porto 2018 conf for anyone interested:
https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/6-_porto_cc_day_1_1140_nikolov-zeller_sep2018.pptx

Can I ask if you find their theory plausible, what makes this theory more believable than the C02 driven greenhouse effect that has over a century of research and measurements to back it up

Akrasia · 02-01-2020 7:42pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Well this entire recent furore is about a temperature increase of about 1 C deg, give or take.

That Pentagon 2004 thing must have come from a loose cannon somewhere within the general realm of climate experts loosely defined, because it doesn't seem to match the party line of the IPCC all that closely, does it?

I don't recall in those days hearing much about a Siberian future for Britain, it was more like they would never see winter again (then came 2010).

My thoughts turn increasingly to a more political and less science-based emphasis for what I feel I should be trying to do, since the political aspects of the climate change movement trouble me more than the raw science. Other than the fact that I believe the warming is likely to be unalterable in part because of its natural components and in part because the changes to human behaviour required are very unlikely to happen (perhaps 10% might happen), I might not be that much opposed to their conclusions, but the political stance is not only illogical but seems dangerous to me. It creates false hopes that if we do certain things, then various outcomes can be avoided. This is a bit like saying to a driver in a car with no brakes, if you roll the window down and toss out your mobile phone, you might be able to stop.

With the greatest respect MT this is simply another denialist argument

Phase 1. There is no evidence of warming
Phase 2. There is some warming but it’s natural and nothing to with humans
Phase 3. Humans are responsible for some warming but nature will balance it out somehow
Phase 4. Humans are causing the warming but It’s impossible/too late to change it now so we might as well just accept it and prepare for the changes

At all steps of this chain there are ‘skeptics’ who think they know more than everyone else despite the fact that they were wrong in their previous claims and in all instances, these are the attitudes that are getting in the way of the rest of us actually implementing the changes required to minimize the consequences of climate change

Even if it’s too late to stop a lot of the harm, we still need to take action Because as long as we can avoid runaway climate change then we can still protect ourselves and our children from a completely catastrophic situation.

SeaBreezes · 02-01-2020 7:43pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have sparked a storm of controversy in climate science by publishing a study describing a mathematical model that accurately predicts Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature for all rocky planets in the Solar System, including the Earth.
They are accurate to 1 degree Celsius.

They say temp is due to distance from sun and atmospheric pressure only.

They talk about it briefly, and their struggles to get published, except under pseudonyms here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww

Found links to their presentations at Porto 2018 conf for anyone interested:
https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/6-_porto_cc_day_1_1140_nikolov-zeller_sep2018.pptx

This article goes through it nicely with links to presentations of the science
http://renewable.50webs.com/Zeller.Nikolov.html

Gaoth Laidir · 02-01-2020 7:52pm

Akrasia wrote: »

With the greatest respect MT this is simply another denialist argument

Phase 1. There is no evidence of warming
Phase 2. There is some warming but it’s natural and nothing to with humans
Phase 3. Humans are responsible for some warming but nature will balance it out somehow
Phase 4. Humans are causing the warming but It’s impossible/too late to change it now so we might as well just accept it and prepare for the changes

At all steps of this chain there are ‘skeptics’ who think they know more than everyone else despite the fact that they were wrong in their previous claims and in all instances, these are the attitudes that are getting in the way of the rest of us actually implementing the changes required to minimize the consequences of climate change

Even if it’s too late to stop a lot of the harm, we still need to take action Because as long as we can avoid runaway climate change then we can still protect ourselves and our children from a completely catastrophic situation.

There's that word 'skeptics' with the quote marks around it again. Why?

With the greatest respect, Akrasia, look at the bit in bold. You yourself have admitted that you're making no real sacrifices, drive a 1.8L petrol car, etc., as you feel that your own contribution matters not. So don't be including yourself in the word "us" when talking about people implementing change.

Anyway, here's the latest temperature chart versus the RCP4.5 members, with the provisional 2019 value included (based on the HadCRUT4 Jan-Nov annual median).

oriel36 · 02-01-2020 8:08pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

They say temp is due to distance from sun and atmospheric pressure only.

Climate across all planets in the solar system with an atmosphere is determined by the degree of inclination and the relationship of that inclination to the orbital plane -

https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif

Climate on a solar system scale is the rate of change in surface conditions across latitudes based on a spectrum between 90° to the orbital plane (Equatorial) and 0° inclination (polar) . All planets exist within this spectrum with the Earth having a largely Equatorial climate with a minor but sizable Polar input.

It is a fact, not disputed by anyone, that when daily rotation and all its effects are subtracted, the entire surface still has a single day/night cycle and rotation as a function of the Earth's orbital motion. Without this fact, even though it is plainly observed in the time lapse of Uranus much less inferred indirectly, climate research will remain the playground of experimental theorists. About 50 seconds in the dual surface rotations become isolated and pronounced -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

If the Earth had the 82° inclination of Uranus, the Arctic and Antarctic circles would expand towards 8° of the rotational equator on the Solstices making the planet uninhabitable as a polar climate would dominate with large swings in temperatures and daylight/darkness asymmetries throughout 6 months and an entire orbit.

The primary issue goes back to Copernicus and the framework he was forced to set his insights into for the framework of Ptolemy caused the difficulty while the older framework would have led Copernicus to retain his older and more productive view of the seasons as arising from dual surface rotations acting in combination -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]." Copernicus

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

Commentators here are theorists and not astronomers and by that I mean pre-empirical methods there were astronomers but not after the emergence of that late 17th century subculture. These people don't know how and when to stop as their entire careers are built on mathematical modeling without the slightest intuitive/perceptive restraints.

marathon19 · 02-01-2020 8:31pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, here's the latest temperature chart versus the RCP4.5 members, with the provisional 2019 value included (based on the HadCRUT4 Jan-Nov annual median).

Can you explain for me what your point is here?

Im only curious because I seen this recently in another article, yours has been slightly amended
https://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/29102015/exxon-overstates-uncertainty-climate-science

SeaBreezes · 02-01-2020 8:38pm

MT, I think you might enjoy the radio interview of Nikolov and Zeller here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QJgNNg18Ngs

It's such a simple law, It fascinates me. T (GMAT) = f (Sun, Atmosphere)
And just like Zharakova they have run it backwards as well as forwards.

SeaBreezes · 02-01-2020 8:53pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Can I ask if you find their theory plausible, what makes this theory more believable than the C02 driven greenhouse effect that has over a century of research and measurements to back it up

Are you going to dismiss it again Arkasia without actually listening to what they say?

Dr. Nikolov points out that the greenhouse gas theory violates the Energy-Conservation Law in trying to explain the atmospheric thermal effect exclusively through radiation. Specifically, the total amount of short wave solar radiation absorbed by the Earth is about 240 watts per square meter. The measured long wave radiation coming down from our atmosphere is about 343 watts per square meter. This downward long wave radiation has been falsely assumed to be due to greenhouse gases absorbing long wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface as it heats up through short wave radiation bombardment from the Sun. We thus have 43% more energy coming down from the atmosphere than all the energy received from the Sun in total. The most likely cause of this excess energy is gas compression heating, not the greenhouse effect, which by definition can only help contain energy created by the Sun.

"Interpreting atmospheric IR (infrared) back radiation as an external heating energy flux to the surface is like viewing the observed apparent rotation of celestial bodies "around" Earth as a "proof" that Earth was at the center of the Universe, a mistake made for 1000 years!" — Dr. Ned Nikolov

oriel36 · 02-01-2020 9:29pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

"Interpreting atmospheric IR (infrared) back radiation as an external heating energy flux to the surface is like viewing the observed apparent rotation of celestial bodies "around" Earth as a "proof" that Earth was at the center of the Universe, a mistake made for 1000 years!" — Dr. Ned Nikolov

The arguments were based on the periods it took the Sun and planets to move through the constellations where the Sun moved directly through the constellations while the planets 'wandered'. When Copernicus accounted for direct/retrograde motions of the slower moving planets, he set the Earth in motion between the 687 day orbital period of Mars and the 225 day orbital period of Venus -

" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler

The empirical modeler screwed up by asserting direct/retrogrades are only modeled from a hypothetical observer on the Sun -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Out of that crap he created absolute/relative space and motion while using a timekeeping framework called RA/Dec which he called absolute/relative time via the Equation of Time.

This is how that awful man associated the motion of the Sun around the Earth as equivalent to the Earth around the Sun -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

That nasty piece of vandalism created the 'scientific method' at the expense of the methods and insights of the original heliocentric astronomers.

The axiom for the Earth's orbital motion is that the Sun moved through the constellations in 365 days while the the axiom for the Earth's daily rotation is based on the Sun's motion around the Earth daily.

Bluff away but theorists are not astronomers and this world has paid dearly for their parasitic relationship to astronomy and Earth sciences.

M.T. Cranium · 02-01-2020 9:32pm

You might recall reading a few posts about the Toronto - CET temperature comparison a few pages back. I had a chance to go over that in more detail and found that with one slight detail the entire series is consistent with the concept that the two series are warming (or in early stages varying) at equal rates with the difference gradually overcome due to Toronto's large urban heat island.

The period roughly 1965 to 1982 saw Toronto temperatures fall back slightly relative to the CET. But closer examination suggests that only a few colder than normal winters and springs in this interval caused that discrepancy, otherwise the trend lines would have continued to merge as they had begun to do in the 1941 to 1965 interval.

Some IPCC supporters have told me two conflicting things, (a) natural variability is not in control of trends and (b) natural variability did not go away. I think this reveals that they view natural variability only as random variation, not as many of us would do, as longer-term swings up and down from the background trends over centuries. Otherwise, the two statements are logically inconsistent. If natural variability has not gone away then it could do what it has done in the past, namely, driving trends for decades in different directions. Here are some examples of longer term natural variations:

(a) snowfall increased at Toronto during the 1850s and stayed much higher than long-term averages until around 1890, then in sync with the temperature shift, the snowfall fell to lower values, in fact lower than 1941-70 for most of the period 1891-1940.

(b) The frequency of hot days (>32 C or 90 F) increased rapidly after 1894 at Toronto and also in the CET record (would note a slower increasing trend starting around 1898). This tendency reversed from 1922 to 1929 and resumed from 1930 to 1960. While 1961-77 was fairly productive for hot days in Toronto, it was not so in the CET records. Both are rather low for 1978-86, although both had the same exception -- 1983 -- then hot days increased rapidly at both locations and has reached about the same frequency as in the earlier hot period.

(c) Even before the Maunder minimum cold period, there were indications of long intervals of cool, wet climate interspersed with decades of warmer and drier conditions (although with less precision as many details were never noted).

Although the IPCC crowd are correct in general in saying that Milankovitch factors impose a slow decline of temperature after the post-glacial optimum about 5,000 years ago, they overstate this for recent centuries when the factors have all gone into nearly neutral mode. Longer term variations since about the time of the MWP are probably signs of larger scale natural varaibility than they acknowledge or envisage, for whatever reason. There is no logical reason to suppose that natural variability could not impose accelerating or decelerating warming trends on the recent climate. And there is much evidence that such a cause must exist for dramatic changes in the temperature trends around 1895 to 1921, as you'll be able to see in the Toronto180 file once I get it fully ready for posting (still thinking Jan 10th or so).

oriel36 · 02-01-2020 9:46pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Although the IPCC crowd are correct in general in saying that Milankovitch factors impose a slow decline of temperature after the post-glacial optimum about 5,000 years ago, they overstate this for recent centuries when the factors have all gone into nearly neutral mode.

5,200 years ago on the December Solstice, our astronomical ancestors stood in a chamber on a hillside in Meath and watched the dawn Sun light up that chamber. That only happens when the North and South poles are equidistant to the planet's divisor or circle of illumination so it still occurs on the Solstice today.

https://www.newgrange.com/newgrange/winter-solstice.jpg

In other words, axial precession as a solution for the precession of the equinoxes was always wrong -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg

Had Copernicus used the older framework which creates the calendar system, he would have discovered that the same observation which keeps dates fixed to the Solstice and Equinox points where there is a drift in the position of Sirius by one day after the fourth 365 day cycle is also responsible for the precession of the Equinoxes as a further refinement. The exact proportion of rotations to orbital circuits is not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 years or 365 1/4 rotations for 1 circuit hence the further necessity for refinement using a slight drift in the position of the stars with each circuit.-

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

The Earth's poles, indeed the entire surface, turns parallel to the Sun and the orbital plane each year like this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg

Theorists are not astronomers and they have dug a hole for humanity of intellectual pretense and at the expense of astronomy and Earth sciences. They admire themselves and each other through their modeling but can't see what is in front of them, a particular form of blindness inherited from their student days.

Thargor · 02-01-2020 11:23pm

oriel36 wrote: »

5,200 years ago on the December Solstice, our astronomical ancestors stood in a chamber on a hillside in Meath and watched the dawn Sun light up that chamber. That only happens when the North and South poles are equidistant to the planet's divisor or circle of illumination so it still occurs on the Solstice today.

https://www.newgrange.com/newgrange/winter-solstice.jpg

In other words, axial precession as a solution for the precession of the equinoxes was always wrong -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg

Had Copernicus used the older framework which creates the calendar system, he would have discovered that the same observation which keeps dates fixed to the Solstice and Equinox points where there is a drift in the position of Sirius by one day after the fourth 365 day cycle is also responsible for the precession of the Equinoxes as a further refinement. The exact proportion of rotations to orbital circuits is not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 years or 365 1/4 rotations for 1 circuit hence the further necessity for refinement using a slight drift in the position of the stars with each circuit.-

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

The Earth's poles, indeed the entire surface, turns parallel to the Sun and the orbital plane each year like this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg

Theorists are not astronomers and they have dug a hole for humanity of intellectual pretense and at the expense of astronomy and Earth sciences. They admire themselves and each other through their modeling but can't see what is in front of them, a particular form of blindness inherited from their student days.

Jesus you are the biggest spoofer in this thread and thats saying something. What is your point with this gibberish? Climate change isnt real because NASA and the rest haven't calculated the Earths axial tilt properly? They need to use your equations instead?

Gaoth Laidir · 03-01-2020 12:01am

marathon19 wrote: »

Can you explain for me what your point is here?

Im only curious because I seen this recently in another article, yours has been slightly amended
https://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/29102015/exxon-overstates-uncertainty-climate-science

Mine is from the IPCC, showing just the RCP4.5 scenario members. It shows that the recent decades has not warmed as much as the vast majority of the various scenarios predict for that RCP. It's lagging behind somewhat. I just updated it today with the 2019 figure.

SeaBreezes · 03-01-2020 12:06am

Just curious, what was the global average temp for 2019? Or is it too early for it to be calculated?

Gaoth Laidir · 03-01-2020 12:13am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Just curious, what was the global average temp for 2019? Or is it too early for it to be calculated?

The HadCRUT4 had it at +0.76 (1961-90) for Jan-Nov. The chart above shows relative to 1986-2005.

Gaoth Laidir · 03-01-2020 12:30am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Are you going to dismiss it again Arkasia without actually listening to what they say?

Dr. Nikolov points out that the greenhouse gas theory violates the Energy-Conservation Law in trying to explain the atmospheric thermal effect exclusively through radiation. Specifically, the total amount of short wave solar radiation absorbed by the Earth is about 240 watts per square meter. The measured long wave radiation coming down from our atmosphere is about 343 watts per square meter. This downward long wave radiation has been falsely assumed to be due to greenhouse gases absorbing long wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface as it heats up through short wave radiation bombardment from the Sun. We thus have 43% more energy coming down from the atmosphere than all the energy received from the Sun in total. The most likely cause of this excess energy is gas compression heating, not the greenhouse effect, which by definition can only help contain energy created by the Sun.

"Interpreting atmospheric IR (infrared) back radiation as an external heating energy flux to the surface is like viewing the observed apparent rotation of celestial bodies "around" Earth as a "proof" that Earth was at the center of the Universe, a mistake made for 1000 years!" — Dr. Ned Nikolov

I'm not 100% convinced by that argument. The composition of the atmosphere gives us a 33-degree warming over what it would be without an atmosphere. Keeping TOA solar output constant, varying that composition of the atmosphere by the addition of molecules that abosorb outgoing longwave surface radiation will lead to a warming due to back radiation. The big uncertainty lies over the magnitude of this effect (climate sensitivity) in the current case. The IPCC have almost given up on trying to put a figure on it, with the latest model updates putting the cat among the pigeons as they are in the final stages of preparing AR6. They're now stating an even larger figure for climate sensitivity than ever.

But the science is still settled...

Gaoth Laidir · 03-01-2020 12:38am

I thought this was interesting.

https://youtu.be/yXmJU-9Zkrk

Throughout Glacier National Park, visitors were met with signs, brochures and messages proclaiming that all of the Park's glaciers were expected to melt away by 2020. But by 2019 NOT EVEN ONE of the glaciers had disappeared. During the winter of 2018-2019--while the St. Mary Visitor Center was closed to the public--the government quietly altered the 'Gone by 2020' signs. And they would have gotten away with it if not for Roger Roots of Lysander Spooner University.

SeaBreezes · 03-01-2020 12:40am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced by that argument. The composition of the atmosphere gives us a 33-degree warming over what it would be without an atmosphere. Keeping TOA solar output constant, varying that composition of the atmosphere by the addition of molecules that abosorb outgoing longwave surface radiation will lead to a warming due to back radiation. The big uncertainty lies over the magnitude of this effect (climate sensitivity) in the current case. The IPCC have almost given up on trying to put a figure on it, with the latest model updates putting the cat among the pigeons as they are in the final stages of preparing AR6. They're now stating an even larger figure for climate sensitivity than ever.

But the science is still settled...

They expand more on it in the radio interview. Interesting though!

Gaoth Laidir · 03-01-2020 2:08am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

They expand more on it in the radio interview. Interesting though!

I've listened to the whole piece and have downloaded the paper to have a read. The radio show does seem like one of those chemtrail conspiracy-type talking shops, though, but still, the paper is there to read.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments