Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…4647495152…94

Comments

  • Options
    #1442
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    posidonia wrote: »
    There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.



    Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?



    Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.

    Apples and oranges. Coronavirus research versus the trillion-dollar climate research. Which do you think should have the higher knowledge pool and hence confidence?

    Historical records have shown that temperature precedes CO2. This is not disputed by anyone. A natural increase in temperature 200 years ago has led to the natural outgassing of CO2 since, topped up by anthropogenic emissions, and is now around 46% higher than the "stable" figure of 280 ppm of back then. CO2 would have been rising anyway even if we never drilled for oil. The Keeling Curve only starts in 1958 and people seem to think that this is 100% anthropogenic CO2, but it's mainly natural. So, the questions distills down to how much does that non-natural bit of it contribute to the total amount of warming, given that a century of natural warming has shifted the baseline and already accounts for x% of that degree or so.


  • Options
    #1443
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.
    There are ranges of uncertainty and the extremes are the least likely to be the real climate sensitivity. The most likely figure for ECS is closer to 3c and given that the last decade has seen global average temperatures already exceeded 1c above preindustrial levels according to most of the temperature reconstructions, you need to rely on some unproven negative feedback to kick in and reverse the warming effects of C02

    Meaning there are some studies out (e.g. Bates 2016) that has it down around 1.0, but of course we don't like to talk about him on this forum...

    The way some of you are going on you'd think that it's all "virtually certain" with everything IPCC, but it's really not. It brings us back to that one UAH versus Mears TLT dataset again. Which is right? Low confidence. Settled science is not low confidence.
    You have no scientific justification for believing that Ray Bates climate sensitivity figure is the correct one. On what basis do you think he is right over the CMIP6 climate models that show substantially greater ECS especially considering that Bates figure of 1c has already been reached and we are nowhere near EQuilibrium for the current CO2 concentration never mind the additional CO2 needed to double preindustrial levels


  • Options
    #1444
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Apples and oranges. Coronavirus research versus the trillion-dollar climate research. Which do you think should have the higher knowledge pool and hence confidence?
    Trillion dollar climate research???
    Where did you get this figure from?
    Historical records have shown that temperature precedes CO2. This is not disputed by anyone. A natural increase in temperature 200 years ago has led to the natural outgassing of CO2 since, topped up by anthropogenic emissions, and is now around 46% higher than the "stable" figure of 280 ppm of back then. CO2 would have been rising anyway even if we never drilled for oil. The Keeling Curve only starts in 1958 and people seem to think that this is 100% anthropogenic CO2, but it's mainly natural. So, the questions distills down to how much does that non-natural bit of it contribute to the total amount of warming, given that a century of natural warming has shifted the baseline and already accounts for x% of that degree or so.
    Do you have a paper from a reputable source to back up your claim that human emissions are not the main cause of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?
    Because all the research I have seen is that nature is actually absorbing about half of the addition CO2 emitted by humans in carbon sinks


  • Options
    #1445
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    You know the same thing was running through my head.
    There's no arguing with a religion.
    And I've spent too much time here. Have a great day and thanks for the thread MT!! I'm signing out too.

    Never answered my question about Ronan Connollys weather balloons. Not an ounce of integrity. Comes in here posting nonsense and then when the sources are shown to be untrustworthy he just pretends it never happened and doesn’t even acknowledge that he was wrong to believe a fraudster. You can be sure he’ll post about the Connollys again some time in the future when he thinks he will get away with it.


  • Options
    #1446
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Longing wrote: »
    AIR TEMPERATURES AT ARMAGH OBSERVATORY, NORTHERN IRELAND,
    FROM 1796 TO 2002

    Good Info and graphs especially what was discussed earlier in the week about Valentia.


    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.1148

    The very first line talks about how the data was adjusted for time of day and exposure. Where are all the fake outrage calls that they should only ever use raw unadjusted data?

    This paper is dancing on the grave of those dead scientists for not using their raw unadjusted data....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1447
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There are ranges of uncertainty and the extremes are the least likely to be the real climate sensitivity. The most likely figure for ECS is closer to 3c and given that the last decade has seen global average temperatures already exceeded 1c above preindustrial levels according to most of the temperature reconstructions, you need to rely on some unproven negative feedback to kick in and reverse the warming effects of C02


    You have no scientific justification for believing that Ray Bates climate sensitivity figure is the correct one. On what basis do you think he is right over the CMIP6 climate models that show substantially greater ECS especially considering that Bates figure of 1c has already been reached and we are nowhere near EQuilibrium for the current CO2 concentration never mind the additional CO2 needed to double preindustrial levels

    Natural warming already set the ball in motion, shifting the baseline upwards, so your 1 degree already includes this in it. CO2 naturally lags temperature, so the anthro part is a bit added onto the end of that.


  • Options
    #1448
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Trillion dollar climate research???
    Where did you get this figure from?

    Sorry, I meant billions for researh. Trillions is the figure being spoken about for mitigation.
    Do you have a paper from a reputable source to back up your claim that human emissions are not the main cause of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?
    Because all the research I have seen is that nature is actually absorbing about half of the addition CO2 emitted by humans in carbon sinks

    That's good then. Nature is releasing CO2, which is being partially offset by reabsorption. The equilibrium shifts upwards, with the anthro bit adding x%.

    Do you accept that natural warming that started back after the Little Ice Age released CO2? If you don't then there's your problem.


  • Options
    #1449
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The very first line talks about how the data was adjusted for time of day and exposure. Where are all the fake outrage calls that they should only ever use raw unadjusted data?

    This paper is dancing on the grave of those dead scientists for not using their raw unadjusted data....
    With a short gap in the Armagh data from 1825 to 1833 filled by data from two stations in Dublin

    Because Armagh is "only an hour from Dublin". :pac:

    If 8 years' data are missing then they're missing. This filling in from other stations business is for the birds. Who knows where thos 1930s figures for Knock Airport came from...

    But we shouldn't ask questions about this. The guys in NASA know Mayo like the back of their hands...


  • Options
    #1450
    Nabber
    Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Because Armagh is "only an hour from Dublin". :pac:

    If 8 years' data are missing then they're missing. This filling in from other stations business is for the birds. Who knows where thos 1930s figures for Knock Airport came from...

    But we shouldn't ask questions about this. The guys in NASA know Mayo like the back of their hands...

    What’s 150 kilometres amongst friends?


  • Options
    #1451
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Natural warming already set the ball in motion, shifting the baseline upwards, so your 1 degree already includes this in it. CO2 naturally lags temperature, so the anthro part is a bit added onto the end of that.


    That is nonsense.


    You simply need to work out how much CO2 the burning of fossil fuels will have produced to see its is vastly more than there is in the atmosphere - the difference is sequestration. The increase of CO2 from ~280 ppm to ~410ppm is (that's IS) humanities doing. Period.



    However, if you seek to further quibble, you probably also know that fossil fuel derived CO2 has a different isotopic signature - further proof the increase is our doing.


    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/



    There are many things you can quibble about wrt the human influence on climate, the rise in atmosphere CO2 conc isn't one of them...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1452
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Apples and oranges. Coronavirus research versus the trillion-dollar climate research. Which do you think should have the higher knowledge pool and hence confidence?

    Historical records have shown that temperature precedes CO2. This is not disputed by anyone. A natural increase in temperature 200 years ago has led to the natural outgassing of CO2 since, topped up by anthropogenic emissions, and is now around 46% higher than the "stable" figure of 280 ppm of back then. CO2 would have been rising anyway even if we never drilled for oil. The Keeling Curve only starts in 1958 and people seem to think that this is 100% anthropogenic CO2, but it's mainly natural. So, the questions distills down to how much does that non-natural bit of it contribute to the total amount of warming, given that a century of natural warming has shifted the baseline and already accounts for x% of that degree or so.


    Again:



    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/


  • Options
    #1453
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Rustled up a quick graph based on the UK 'CET' series, and although central England centric, would be representative of the general long term trends
    over the greater NW Europe region.

    m6pLI5j.png

    The chart shows the running 30 year temperature anomaly trends for both the Summer season (JJA) and Winter season (DJF) anomaly trends since the series began in 1659.

    What I found interesting is that when 'eyeballing' these graphs, Winter temps have generally risen faster than those of Summer, and I have to ask, is this really a bad thing? Winters in pre-industrial and industrial period UK & Europe tended to be of a brutish nature and what is worse, frequently occurring, which no doubt contributed to many fatalities. Why on earth would we want to return to a climate like that? Sure, it would be interesting from a modern weather enthusiasts point of view, but on a societal level, it would be dangerously impactful.

    https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/geography/weather.html

    Another thing I noted from that graph is that while it cannot be argued that temperatures have accelerated vastly over the last 40 years or so in both seasons, is that the current rate seems to be more or less on par with a similar rise, albeit from a far lower base, earlier in the series, so it is worth asking, what caused this same level of acceleration in the CET series back in the early 18th century?

    Edit: Data used in graph sourced from UK Met Office and can be found here:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean.txt

    New Moon



  • Options
    #1454
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Nabber wrote: »
    What’s 150 kilometres amongst friends?

    I don't know what the context is here but it would simply be ridiculous to use Dublin data to fill in the gaps in Armagh, which would be located in a region of Ireland that would normally see the greatest extreme of temps, not only on an monthly or annual basis, but daily also.

    New Moon



  • Options
    #1455
    Hooter23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    Even if temperatures are rising why it is seen as such a bad thing :confused:...if anything its a positive...In the past when the world was much warmer life flourished even more there was greater variety of animals and trees and tropical forests were much bigger because of the warmer temperaures...and as for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere well plants and trees love it...Warmer temperatures and more CO2 is exactly what the world needs ;)


  • Options
    #1456
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Hooter23 wrote: »
    Even if temperatures are rising why it is seen as such a bad thing :confused:...if anything its a positive...In the past when the world was much warmer life flourished even more there was greater variety of animals and trees and tropical forests were much bigger because of the warmer temperaures...and as for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere well plants and trees love it...Warmer temperatures and more CO2 is exactly what the world needs ;)


    Which is a bit like a kid caught slapping lipstick on the Mona Liza arguing to the police that 'if anything its a positive'...


    Oh, put another way, you are wayyyyyyy out of your depth.


  • Options
    #1457
    Nabber
    Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    I don't know what the context is here but it would simply be ridiculous to use Dublin data to fill in the gaps in Armagh, which would be located in a region of Ireland that would normally see the greatest extreme of temps, not only on an monthly or annual basis, but daily also.

    That’s the point, missing data can be extrapolated from stations 250km away and up to 1500km as seen with ocean temps.


  • Options
    #1458
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Natural warming already set the ball in motion, shifting the baseline upwards, so your 1 degree already includes this in it. CO2 naturally lags temperature, so the anthro part is a bit added onto the end of that.

    C02 does often naturally lag temperature but this is not a natural release of CO2.


  • Options
    #1459
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Sorry, I meant billions for researh. Trillions is the figure being spoken about for mitigation.



    That's good then. Nature is releasing CO2, which is being partially offset by reabsorption. The equilibrium shifts upwards, with the anthro bit adding x%.

    Do you accept that natural warming that started back after the Little Ice Age released CO2? If you don't then there's your problem.
    C02 fluctuated a little but
    Prior to the industrial revolution the CO2 content hovered around 280ppm for thousands of years. It’s at 417ppm today, the most it’s been since about 2.5 million years ago when there were trees on Antarctica


  • Options
    #1460
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Hooter23 wrote: »
    Even if temperatures are rising why it is seen as such a bad thing :confused:...if anything its a positive...In the past when the world was much warmer life flourished even more there was greater variety of animals and trees and tropical forests were much bigger because of the warmer temperaures...and as for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere well plants and trees love it...Warmer temperatures and more CO2 is exactly what the world needs ;)

    Humans aren’t reptiles


  • Options
    #1461
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    C02 fluctuated a little but
    Prior to the industrial revolution the CO2 content hovered around 280ppm for thousands of years. It’s at 417ppm today, the most it’s been since about 2.5 million years ago when there were trees on Antarctica
    Incorrect!
    https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/


    Studies of rock formations on the continent and sediment deposits from the sea floor indicate that Antarctic glaciers began to form in favourable locations during the late Eocene, perhaps as much as 38 myr ago. However, even as late as 14 myr ago, fossils of tundra vegetation recently discovered from the McMurdo Dry Valleys show that the climate was similar to that of the southern tip of South America at present. Shortly after this time, Antarctica cooled further and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet reached a size similar to today about 13.8 myr ago. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet reached its full state about 6 myr ago. This is much earlier than in the Northern Hemisphere where glaciers did not develop into ice sheets until after 3 myr ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1462
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Incorrect!
    https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/


    I think there are subtleties in the pliocene climate that your link may miss.


    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/antarctic-ice-sheet/icesheet_evolution/


    https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate


  • Options
    #1463
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    After close to 1500 posts, nobody seems to realise that this isn't about whether the planet is warming due to natural or human causes - it is about human control of planetary temperatures and that is a type of intellectual 'sleep' shared by all.

    Some seem close to being shaken out of that sleep but then drift back into the drowsy environment of graphs and academic toy soldiers.

    "And twofold Always. May God us keep
    From Single vision & Newtons sleep"
    William Blake

    For those who don't know -

    http://ramhornd.blogspot.com/2010/02/look-again-at-end-of-famous-letter-23_09.html


    Amazing to encounter people who cannot discuss the real issues in general or detail but this all happened before when an academic notion was taken up by politicians with youth drafted in to act as cheerleaders or cannon fodder. That period was Hitler youth.


  • Options
    #1464
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    posidonia wrote: »
    I think there are subtleties in the pliocene climate that your link may miss.


    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/antarctic-ice-sheet/icesheet_evolution/


    https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
    No Mention of trees on Antarctica


  • Options
    #1465
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No Mention of trees on Antarctica


    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/south-pole-tree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change



    Provides a link to the RMS meeting and talks about the fossilised tree remains from the pliocene in Antarctica which the meeting will have talked about.


  • Options
    #1466
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    posidonia wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/south-pole-tree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change



    Provides a link to the RMS meeting and talks about the fossilised tree remains from the pliocene in Antarctica which the meeting will have talked about.
    It couldn’t be true though. Lindzens iris effect means temperatures can never really be more than 1c warmer than they were a hundred years ago. Ray Bates also said it so it must be true


  • Options
    #1467
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It couldn’t be true though. Lindzens iris effect means temperatures can never really be more than 1c warmer than they were a hundred years ago. Ray Bates also said it so it must be true

    Try reading his paper first. You haven't read it. It's always a name association game with you. Who rather than what. Or you get The Guardian to do the debunking for you. You never have an impartial view on things once you see the name at the top of the page. Luckily you're not qualified to peer review.


  • Options
    #1468
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Try reading his paper first. You haven't read it. It's always a name association game with you. Who rather than what. Or you get The Guardian to do the debunking for you. You never have an impartial view on things once you see the name at the top of the page. Luckily you're not qualified to peer review.

    I have read Bates 2016 paper and I think it is wrong. Happy now?

    As I have said repeatedly, he says in his paper that the iris effect will kick in and prevent temperatures from rising despite forcing from increasing GHGs
    There is no justification for this belief and he makes a lot of assumptions in his calculations that lead me to distrust whether or not his assumptions are based on the best available data or chosen carefully in line with his ‘skeptical’ view on climate change

    I can make an equation say anything I like if I get to choose which values I use for each variable


  • Options
    #1469
    posidonia
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Try reading his paper first. You haven't read it. It's always a name association game with you. Who rather than what. Or you get The Guardian to do the debunking for you. You never have an impartial view on things once you see the name at the top of the page. Luckily you're not qualified to peer review.


    Which implies you are so qualified?



    Ok, to clear up if you have a conflict of interest: Did you peer review N&Z? Or Lindsen's iris nonsense? Or any other paper you quote?


  • Options
    #1470
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    posidonia wrote: »
    Which implies you are so qualified?



    Ok, to clear up if you have a conflict of interest: Did you peer review N&Z? Or Lindsen's iris nonsense? Or any other paper you quote?

    Gaoth Laidir is referring to me saying that I am not qualified to peer review these papers. Which is true. It’s baffling to me why he thinks that the act of reading a paper full of esoteric jargon would make my opinion on his conclusions more valid where the conclusions of that paper are not supported the vast majority of experts who are qualified to review it



    It’s a bit like if I take a wristwatch back to the shop because it had a smashed screen when I bought it, and the shop owner insisting that I can’t know it’s broken unless I have fully read all of the instructions in the booklet (including the bits in Chinese)

    There are thousands of scientific papers out there there are dozens of papers that contradict the scientific consensus but have flaws in them as recognized by experts in the field. Every time someone posts a paper by some crank like Volokin it results in page after page of so called skeptics saying it must be true because it was written down and demanding that others disprove it. Gaoth will make a big deal about going off and reading it and then not finding any flaws in it despite it being batsh1t crazy. Yet whenever a paper is posted that supports the climate change consensus it is either ignored completely, or one line from it is criticized on some flimsy assumptions and used to discredit the whole paper

    It’s called anomaly hunting and it’s the first line of defense for anyone who is arguing against any established scientific theory. You can do it with anything to cast doubt on the overall conclusions.
    It’s conspiracy theory 101

    The GHCN has about 100000 climate stations with millions of data points if you can find a few stations where a few of the readings are incomplete or are of low quality then an anomaly hunter will say that the whole dataset is now unreliable and must be disregarded despite the fact that the curators of this dataset spend most of their time recognizing that the data is imperfect and trying to find methods to validate this data and prevent outliers from skewing the data more than is justified

    And the same people arguing that Armagh is an hour from Dublin do the temperatures are different are happy to go along with a guy who s saying he can accurately measure the temperature on mars from the comfort of his own office by typing numbers into an algorithm until it spews out a number that matches what some of the real scientists have measured for Mars (curve fitting)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1471
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I have read Bates 2016 paper and I think it is wrong. Happy now?

    As I have said repeatedly, he says in his paper that the iris effect will kick in and prevent temperatures from rising despite forcing from increasing GHGs
    There is no justification for this belief and he makes a lot of assumptions in his calculations that lead me to distrust whether or not his assumptions are based on the best available data or chosen carefully in line with his ‘skeptical’ view on climate change

    I can make an equation say anything I like if I get to choose which values I use for each variable

    That critique is as generalised as Retr0gamer's, coming up with problems but not explaining why they are problems, e.g. his point on dimensional analysis and yours on the iris effect and "a lot of assumptions made". You don't state why the assumptions are wrong, only that you see assumptions and you're hence led to believe that he's up to something.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement