Climate Change Report

#751
#751
Orangeslice13 said:
I don’t give 2 ***** about man made climate change. It’s not an immediate threat. Global pollution, specifically of our oceans is a legitimate and immediate threat. Nobody is aware of the problem or cares at all. There’s no money or control over people in solving that problem so as a people we pretend it doesn’t exist.

You want people to believe you about climate change ?

1) stop getting caught faking the data.
2) be right about any predictions.....at all
3) start taking the legitimate problems seriously.
4) spend any money.....because right now there’s none being spent.....on survival of the supposed coming disaster.

It’s insane to believe that a problem is coming and spend 100% of your resources on study and alarmists preaching and 0% on preparation. (Maybe that’s why anyone without an agenda doesn’t believe you)

I’m an actual environmentalists. I have done more for my planet than 100 of the hipsters crying about the climate will ever do.
Click to expand...
Well said, slice.
 
#752
#752
NorthDallas40 said:
A) yeah I comprehended it just fine.

B) large variances don’t support a correlation in the models predictions

C) in a linear system the time constant describes the temporal response of the system. You’re talking decades of observation for a process that has occurred over millennia. Apples to cinder blocks.

Edit: you’re bio says you’re a geologist so you know what a time constant is I’m guessing. I think you’re assuming the only correlation being the industrial revolution. However we’ve got core samples that showing warming and cooling over millennia. I’d submit youre needlessly excluding other natural phenomena.
Click to expand...
Again we have someone citing paleoclimatology while simultaneously *****ing on paleoclimatology.

Do you think that the other natural phenomena have not been studied in excruciating detail over the past 50 years? If someone could defend a competing alternative theory to global warming via the greenhouse effect, they would win a Nobel prize.

Are you going to ask me if we remembered to check the sun too? :cool:

NorthDallas40 said:
Here’s a paper from 2012 pointing to the data showing atmospheric CO2 levels lag, not lead, changes in temperature. Read the comments. This assertion was made as far back as 1990 also.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Click to expand...

This is actually a different assertion. There is another misguided argument about the multidecadal lag between temperatures and CO2 when earth heats up from ice ages (I've addressed both on VN before). This author is actually arguing on a 12-month timescale. I think it should be obvious that global warming doesn’t correlate to emissions on this timescale. What the author doesn’t get is that they actually just ‘discovered’ El Nino.

El Nino’s effect on CO2 causes confusion about CO2’s role for climate change

The comments subsequently published by the journal raise good points…

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
 
#754
#754
BartW said:
Again we have someone citing paleoclimatology while simultaneously *****ing on paleoclimatology.

Do you think that the other natural phenomena have not been studied in excruciating detail over the past 50 years? If someone could defend a competing alternative theory to global warming via the greenhouse effect, they would win a Nobel prize.

Are you going to ask me if we remembered to check the sun too? :cool:



This is actually a different assertion. There is another misguided argument about the multidecadal lag between temperatures and CO2 when earth heats up from ice ages (I've addressed both on VN before). This author is actually arguing on a 12-month timescale. I think it should be obvious that global warming doesn’t correlate to emissions on this timescale. What the author doesn’t get is that they actually just ‘discovered’ El Nino.

El Nino’s effect on CO2 causes confusion about CO2’s role for climate change

The comments subsequently published by the journal raise good points…

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
Click to expand...
On the bolded why are you ignoring the data that shows the CO2 rise lags the temp rise? Or are you claiming it’s misinterpreted? There’s a great deal of data to show that but if I understand you correctly you’re stating the opposite, temp rise leads to higher CO2?
 
#755
#755
BartW said:
There is a whole field of science called paleoclimatology that studies this. There are numerous such studies using different proxies that work over different timescales. The most recent and comprehensive global synthesis of proxy data over the past 2000 years, as far as I know, is the PAGES-2k report from 2013.


Yes that’s right. It absorbs outgoing IR radiation and reradiates it back toward the surface. CO2 doesn’t 'create' that energy.
Click to expand...
has there been an update? noted your article/study was dated 2013 and they noted there was ongoing studies still being done.

the first couple of paragraphs are telling. In my world I would call them the "CYA" verbiage.

this "global" study includes all of 511 tests, covering only 36% of the earth's surface. (they include oceanic findings as well). If you were to randomly, blindly take 511 samples from 36% of the earth there is a rather good chance you would think the whole planet was water. The value of the volume of information further decreases when you are taking samples from over 1000s of years. So apply any bell curve you want and I doubt you are getting that much for any certain time frame. of course some of those samples would be able to give you an entire snap shot, but I doubt they were cutting down too many trees or coral reefs to go back 1000s of years.

also I would be very interested to know where they got 511 samples from. To be able to say unequivocally that the samples are good they would have to know there was no human presence in the area influencing the results. A large human agricultural presence at a certain time could explain lower pollen counts (one of the methods used in the US).

they also mention that even with their samples there were discrepancies in the information they got (heterogeneities).

Reconstruction domains for the PAGES 2k regions reported here
encompass 36% of the Earth’s surface
Although the regions
largely coincide with the continents rather than climatological cri
-
teria, the annual mean temperature averaged over these regions
explains 90% of the global mean annual temperature variability in the
instrumental record (Supplementary Fig. S1). Suitable proxy records
from Africa (Supplementary Part II) are currently too sparse for a
reliable temperature synthesis
8
, and analysis of palaeoceanographi
ata by the recently formed Ocean2k group is in progress
9
. Each
regional group identified the proxy climate records that they found
were best suited for reconstructing annual or warm-season tempera
-
ture variability within their region, using
a priori
established criteria
(Supplementary Database S1). The PAGES 2k data set includes 511
time series of tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments,
glacier ice, speleothems and historical documents that record changes
in biological or physical processes that can be used to reconstruct
temperature variations.
Except for North America, the PAGES 2k reconstructions have
annual resolution (Supplementary Fig. S2 and Database S2). Three
of the temperature reconstructions span approximately 2,000 years
(Arctic, Europe and Antarctica), and three cover the past 1,000–
1,200 years (Asia, South America and Australasia). The North
American region includes a shorter decadally resolved tree-ring-
based reconstruction (back to
ad
1200) and a longer 30-year-resolved
pollen-based reconstruction (back to
ad
360).
Each continental-scale temperature reconstruction was derived
using different statistical methods, with each 2k Network group tai
-
loring its procedures to the strengths of their regional proxy records
and calibration targets (Supplementary Part II). Most groups used
either a scaling approach to adjust the mean and variance of a predic
-
tor composite to an instrumental target, or a regression-based tech
-
nique to extract a common signal from the predictors using principal
components or distance weighting (Table 1). Some of the heteroge
-
neities among the regional temperature reconstructions might be due
to differences in reconstruction methods,
Click to expand...


this next sentence is one of my favorites, and screams bad science to me.
Using standardized values circumvents
regional differences in the magnitude of temperature variability,
which depends on geographical factors and can be influenced by sea
-
sonal biases in some proxies
Click to expand...
they admit they are burying information they don't like in statistical rounding. when they were taking the samples they should have taken the local factors into account. why dig up samples you know are going to through you for a loop? to me it just reads as a way to cover this stuff up.

The Multi decadal to centennial variability "chapter" brings up cases of warming in an otherwise cooling period. I would say that is only significant as pointing to our current warming in a cooling cycle as non-anomalous, which they ignore in their summary.

also I like how all of this is based on an emerging science that hasn't even gone through a full scholastic cycle. Meaning those being taught now are the first generation. Its kinda ironic we are studying something thousands of years in the making with the first class. None of this has been "means tested" where it has tested, failed/passed, then adjusted.

anyway maybe they have finished this study and updated it. but overall I wasn't impressed with the language they used to talk about a "settled" science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#756
#756
BartW said:
Yes that’s right. It absorbs outgoing IR radiation and reradiates it back toward the surface. CO2 doesn’t 'create' that energy.
Click to expand...
sorry to quote twice, but the first post was long enough.

Does the CO2 only insulate from one direction? Cause it would seem it would have the same effect on the IR coming in.

point being, there being more insulation doesn't inherently change the temperature. You take a house that is 68 degrees inside, and 68 outside, and stuff it to r-50 insulation levels, the inside temp stays at 68.

Now you turn on a bunch of equipment, shove some people in there, and it gets warm. even if the outside temp drops. You continue shoving more heat producing things into that house its going to get hotter and hotter. insulation or no.

why is the insulation (CO2) the only thing looked at with this problem? We can control it just as easily as the heat production aspect going on, on this planet. In fact they are linked to at least some extent. but that side of the equation (heat production) is never looked at.

simple thermodynamics. doesn't matter if address the insulation or not. - from a pure warming standpoint. plenty of other reasons to address it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and McDad
#757
#757
BartW said:
Oh stop being so alarmist.

Coal can’t compete, even with Trump’s support. Obama’s fuel standards are tied up in court.

What should we be doing? Well the first thing is we need to stop acting out this fake debate over whether global warming is even real, and actually have an honest discussion about what to do about it. In my opinion, replacing our current piecemeal C&C regulations with a carbon pricing system, IMO specifically a revenue-neutral carbon tax, would be the fairest and most efficient solution. It would also be a huge boost to our nuclear energy industry, which we should be expanding aggressively.


They’re measured via direct sampling and remote sensing. I believe there was even a discussion about it somewhat recently ITT (not even the old CC thread). Here are two of the first links that pop up on Google:

How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?

Measuring Volcanic Gases

And sure, we don’t have 100% coverage even with satellites, but the current best estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions is 645 million tons/year while humans currently emit 29 billion tons/year. It’s not close.

We also know the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion because the atmosphere’s C13/C12 ratio has been declining since the industrial revolution. Plants have a preference for absorbing lighter isotopes, so when we burn fossil fuels (old plants) the CO2 that is emitted has a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. We also see the atmospheric O2 decline resulting from combustion of fossil fuels.


More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

842.jpg


Christy’s data has had a history of revisions that keep moving the warming trend closer and closer to all the other datasets. Until 2000, they used to claim the troposphere is cooling.

Without even getting into the nitty gritty it’s easy to see that Christy has, as usual, cherrypicked datasets that show the lowest warming trends. These are specifically of the lower troposphere: not at the surface or any other portion of the atmosphere. So for one he’s comparing apples to oranges when he’s comparing his result to IPCC estimates of surface temperature sensitivity to CO2. And if you cherrypick the lowest warming trends to do this analysis it’s no surprise that you calculate a lower climate sensitivity. Still, with all that said, the result is still within the range (though at the extreme low end) given for TCS in the latest IPCC report.

Christy is not even arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming (as he has before Congress). Here Christy is merely arguing that the temperature response to CO2 will be on the low end of mainstream estimates. If that were to be true that’d be great. Then we might have a shot at meeting the Paris targets.

I wouldn’t count on it though.
Click to expand...
Honest discussion? You mean the discussion that man Mande global warming is a fact and that much of the coast should already be under water?? Those models, you say work, said we should already be devastated.

Fact, only 5% of the ocean floor has been mapped.
 
#760
#760
All I can say about these climate change purveyors is "****ING ASSHOLES"! I looked at their long range projections for Feb and Mar and got all excited about an early spring. So far they have been full of **** about February....it's been cold and wet with measurable snowfall and March is starting out with a low of 19 and high of 28 on Sunday. These assholes go out and predict **** that they don't even believe will happen just to show that the climate is warming.........lying POS's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#761
#761
0nelilreb said:
I almost posted this last week when I ran across the company . Looks like a great company that’s doing really good work
Click to expand...
Just looked at this. Pretty awesome concept but a purchase or subscription is required to donate. They get a lot of bad reviews on delivery.
 
#762
#762
82_VOL_83 said:
Just looked at this. Pretty awesome concept but a purchase or subscription is required to donate. They get a lot of bad reviews on delivery.
Click to expand...

You’re not actually buying anything if you buy a bracelet. It’s a fund raiser to support the removal of trash. Their reviews fro trash removal have been pretty good so I’ll overlook their bracelets delivery struggles.
 
#763
#763
Orangeslice13 said:
You’re not actually buying anything if you buy a bracelet. It’s a fund raiser to support the removal of trash. Their reviews fro trash removal have been pretty good so I’ll overlook their bracelets delivery struggles.
Click to expand...
I plan to donate, wish they would keep the gifts and not make more waste with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and 0nelilreb
#772
#772
82_VOL_83 said:
All I can say about these climate change purveyors is "****ING ASSHOLES"! I looked at their long range projections for Feb and Mar and got all excited about an early spring. So far they have been full of **** about February....it's been cold and wet with measurable snowfall and March is starting out with a low of 19 and high of 28 on Sunday. These assholes go out and predict **** that they don't even believe will happen just to show that the climate is warming.........lying POS's.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need to move. February was nice in TN.
 
#773
#773
zeppelin128 said:
And trends observed over time is known as climate. Not that it matters pointing it out to you. No offense, but it isn't worth attempting to explain. We aren't going to agree.
Click to expand...

No we agree that climate changes.
Just don’t agree of the cause. Or the politics behind it.

I wish people like you were as passionate about solving the pollution problem.

You know.....the actual threat
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, Vol8188, 82_VOL_83 and 2 others
#774
#774
Orangeslice13 said:
No we agree that climate changes.
Just don’t agree of the cause. Or the politics behind it.

I wish people like you were as passionate about solving the pollution problem.

You know.....the actual threat
Click to expand...
There are no politics behind it. The climate is changing. At this point I do not care why people think it is happening, it is a waste of time trying to explain it, but we absolutely must treat this as the threat to our survival as it is.
 
#775
#775
zeppelin128 said:
There are no politics behind it. The climate is changing. At this point I do not care why people think it is happening, it is a waste of time trying to explain it, but we absolutely must treat this as the threat to our survival as it is.
Click to expand...
If politicians believed that they’d spend money on surviving the coming disasters instead of studying and predicting. Which, by the way, has never once been correct

However we are killing ourselfs with plastic. At this pace we’ll all be dead long before the climate becomes a problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, BigOrangeTrain and marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top