Climate Change!

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
Riggerjack
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Riggerjack »

I think this flood everyone keeps talking about might be the melting of the last ice age, remnant in our civilizational memory?
Eh. Remember, humans like to build on level ground, and farm silty soil. Every civilization started in a river Delta. And every river floods.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the disaster floods of the last ice age in the Puget Sound area involved huge bodies of fresh melt water finding an escape, and wiping out everything downstream. For example, the Puget Sound was a fresh water lake, 600' above sea level. Then it washed out the been of glacial till at the South end, and washed down what is now hwy 12. The rest of it drained when the continental glacier melted enough to open the strait of Juan de fuca.

The floods from the end of the ice age were massive torrential rivers, where before, there were none. Hollywood style walls of rushing water. Not the kind of thing that leaves many survivors.

Also, all coastal properties are subject to tsunami. This more readily complies with the myths. The water rises, and floods everything, quickly. And tsunami can travel much farther than the quaking, so can strike with no warning.

This seems like the most likely source of the myths.

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Toska2 »

So where are we in the solar max/min cycles, Aphelion and continent positioning?

I wonder about H2O being the secrete GHG that makes CO2 look bad.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob »

The solar cycle peaked around 2012 and we're currently half-way down in the standard 10-12 year cycle. As for orbital/Milankovich cycles, that's basic fundamental Newtonian physics---knowing where the planets are and how they're tilted has been scientifically known for many many many years... the basic input of all interplanetary missions. Also the basic input of all general circulation models because it does influence the heat energy balance, but it's extremely basic stuff.

Water vapor is neutral/irrelevant in terms of energy-balance because water vapor falls down as rain whenever it saturates. The concentration of H2O in the atm. can't go beyond a certain point before rain happens and then that balance-problem is resolved; it's called "weather" or "raining". The point of worry is what stays up for 10--1000 years, i.e. CO2 or methane. That stuff doesn't rain down within a few days, like normal "weather".---That's how that works. Methane takes about a decade to decompose (google "hydroxyl methane"). CO2 takes millennia. Has to do with ocean chemistry and rocks.

Here's the relevant curve.

Image

PS: Denialists like to fix the x-axis and cut it short around 1980 or so and deliberately choose surface/air temps while ignoring the ocean temps in order to make volatility look a lot higher than it is while making the graph less relevant/physical. Why? Because what matters to climate is heat energy (whereas what matters to noobs is how a random graph looks)... Oceans take a lot of energy to heat. Land takes little. This is why continental climates show high variety whereas coastal climates show little. So by cherry picking land/surface-data outliers you can fool the uneducated. This way 1998 (a peak El Nino year) shows up big (see graph) making it possible to make the naive claim that temperatures haven't increased for the past 15 years, thus fooling the average internet-person. This worked well until 2013 or so afterwhich even the cherry-picked air-temp didn't cinch that naive argument anymore... Those who bother to look will note how air-temps looked flat between 1998 and 2015ish. It's an often repeated argument. Those who looked deeper ... will be frustrated how this keeps coming up. Get used to it.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

I'll add a couple of points to this discussion:-

1. There is no such thing as a denialist. There are people that believe in the scientific method and are not alarmists. There are alarmists. There are people that are uneducated on this subject. The alarmists often call people that believe in utilising facts denialists. It's a political argument that should be called out whenever you hear it.
2. The chart that Jacob shows is not a big deal. Temperatures have been warmer and cooler in the past. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That chart from Jacob is definitely statistically irrelevant. It's like a tiny tweeny blip in the Earth's history.
3. AGW is still not proven and the Earth heating up definitely doesn't prove that it is valid. As per point 2 the Earth has been hotter and cooler.
4. No realist or scientist states that the Earth isn't in a warming phase.
5. No scientist states that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas and therefore has a significant effect on the Earth's climate when it comes to a direct effect. It's all about the feedback mechanisms which are not understood.
6. The models are still running way way too hot.
7. There is a significant political push behind the AGW alarmists.

I think in conclusion that we are basically at the state and that includes the latest temperature measurements of stating categorically that AGW alarmist theories have been debunked. There will still be some people hanging onto the theory and this data gives them some little bit of hope but it's pretty close to a done deal that the alarmists have been proven wrong.

We should be clear that at this point that our great great great great (and on and on) grandchildren will be fine. Everyone can relax and be happy.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I didn't know that methane only takes 10 years to decompose. Since methane can eventually decompose into CO2 and water, why isn't direct emission of methane more worrisome than direct emission of CO2?

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote:I'll add a couple of points to this discussion:-

1. There is no such thing as a denialist. There are people that believe in the scientific method and are not alarmists. There are alarmists. There are people that are uneducated on this subject. The alarmists often call people that believe in utilising facts denialists. It's a political argument that should be called out whenever you hear it.
Yes there are, there are a very small number of them here.
2. The chart that Jacob shows is not a big deal. Temperatures have been warmer and cooler in the past. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That chart from Jacob is definitely statistically irrelevant. It's like a tiny tweeny blip in the Earth's history.
The planet has been cooler and warmer at times, in some of those times it wouldn't have supported the current world population.
3. AGW is still not proven and the Earth heating up definitely doesn't prove that it is valid. As per point 2 the Earth has been hotter and cooler.
It's as close to a proof as you will get
4. No realist or scientist states that the Earth isn't in a warming phase.
All the evidence points to AGW, you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find scientists who disagree.
5. No scientist states that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas and therefore has a significant effect on the Earth's climate when it comes to a direct effect. It's all about the feedback mechanisms which are not understood.
The greenhouse gas effect was posited over 100 years ago, in general scientific theories that last that long are sound, time has only strengthened our knowledge on this.
6. The models are still running way way too hot.
No they aren't
7. There is a significant political push behind the AGW alarmists.
Nearly all the political push and money has come from climate change deniers like the Koch brothers.
I think in conclusion that we are basically at the state and that includes the latest temperature measurements of stating categorically that AGW alarmist theories have been debunked. There will still be some people hanging onto the theory and this data gives them some little bit of hope but it's pretty close to a done deal that the alarmists have been proven wrong.
Quite the opposite, the evidence is becoming stronger year by year, even the major carbon emitters who have something to loose in fixing it are saying we need to take it seriously. It really is only a minority holding out. Even the Trump team largely accepts it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38640413
We should be clear that at this point that our great great great great (and on and on) grandchildren will be fine. Everyone can relax and be happy.
It doesn't look like it, we are leaving a terrible problem for our children and grandchildren.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob »

@7wb5 - There's a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane and because methane decomposes "quickly", the quantity of methane is more constant whereas CO2 is continuously accumulating. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, so despite the low concentrations, it's responsible for about 1/4 of the total radiation forcing. A sudden (<100 years) methane release could impact other things with similar timescales, such as a melting permafrost areas or clathrates which in themselves contain CO2 and methane. This process could then become self-reinforcing.

DSKla
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:07 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by DSKla »

Just wanted to point out that I actually understood everything in jacob's previous post thanks to reading Dire Predictions. I'd recommend it for anyone looking to understand the basic science, although when it got into policy, it sounded more half-assed and rosy than dire, but I read it for the meat and potatoes in the first half of the book.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Climate Change!

Post by chenda »

'A new global ranking, calculating the vulnerability of 170 countries to the impacts of climate change over the next 30 years, identifies some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, including India, as facing the greatest risks to their populations, ecosystems and business environments....There are 11 countries considered ‘low risk’ in the index, with Norway (170), Finland (169), Iceland (168), Ireland (167), Sweden (166) and Denmark (165) performing the best. However, Russia (117), USA (129), Germany (131), France (133) and the UK (138) are all rated as ‘medium risk’ countries, whilst China (49), Brazil (81) and Japan (86) feature in the ‘high risk’ category.'

https://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html

The North Sea rim is looking pretty good. Dogger land's legacy...

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Does dark green indicate more or less risk than light green on this poster?

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Climate Change!

Post by chenda »

7Wannabe5 wrote:Does dark green indicate more or less risk than light green on this poster?
More risk than light green.

vezkor
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:51 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by vezkor »

Thanks for linking the Gish Gallop article, Jacob!

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

7Wannabe5 wrote:I didn't know that methane only takes 10 years to decompose. Since methane can eventually decompose into CO2 and water, why isn't direct emission of methane more worrisome than direct emission of CO2?
It is a much stronger greenhouse gas. CO2 has a minimal impact on the greenhouse effect. CO2 has been significantly higher than it is now. It also typically lags heating periods rather than is directly correlated with heating periods.

So if we are really worried about AGW then methane should be the gas that is focussed on rather than CO2. This doesn't fit the political argument though very well so it sort of gets bypassed. It's why there are comments like termites produce a lot more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels does. In reality this is probably hard to quantify but the science despite what political arguments contrary to try to state is that CO2 is probably nothing to worry about.

The only real counter argument is that man has added CO2 to the atmosphere whereas in the past it has been just a natural process. We don't know the impact that this small additional rise in CO2 will lead to. This is why the models use feedback mechanisms. They take a political line (that is really close to being proven statistically false) that the feedback mechanisms lead to alarmist like temperature increases.

I think in another 10-40 years this whole thing will be over and definitively proven false and we can all sit back and laugh at all the drama over nothing.

P_K
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by P_K »

steveo73 wrote:I'll add a couple of points to this discussion:-

1. There is no such thing as a denialist. There are people that believe in the scientific method and are not alarmists. There are alarmists. There are people that are uneducated on this subject. The alarmists often call people that believe in utilising facts denialists. It's a political argument that should be called out whenever you hear it.
2. The chart that Jacob shows is not a big deal. Temperatures have been warmer and cooler in the past. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That chart from Jacob is definitely statistically irrelevant. It's like a tiny tweeny blip in the Earth's history.
3. AGW is still not proven and the Earth heating up definitely doesn't prove that it is valid. As per point 2 the Earth has been hotter and cooler.
4. No realist or scientist states that the Earth isn't in a warming phase.
5. No scientist states that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas and therefore has a significant effect on the Earth's climate when it comes to a direct effect. It's all about the feedback mechanisms which are not understood.
6. The models are still running way way too hot.
7. There is a significant political push behind the AGW alarmists.

I think in conclusion that we are basically at the state and that includes the latest temperature measurements of stating categorically that AGW alarmist theories have been debunked. There will still be some people hanging onto the theory and this data gives them some little bit of hope but it's pretty close to a done deal that the alarmists have been proven wrong.

We should be clear that at this point that our great great great great (and on and on) grandchildren will be fine. Everyone can relax and be happy.
I'll add a couple of points to this discussion:-

1. There is no such thing as an alarmist. There are people that believe in the scientific method and are not denialists. There are denialists. There are people that are uneducated on this subject. The denialists often call people that believe utilising facts alarmists. It's a political argument that should be called out whenever you hear it.
2. The chart Jacob shows is a big deal. Temperatures have have been warmer or cooler in the past but never in such a short amount of time. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That chart from Jacob is definitely statistically relevant. It's shows what a massive change occurred in such a tiny tweeny blip in the Earth's history.
3. AGW is proven and the Earth heating up definitely proves that it is valid. As per point 2 the Earth has been hotter and cooler, but never in such a short time.
4. All realists or scientists state that the Earth is in a warming phase caused by humans.
5. No scientist states that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas and therefore has a significant effect on the Earth's climate when it comes to a direct effect. It's all about the feedback mechanisms which are well understood.
6. The models are still running way way accurately.
7. There is a significant political push behind the AGW denialists.

I think in conclusion that we are basically at the state and that includes the latest temperature measurements of stating categorically that AGW denialist theories have been debunked. There will still be some people hanging onto the theory and this data gives them some additional evidence to ignore but it's pretty close to a done deal that the denialists have been proven wrong.

We should be clear that at this point that our great great great (and on and on) grandchildren will not be fine. Everyone can stress and be sad.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

I think one of the problems here is that it's hard for people that have a political affiliation in relation to wanting humans to be a problem to look at the facts.

I posted a great clip on YouTube from a well respected scientist whose speciality is climatology. I suggest everyone watches it. One thing he stated was that we might never know if AGW is a factor and it might take a 1000 years to know this.

These are facts not made up political arguments. The reality is hard to handle but it is what it is.

If you want proof you only have to look at a couple of things. Go and get the predictions of doom and gloom from the alarmists and show us how that has worked out. Quite clearly there has been no impact whatsoever. We haven't had islands being submerged under the sunken ice or fire balls coming down at us from above. We've had nothing at all unusual when it comes to the weather.

Yes we have some mild temperature increases that are completely in line with the way the Earth's temperature has changed without any man made impacts.

Clearly when it comes to facts the alarmists are getting hammered. Anyone arguing/debating something other than this is not utilising facts. Facts matter.

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by black_son_of_gray »

Just as an argument against someone by saying "that's just rhetoric!" is in itself a rhetorical tactic, constantly claiming that a group of people is "politically motivated" is in itself a politically motivated argument - at least partially. In any case, how is that a compelling argument?

In my daily experience, people who constantly bring up politics are themselves often in the deep end of one party or another.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

black_son_of_gray wrote:Just as an argument against someone by saying "that's just rhetoric!" is in itself a rhetorical tactic, constantly claiming that a group of people is "politically motivated" is in itself a politically motivated argument - at least partially. In any case, how is that a compelling argument?

In my daily experience, people who constantly bring up politics are themselves often in the deep end of one party or another.
AGW is though a political argument. It's not based on science. That is why all you hear are political arguments. I've provided the science on this so many times within this thread. No one disputes the science.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

I think a good thing to do is to add some points from pro climate change scientists who though don't pervert the scientific method as much as what a typical alarmist does.
Elizabeth Muller, Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, said, “We have compelling scientific evidence that global warming is real and human caused, but much of what is reported as ‘climate change’ is exaggerated. Headlines that claim storms, droughts, floods, and temperature variability are increasing, are not based on normal scientific standards. We are likely to know better in the upcoming decades, but for now, the results that are most solidly established are that the temperature is increasing and that the increase is caused by human greenhouse emissions. It is certainly true that the impacts of global warming are still too subtle for most people to notice in their everyday lives.”
Now I personally think that she is way way too over confident however at least she is stating that the alarmist BS that lots of people want to state is factually true is alarmist BS.

http://berkeleyearth.org/a-second-half- ... on-record/

Everyone needs to calm down and start applying scientific reasoning and facts to this discussion.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote:Everyone needs to calm down and start applying scientific reasoning and facts to this discussion.
Yes, you do need to.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

ducknalddon wrote:
steveo73 wrote:Everyone needs to calm down and start applying scientific reasoning and facts to this discussion.
Yes, you do need to.
I think it'd be good if you actually tried to dispute the science of this topic rather than turn it into a political debate.

Do you have any points that are different from the standard body of science on this topic ? Do you have a verifiable proven theory of climate that you can model and use to predict future temperatures ? If so I think you are a genius because no climatologist has been able to crack that nut yet.

If you have I am honestly very impressed and I'm wondering why I haven't heard your theory. If not then you are just another drone in a line of drones that are too caught up in a political issue to construct rational scientific points that can be debated. If you are a drone like that then you should probably use this thread to learn about the science of AGW rather than being so stupidly confident that you are right.

Debate facts. Show science. Use reason. Consider me not a denialist but someone who is extremely well educated on this subject and has come to an informed conclusion based on facts. If you are so sure you are right it should be so easy to prove me wrong. If not then what you are stating is just meaningless dribble.

I'll categorise where we are at for you again:-

1. The greenhouse effect is a natural effect on Earth.
2. A greenhouse gas that has minimal impact on the greenhouse effect is CO2.
3. The earth has been warming for about 200 years.
4. Humans have released into the atmosphere a minimal amount of CO2 compared to natural CO2 within the environment.
5. CO2 within the Earth's atmosphere has been significantly higher.
6. The Earth's temperatures have been significantly hotter and cooler than what they are today.
7. Statistical models have been produced that state that increased CO2 leads to significant temperature rises primarily due to feedback mechanisms.
8. No one has been able to prove that these feedback mechanisms exist as per the models predictions.
9. The models aren't working well at all. They are at the lower boundary of statistical relevance (getting close to the 5% level). This is despite the increased warming over the last two years.
10. No scientist with any idea that uses the scientific method believes in any of the alarmist BS that the political morons keep shoving down our throats. I'm calling this a done deal now. It's over. It's debunked.

If you have any proof of anything different to these points let me know. I'm always interested in learning some more.

Locked