A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning

[airdvr 197]

Quote

For most of us, it boils down to, "who are you going to believe". Kinda like religion, eh?

Exactly like religion.

All you have to do is take a look at two events in the last century spearheaded by environmental whackjobs; Yellowstone and DDT. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In both cases the jackwagons made things far worse than if they would have just left it alone.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[brenthutch 384]

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
Interesting how the NYT has to site a scientist that has been dead for 5 years to give the appearance of balance and legitimacy. Why do you think they made a point of highlighting that he was a republican? The only scientist that peddle this crap now; are wild eyed fanatics or profiteers.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

All you have to do is take a look at two events in the last century spearheaded by environmental whackjobs; Yellowstone and DDT. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In both cases the jackwagons made things far worse than if they would have just left it alone.

In order to get accurate output, one must start with accurate input. Else you have GIGO.

I think the science right now is still in the GIGO stage. We just don't know enough about the variables to be able to get accurate results.

Take out the politics and all you have left is:

-My data show this...
-Yeah but, MY data show THIS!

Throw in the politics and you get one side embracing one set and another side embracing the other set...both trying to apply the inaccurate results to their own particular agenda.

Meh...both political groups are wrong. GIGO lives!

Edited to add:
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html



Edited again to add:
".... the fact that the entire OLR emission spectrum didn't behave like the eleven climate models' predictions means that "the science isn't settled."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Sounds like the reason why Trenberth was asking "where's the warming" in his Climategate email.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
.

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101206_Figure3.png

Mostly I can't be bothered any more to argue with idiots.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What do you guys think of this?
http://www.americanthinker.com/...agw_smoking_gun.html

I think that there is a significant problem with the author's understanding - and it revolves around this:

Quote

All of these experiments were performed over the Pacific Ocean and confined to the same three-month period (April through June), and the data were limited to cloudless days.

The Pacific Ocean Problem 1 - The ocean acts differently from the land masses. Land masses don't absorb heat radiation (in this instance, Shortwave IR) nearly as much as does the ocean (caveat, howver, that climate scientists never discuss much is that land masses absorb heat, as well. Every tree, shrub and bit of algae absorbs colar energy and converts CO2 and water into leaves, branches, twigs, etc. On the other hand, ocean photosynthetic organisms do, too. Again, this is a side point). The land mass absorbs the Shortwave IR and re-radiates it as Longwave IR (OLR).

The oceans don't radiate heat in the same way. The oceans ABSORB the heat. Water has heat capacity, and water also has a lag in warming as the heated water mixes. Any SCUBA diver with modest experience has been through thermoclines. So the heat is absorbed and reaches equilibrium when mixed.

From the standpoint, therefore, or measuring greenhouse warming, the oceans are comparatively poor at making these measurements.

Problem 1a - he's talking Pacific. So he's talking the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Because the ocean is such a heat sink, the heat can continue to build. It appears to me that at some point in the ENSO's warming phase, the ocean releases buiilt up energy into the atmosphere - causing an El Nino. Because of the oscillations (there are lots of them) the signal will be even more difficult to separate from the noise.

Problem 2 - The response of temperature with regard to increased CO2 absorption of OLR is really, really similar to that of water vapor. This means that to measure greenhouse warming caused by CO2 you'll want to do measurements in areas where water vapor is not present. Oceans are, for obvious reasons, piss poor places to make these measurements. This, as much as Problem 1, makes land masses superior for the CO2 greenhouse problem.

Problem 3 - the rate of absorption of OLR by CO2 is logarithmic in nature - as concentrations of CO2 increase, the respective amount of absorbed OLR fades. The equilibrium will be reached at some point where the CO2 can absorb no more energy and the OLR radiation will be equal to prior amounts. So you'd have to take a look at consistent measurements to pick up the variability as concentrations increase. For example, if the CO2 went overnight from 380 ppm to 390 ppm, the OLR albedo would experience a sudden drop. This albedo would then slowly increase as saturation is reached and the heat held in is stored while excess heat is radiated at equilibrium.

What's this mean? It means that to get an idea of CO2 absorption, you've gotta find a place that is very low on water vapor. This means a place on land. In the summer, someplace like the Atacama or Sahara are good places to measure because they are dry. In the winter, Siberia is most excellent because it is so cold that it precipitates all humidity out of the air.

To find CO2 warming, look for disproportionate heating in dry air. The greatest warming seen are in and around the Sahara in the summmer and in Siberia in the winter. The least heating will be found in wet air places.

So I question these findings because they are looking in a place where CO2 warming will be the most difficult to spot (the ocean) and they are looking at three pieces of a puzzle.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

FWIW, I like your thoughtful reply.

So, we have data from over-the-ocean.
Now we can do the same for over-land.

....and hopefully come a little closer to the truth, eh?

I agree. The complexity of mother nature prohibits any one test being definitive.

Unfortunately, people grasp onto individual data sets that support their politics and attempt to negate others that don't...and the debate argument begins!

My view:
Neither side is correct as yet. Just not enough to be able to say one way or the other. Throw in natural cycles and it gets even harder to determine.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
.

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101206_Figure3.png

Mostly I can't be bothered any more to argue with idiots.

Neither can we. Funny how you only ever show the NH ice, perfessor - could it be because the SH ice is at a record high for the history of the dataset?

Also, extent is meaningless without thickness, and the ice appears to be thicker in recent years, even if the *extent* (the only thing you ever post) is less.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

My thoughts are that the earth has been warming. Human activity is a factor in it. The earth will continue to warm due to human activity but it appears that the total warming will be negligible.

Polar bears will not go extinct.
Penguins will still have icy expanses on which to breed and shit.
The Arctic icecap isn't going anywhere that the wind isn't blowing it
The Greenland ice shelf will remain in balance because warming of 8 degrees F in a place that averages sub-zero temperatures will add ice to it. Same with Antarctica.

Saying nothing is happening seems just as implausible as saying that everything will either be underwater or hit by typhoons...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
.

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101206_Figure3.png

Mostly I can't be bothered any more to argue with idiots.

Neither can we. Funny how you only ever show the NH ice, perfessor - could it be because the SH ice is at a record high for the history of the dataset?

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

FWIW, I like your thoughtful reply.

So, we have data from over-the-ocean.

We do. I believe that it is 'massaged' the same as the land temps, however.

Quote

Now we can do the same for over-land.

We have that, as well - unfortunately, the dataset has been 'adjusted' so many times that who knows if it's anything close to accurate or not?

As of last year, 78% (948 stations out of 1221) of the US temperature reporting stations had been surveyed for compliance with siting guidelines to determine error levels.

Of those, 862 (91%) had margins of error greater than +/- 1 degree C - yet, we're supposed to believe that they can track the temperature anomaly by 1/10 of a degree C?

There's evidence that the temps in prior ages was equal or higher than today, with no CO2 increase.

There's evidence that CO2 was several times higher than today in prior ages, with no runaway temperatures.

CO2 continues to rise, and the temperature is not rising in relation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
.

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101206_Figure3.png

Mostly I can't be bothered any more to argue with idiots.

Neither can we. Funny how you only ever show the NH ice, perfessor - could it be because the SH ice is at a record high for the history of the dataset?

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

Record high level for the dataset - maybe the satellite guys need to get with the ice guys.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

The primary factor in sea ice extent is surface winds. Higher surface winds during periods of ice formation will increase ice extent. higher surface winds during spring and summer will decrease ice formation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

The primary factor in sea ice extent is surface winds. Higher surface winds during periods of ice formation will increase ice extent. higher surface winds during spring and summer will decrease ice formation.

Are you denying that there is a consistent annual trend? Even if it's ALL due to the wind, there is STILL a trend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely not! But what does it tell us? Is it saying ice is melting? Or is ice not forming as much?

Or is the wind calm in winter?

Or is there cloud cover in winter preventing ice formation?

These are the difficulties that are not as easy to answer as one may think. Is the problem excess ice ablation? Is it insufficient ice accretion? After all, we know that formation of ice prevents further formation of ice unless the ice is spread apart during the formative period.

I don't deny the trend. But what's causing it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.

___________________________________________

As a moderator, YOU seem to have made the thread about him. I didn't get past post #10.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.

___________________________________________

As a moderator, YOU seem to have made the thread about him. I didn't get past post #10.

I intentionally wrote the post as generically as possible. I said "a person" rather than "you, Mike," If he wants to believe that specifically means him, that's his problem.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Record high level for the dataset - maybe the satellite guys need to get with the ice guys.

Literally, you just said "Also, extent is meaningless without thickness" - and now you're challenging Kallend's figures on km^3 with your graph of km^2?

Seriously?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Absolutely not! But what does it tell us? Is it saying ice is melting? Or is ice not forming as much?

Or is the wind calm in winter?

Or is there cloud cover in winter preventing ice formation?

These are the difficulties that are not as easy to answer as one may think. Is the problem excess ice ablation? Is it insufficient ice accretion? After all, we know that formation of ice prevents further formation of ice unless the ice is spread apart during the formative period.

I don't deny the trend. But what's causing it?

It's obvious. The climate is changing in ways we don't completely understand.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Absolutely not! But what does it tell us? Is it saying ice is melting? Or is ice not forming as much?

Or is the wind calm in winter?

Or is there cloud cover in winter preventing ice formation?

These are the difficulties that are not as easy to answer as one may think. Is the problem excess ice ablation? Is it insufficient ice accretion? After all, we know that formation of ice prevents further formation of ice unless the ice is spread apart during the formative period.

I don't deny the trend. But what's causing it?

It's obvious. The climate is changing in ways we don't completely understand.

That's ridiculous.

We have complete control over the climate. Everything the climate does is because of us. If the climate punishes us, it is because we have sinned by our carbon emissions.

If we purchase indulgences in the form of subsidies to "underdeveloped nations" or carbon credits we may atone for our carbon sins and find favor in the eyes of the climate.

Beware - if you dispute any of this you are a DENIER, and shall be smitten.

Thus it is written.

[brenthutch 384]

Good to see you back prof. I knew if I shook your chain hard enough I could get you to bark!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.

___________________________________________

As a moderator, YOU seem to have made the thread about him. I didn't get past post #10.

I intentionally wrote the post as generically as possible. I said "a person" rather than "you, Mike," If he wants to believe that specifically means him, that's his problem.

Not really as it truley seems to by YOUR problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.

___________________________________________

As a moderator, YOU seem to have made the thread about him. I didn't get past post #10.

I intentionally wrote the post as generically as possible. I said "a person" rather than "you, Mike," If he wants to believe that specifically means him, that's his problem.

Give it up Paul...you're being baited...or else being confronted by mouths with few brain cells operating them. I dunno.

"I hear what you said but I know better than you as to what you meant!"

It's pointless to argue against that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.

___________________________________________

As a moderator, YOU seem to have made the thread about him. I didn't get past post #10.

I intentionally wrote the post as generically as possible. I said "a person" rather than "you, Mike," If he wants to believe that specifically means him, that's his problem.

Give it up Paul...you're being baited...or else being confronted by mouths with few brain cells operating them. I dunno.

"I hear what you said but I know better than you as to what you meant!"

It's pointless to argue against that.

Yep
You are the (self proclaimed) smartest SOB on this site

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
Interesting how the NYT has to site a scientist that has been dead for 5 years to give the appearance of balance and legitimacy. Why do you think they made a point of highlighting that he was a republican? The only scientist that peddle this crap now; are wild eyed fanatics or profiteers.

so i guess it's an excuse to just use use use, right?

This is why i stay out of this argument. Because it makes me so angry that the "anti-AGW crowd" or whatever you want to call the right wing seem to be trying so fucking hard to look for any excuse they can to not change their ways, use whatever they want as much as they want, not conserve, not care, line their pockets, and all around be selfish.

I don't really care one way or another about the science, tbh. Other than the fact that for some people, it causes them to think twice about driving a block to the store, recycle, etc. And that's a good thing.

For so many people in this thread, it just seems you're looking for validation that it's OK to continue not caring about the world around you. You scream so hard against AGW. Why? why is it so important that it be wrong? to save YOU a few pennies? I suspect that's the case.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!