Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/26/2019 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  5. 1 point
    Actually they don't. When one looks at the adjustments, they are equally weighted up and down. Some one could then say that their is a temporal shift in the adjustements, ie early ones shifting down, late shifting up, as a means to exaggerate the trend. The issue there is this is completely opposite of what is seen. The net sum of all adjustments reduces the total trend: https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3280 As for the rest of everything you have to say, it's all conspiracy. Not going to waste my time disproving your teapot in orbit that you can't validate by your own will.
  6. 1 point
    Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.
  7. 1 point
    I'll do my best. In regards to who and when, Joseph Fourier first hypothesized about the greenhouse effect. He noted that the atmosphere must in some way be absorbing, or inhibiiting, invisible light (IR) from leaving the planet (approx 1820's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier Arrhennius in 1896 would be the first to hypothesize that changing co2, including by burning fossil fuels, could enhance the GHE. He also estimated that doubling co2 might lead to approx 5C change in temps! This is seeming a bit high with current research, but I find how close his number is to out estimates to be truly remarkable. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records I can't say for certain that all algorithms are publicly available for download, but some are for sure. For example, here is NOAA PHA algorithm. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software Whether the algorithm is publicly available or not, I can say with a greater degree of certainty the they provide literature explaining their methodlogy: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf Raw and adjusted data are also available through NOAA and other collection agencies. Some people have gone so far as to create their own individual algorithms from scratch: @caerbannog666 has tons of plots on his page and his algorithm is available for anyone to download, go through, and compile on their own. Or if using other's work isn't your thing, come up with your own methodology. As another example of individual analysis, @BubbasRanch has done his own work, and is most definitely on the skeptic side of the debate. However, his results, albeit he doesn't communicate it well in my opinion, agree rather well with NASA results. He also never explicitly compares his results in a side-by-side fashion as @caerbanogg666 does, but I would still personally vouch for his work, just not the implications of what he says it means 😉 That's all I have time for at the moment. Let me know if you have questions about any of this content, or where which questions I can focus my next responses on. 1-2 direct questions at a time is much easier to field and respond to than 5-6 huge open ended questions. Thanks.
  8. 1 point
    Any changes in the system are driven by changes. This seems obvious but there is an often overlooked implication of that statement. Even though an aspect of the system might have a large factor in the energy balance (albedo) it isn't relevant to changes unless it is changing as well. Albedo is made up of 3 main components scattering by the land and surface, clouds, and reflection from ice and snow. Of these 3 factors, the first and last are changing the most. Land use changes (clearing of forests) creates an increase in albedo while melting of snow and sea ice creates a decrease in albedo. Clouds overall aren't changing from much to none. I've seen some reports putting them at a slight decline, but currently can't find that. So as to whether or not they are impactful to albedo, I'd have to say no. What is referred to as the wild card, or uncertainty with clouds is what kind of feedback clouds will be. Everyone recognizes without issue that clouds reflect sunlight, but they also trap heat. How a cloud impacts the system not only depends on the cloud type that forms but also the timing of them. Obviously nighttime clouds are rather lousy at reflecting incoming light but do a wonderful job of trapping heat. Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive' (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3402). Clouds are what will bring the system back into equilibrium eventually. As I see it, the simplistic explanation is: Warming causes a decrease in relative humidity -> causes a decrease in cloud production -> less cloud production means a gradual buildup of specific humidity -> this eventually restores the hydrologic (cloud) cycle The hydrologic cycle can't really be fully restored though until the system has stopped warming. Current observations are specific humidity is increasing but relative is still in decline. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity Good general link about clouds https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cloud-cover
  9. 1 point
    C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
  10. 1 point
    How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?
  11. 1 point
    I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made, but these are the staple hypothesis of AGW: (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate) 1. First and foremost - burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of co2. Seems like a no-brainer but I've crossed paths with individuals who dispute that the current rise in atm co2 is not due to human burning of fossil fuels. 2. As a consequence of #1, Increasing non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the system to warm 3. As a consequence of #1, pH of the ocean will shift to a more acidic pH as they absorb more co2 4. Along with #2, increasing ghg will simultaneously cause the stratosphere and on up to cool 5. As a consequence of #2, there will be some positive feedbacks triggered, ie reduced albedo due to loss of sea ice, increased water vapor in the atm 6. As a consequence of #2, there will be sea level rise (SLR). There are 2 reasons for this. 1 - warmer water takes up more volume and 2 - melting glaciers To me, those are the key hypothses of AGW, each of which has now been observed. See below for simple responses to each point, starting with #2. If I need to cover my bases on #1, let me know: 2. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ 3. http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112157 4. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp (contains links to supporting papers) 5. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207 6. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022 For those wanting to read papers that might be behind a paywall, there is a chrome (maybe firefox as well) extension called unpaywallme. It will give you a lock icon that changes to color when you reach a paywalled paper that has a free version available. It's not 100%, but it will get you most papers for free.
  12. 1 point
    Apologies for not interpreting your question as simply what did the GHE refer too. Apparently I've spent too much time arguing with deniers about basic founded principals that I saw your question as an attack on the existence of the greenhouse effect. In regards to your question about repeatable science, I'm going to go back once again to radiative transfer models(RTM or LBL for line-by-line). This is how we approx the GHE for the system. The RTM's demonstrate that we have a very solid understanding of how much energy the system emits when it's fed the proper inputs (as is the case for all models). This is demonstrated when we run models for a particular region and then use a satellite to take a snapshot of the upwelling infrared (IR) of that region. That is what the original image I linked you was demonstrating. Here's another prime example of how well MODTRAN matches satellite observations. For reference, the x-axis simply represents wavelengths (or wavenumbers) and the y-axis represents intensity.
  13. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  14. 1 point
    It's "Meatpuppets" in general, but our specific special guests are "Meatballs," just out of endearment. J
  15. 1 point
    Jonathan, You've nailed so many correct points, especially about the rhetorical methods of these Meatball geniuses, I quoted the entire post. Basically the bullshit these pro-sky-is-falling climate crisis people serve up hasn't changed ever since Michael Crichton wrote State of Fear. Probably before, but I know it from this date because that's when I started following it. Crichton used to run a discussion forum back then (around 2004) and, after a gazillion posts between warring factions on manmade global warming, he simply shut down the discussions. I remember the phrase he used: "Same old same old." You called this new batch of Meatballs who showed up on OL "fanboy/activists." I think that's about right. Their behavior fits fanboy/activists to a tee. I thought the Brad Meatball was a bit different, but you know what convinced me he wasn't? I don't think he's very smart. I mean, if you're going to snark, at least don't be totally clueless. I told him I've been at this stuff for a long time. And Brad Meatball genius, posting on a forum I have run for 15 years with a published record of it all right at his fingertips, snarks back my own words, "And just because you say it, that makes it true?" That's retarded. You'd think the guy didn't have eyes to see what was right in front of him to ask that. So if snark is the genus, and his snark question is the conceptual referent, we have a specific differentia (retarded), so we can call this retarded snark. Part of your last paragraph bears repeating: You're never going to get that from the climate change crisis Meatballs. You are going to get the evasive techniques you so well described. I don't think that's ever going to change. Hell, even doing it the Meatball way, I asked him what GTE was and he was too caught up in his snark to answer. For someone who wants to be the enlightener of the rubes and lecture professor and says we have to start at the beginning, once again, that's retarded. It just is. I have no doubt the Brad Meatball has some learning, but like I said, this particular Meatball is pretty dumb. Michael
  16. 1 point
    What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J
  17. 1 point
    Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
  18. 1 point
    Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person. I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did. He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science. Legend in his own mind and so on. It's just bullshit. No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic. (btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.) Michael
  19. 1 point
    Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
  20. 1 point
    Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant
  21. 1 point
    It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.
  24. 1 point
    As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
  25. 1 point
    Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.
  26. 1 point
    One reply gets me labeled and I'm supposed to think this isn't a hostile environment?
  27. 1 point
    How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith? "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...
  28. 1 point
    Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael
  29. 1 point
    Former Trump White House lawyer calls Mueller 'American hero,' says probe is no witch hunt.
  30. 1 point
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
  31. 0 points
    Oh, you're paving the way for the statists but you aren't a statist. Look, let's let CO2 happen; it's going to anyway. More plant and animal life AND the planet qua planet isn't at risk. Just the polluting humanoids. Let them eat their just desserts. Now correlate your supposed scientific position with us living in an interglacial period likely to end sooner rather than later. Maybe saving humanity--is that what you're about?--is pumping into the atmosphere all the CO2 we can as fast as we can? Your essential triteness has been noted.If you're honest here you are trite and if dishonest you're that and trite. Now about a ad h. There is a ad h and simple ad h. The latter is not a logical fallacy. --Brant
  32. 0 points
    Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped. He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks. Why? Ellen
  33. 0 points
    The implcit working premise that CC science is neither corrupt nor corruptible does not pave the way for a rational discussion about CC. And to call it CC instead of AGW is chocolate frosting on a lemon cake. --Brant
  34. 0 points
    So, we are metaphorical fish? That Rand quotation about reason is great but literally wrong while being mostly right. --Brant