My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

I'm well aware of the complexity of impact events as well as antipodal focusing. This would seem to support my contention that global warming released huge amounts of methane. Just because a asteroid strike triggered it doesn't make it any less true. We are the trigger now.

 

:D My bad. That was last week you indicated you hadn't heard of the impact connection to the Permian extinction.

 

Moving on, here's some mud in the proverbial eye of concensus. Objections to my objections here in this thread on the climate modeling notwithstanding, I chanced on this today. >>

 

Climate Modeling Heats Up

"The limiting factor to more reliable climate predictions at higher resolution is not scientific ideas' date=' but computational capacity to implement those ideas," said Jay Fein, NSF program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences. "This project is an important step forward in providing the most useful scientifically-based climate change information to society for adapting to climate change."

 

Researchers once had assumed that climate can be predicted independently of weather, that is, with weather having no impact on climate prediction. Now they're finding that weather has a profound impact on climate, a result that's integral to the drive to improve weather and climate predictions and climate change projections. ...[/quote']

 

As it is, I'm changing my conversation. >> ........ . ...... :) http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/16083-my-belief-global-systemics-rock-solid.html

[Eclipse Now]

While there might be some debate in the exact particulars of how this will play out, as Co2 levels rise we've experienced the hottest years on record (apart from the last La Nina year of course), watched as the North Pole thins, glaciers retreat... etc.

 

Isn't it a bit of a Furphy to insist that global warming is bunk because they get the temperature wrong for a particular month?

[Moontanman]

:hihi: My bad. That was last week you indicated you hadn't heard of the impact connection to the Permian extinction.

 

Moving on, here's some mud in the proverbial eye of concensus. Objections to my objections here in this thread on the climate modeling notwithstanding, I chanced on this today. >>

 

Climate Modeling Heats Up

 

 

As it is, I'm changing my conversation. >> ........ . ...... -_- http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/16083-my-belief-global-systemics-rock-solid.html

 

Actually you are correct I hadn't heard of the impact connection of that event.

[Flying Binghi]

Eclipse Now, I've had a little look at the Wiki link you provided to back up your position. Whilst I'd seen it before, I had'nt taken much notice of the individual position statements.

 

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Extract from Wiki -

 

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

 

I randomly picked, reference - 1.33 Engineers Australia

 

Via,

 

 

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=D68D0E68-B4F8-2ED1-0BA1-8848F6BC9BA0&siteName=ieaust

 

, POLICY POSITION - SUSTAINABILITY GREENHOUSE, I get - ...The balance of scientific opinion is that significant warming is already occurring and will continue. Until the issue is proved conclusively, the precautionary principle should prevail.

and -

 

...by way of engineering knowledge and skills to develop major new industries in renewable energy technologies both for grid connected and remote area power supplies and in environmental protection and remediation technologies.

 

This hardly comes across as a 'science is proven' statement. I note there is actualy a bit of self interest i.e. jobs for engineers. As I have previously written, I find nothing wrong with a position taken from self interest and the Engineers Oz position clearly identifies it.

[Eclipse Now]

Woof Woof! (pants)

 

(For the 6th time, show me the peer reviewed science. I'm not chasing any more balls, and am not going to encourage someone who does not interact with the points made and just resorts to name calling — "vegetarian" —*and then feels entitled to just continue their rants as if nothing has happened. Sorry, but that's trolling.)

[Flying Binghi]

Woof Woof! (pants)

 

(For the 6th time, show me the peer reviewed science. I'm not chasing any more balls, and am not going to encourage someone who does not interact with the points made and just resorts to name calling — "vegetarian" —*and then feels entitled to just continue their rants as if nothing has happened. Sorry, but that's trolling.)

 

Eclipse Now, youre coming across as a bit of a troll youreself.

 

My vegy post I thought apropriate for your attacking and insulting style which you look to be continueing.

 

After reading through this "My belief" thread from the start, I see nothing out of place with my posting 'style' to this particular thread. (apart from the veg reference post which the Moderator fairly ticked me for - it was an exasperated post is my defence )

 

My first post to this forum gave a fair indication what my position is on some subjects, and I was welcomed

 

Eclipse Now, from a previous post of yours -

Don't try telling me that these groups were 'independent' even though they had dodgy sources of funding.

 

Please advise me of the 'peer reveiwed' part ?

 

Eclipse Now, you introduce the concept of funding influencing the position of persons or groups, lo and behold, I have a look at the wikipiedia link you provided and discover it works both ways - Hmmm, what a surprise :doh:

[InfiniteNow]

I guess that means that you don't have any peer-reviewed support for your position. Good to know. You're not a troll. You're an idiot.

[Eclipse Now]

Flying Troll,

 

I didn't really introduce the concept of funding distorting the science, Exxon did when they as much as admitted doing so!.

 

They are now seeking to carry on their activities in Europe where funding trails can be more easily disguised. See the Exxon files.

 

I'd rather trust the results of dozens of independent, government funded climate institutes than the results of an Exxon funded 'think tank' with a few I.T. heads and maybe a burnt out weather man or 2.

 

I'm simply not chasing any more balls...

 

We're still waiting on you to present some peer reviewed climate science scepticism. Still! :doh: I'm not responding to any mangy posts —*contribute something of substance, or but out.

[Eclogite]

I randomly picked, reference - 1.33 Engineers Australia

Via,

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=D68D0E68-B4F8-2ED1-0BA1-8848F6BC9BA0&siteName=ieaust

 

, POLICY POSITION - SUSTAINABILITY GREENHOUSE, I get - ...The balance of scientific opinion is that significant warming is already occurring and will continue. Until the issue is proved conclusively, the precautionary principle should prevail.

Science never proves anything. All results are provisional. Engineers do prove things. Therefore this statement is wholly consistent with an engineering perspective and fails to support your implied contention that the engineers of Australia are less than enthusiastic about the issue.

 

The continued absence of any peer reviewed data to support your arguments is noted and speaks more eloquently about your case than anything you have said. You can readily change that perception.

[Flying Binghi]

Via Freeztar, moderator, post No 671 in this thread -

 

It's ok to play devil's advocate and express one's opinions, but remember that these opinions need to be grounded in fact. Providing factual references that support your opinion is the required method here.

 

Is it that only peer reveiwed references are required/allowed here :confused:

 

... or is this whole 'peer reviewed' thing just a furphy from some worried posters ?

 

I did not introduce "Exxon" to this thread, nor did I introduce the Wikipiedia reference to "scientific opinion" - I start to check the references supplied and... I get called an idiot.

 

I guess that means that you don't have any peer-reviewed support for your position. Good to know. You're not a troll. You're an idiot.

[Flying Binghi]

Eclogite -

 

Science never proves anything. All results are provisional. Engineers do prove things. Therefore this statement is wholly consistent with an engineering perspective and fails to support your implied contention that the engineers of Australia are less than enthusiastic about the issue.

 

The continued absence of any peer reviewed data to support your arguments is noted and speaks more eloquently about your case than anything you have said. You can readily change that perception.

 

 

Speaking of engineers, heres a couple of extracts from an article by Stewart Franks -

 

..."Numerous politicians, environmentalists and especially scientists have made spectacular leaps of faith in their adherence to the doctrine of climate change over recent years"...

 

..."Perhaps our leading climate authorities who have played such a prominent role in fomenting speculation about climate change, and who apparently adhere to the notion that climate is amenable to prediction, should also point out that these models cannot reproduce the observed multi-decadal variability of El Nino and La Nina in anything like a realistic manner"

 

Stewart Franks is a hydroclimatologist and an associate professor at the University of Newcastle School of Engineering. He is president-elect of the International Commission on the Coupled Land - Atmosphere System.

 

Article via -

 

Emissions not making rivers run dry | The Australian

[Eclipse Now]

Maybe if I put peer reviewed CLIMATE SCIENCE in bold it will get through?

[Flying Binghi]

Eclipse Now, I have done a sundry research of your early posts to this forom.

 

What do I find...

 

Via -

 

http://hypography.com/forums/introductions/15390-hi-from-eclipse-now.html#post227316

 

"I think I'm fair-minded, but... how would I know? And why to trolls get under my skin and manage to have me engaging them? And what do I do about anger-management when I meet a troll? These are the eternal questions"

And we then get -

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/14694-the-whole-green-factor.html

 

"I'm a member of Sustainable Population Australia and take population growth and IPAT very seriously" population.org.au :: Sustainable Population Australia

 

 

 

Eclipse Now, your second ever post refers to "trolls" ...Hmmm, I wonder who the troll is ?

 

Eclipse Now, you also claim to be a member of what I think is little more then a redneck Australian anti imigration group masquerading under a so-called eco freindly banner. Apart from helping the less foretunate, imigration adds vitality to Oz......and I'll say no more as I'm fairly pissed-off.

 

Eclipse Now - you are now on my ignore list.

[Essay]

I guess the questions raised in the Kininmouth letter will be easily answered by F.A.S.T.S. then :confused:

 

Do you know if they ever were answered?

 

Did you find answers to your questions about how the heat is transfered up to space ...and how GHG's slow this process?

 

Thanks,

~SA

[Eclipse Now]

Essay, notice he never answers our questions when we ask about peer reviewed climatologist papers that question the basics. He resorts to personal attacks, irrelevant asides, and all sorts of other tactics but never answers the basic questions. We know from repeatable, testable, falsifiable scientific tests in spectrometers how Co2 reacts to different forms of energy wavelength, and we know from the radiative forcing equation how much extra energy (or heat) this will store in our atmosphere. The basics are sound. How it plays out will have some surprises... the climate community did not imagine the North Pole would melt until later this century but are now talking 10 to 15 years, some predict even less.

 

So in answer to your question —*check out the radiative forcing equation and whether anyone has "debunked" that!

 

[Essay]

Yes, Thanks,

 

While there is some debate over the value of the constant; and....

The many layers of the atmosphere, and differing temperatures and pressures, make it difficult to model CO2's effects accurately; the equation, using the ratio of final to initial concentration, that holds true in a spectrometer's cuvette, also gives us a good approximation of the real-world dynamics.

 

I studied some spectroscopy (and physical chemistry, etc.) in college; and so thought maybe I could answer a question about IR absorbance and/or emission/re-emission, extinction coefficients, etc.

...if he, or anyone is interested?

 

Really, just knowing that energy doesn't magically disappear should be enough to convince anyone about the problem.

 

:eek:

[Eclipse Now]

Yes, Thanks,

I studied some spectroscopy (and physical chemistry, etc.) in college; and so thought maybe I could answer a question about IR absorbance and/or emission/re-emission, extinction coefficients, etc.

...if he, or anyone is interested?

 

Then you are far more qualified to speak about it than I am. My whole routine above was, from a lay perspective, just to emphasise that the real experts are pretty united about the basics of the problem —*and we should trust them to analyse this for us. It was not to imply that I'm an expert in any of this... I'd love to hear your take on the Radiative Forcing equation — in English with no symbols please.

 

Really, just knowing that energy doesn't magically disappear should be enough to convince anyone about the problem.

:eek::):hihi: Couldn't agree more. Would you agree that while the basic problem is pretty well defined, the actual mechanisms by which it will play out have some margin of error? That is, roughly speaking we know the North Pole may melt (changing the albedo of the area and therefore increasing warming in the local climate), but the speed of melting seems to have caught us off guard, and actually be worse than predicted?

 

Lastly, a more personal comment. (Not sure if I've already shared this here.) Having shown how thoroughly I support the work of the IPCC and many other independent climate groups around the world, and how seriously I take this threat, I really do hope that the verified, peer-reviewed climate science stumbles into a new, previously unknown "safety-valve" of the Earth's climate system that short circuits the nastier scenarios. I would be open to this and any new climate findings... and really hope we find something like this one day because we just don't seem to be taking enough action quickly enough.

 

For all the talk of carbon trading etc, so many governments seem to emphasise 'Co2 intensity' rather than actual Co2 output. The radiative forcing equation doesn't care about 'intensity' per capita, but total Co2 concentrations. If Co2 emissions go UP because the global population keeps rising and the amount of Co2 producers keeps rising, 'intensity' is irrelevant.

 

So while I hope we find a 'safety valve', I'm not convinced there is one, just stating I would be open to learning of such a mechanism IF the majority of climate scientists started writing peer reviewed papers about it and breathing a sigh of relief.