AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

[longview]

Melting ice in the Arctic? More frequent flooding in South Pacific atolls? Permafrost turning to mush in Eskimo villages? Not signs of global warming? Really? In actuality, these are canary in the cage events foretelling a gloomy environmental future as such items become more widespread, aren’t they?

Since 8000 years ago, we have been warming, and sea levels have been increasing slowly.
Permafrost has been melting, and everything that goes along with it.
If we look at the increase in CO2 vs the some of the older sea level gauges,
sea level appears to be largely ignoring the CO2 level.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It has been a big difference between American and European fossil fuel companies then it comes to acknowledging the need for action on climate change and the great opportunities with a transition towards renewable energy.

"The plans of companies like BP BP.L, Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L and Total TOTF.PA are in step with the European Union's efforts to transition to a lower-carbon economy and away from a century-old reliance on oil, and reflect the region's widening rift with the United States where both the government and the top drillers are largely staying committed to oil and gas.

“We are all living differently and there is a real possibility that some of this will stick,” BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney told Reuters in a recent interview, citing big declines in air and road travel, and a boost in telecommuting."

This will lead to that not only American fossil fuel companies but also US will be less competitive then the shift towards renewable energy now is accelerating.

When will renewable energy overtake coal and gas? | World Economic Forum

90% of the Global Power Capacity Added in 2020 Will Be Renewable

With governments eager to spend money to pull their countries out of recession, green investments could provide a win for economies and the environment.

singularityhub.com

There a big reason for that is that European politicians have taking climate change more serious and passed necessary legislation. While this might to start to change now with Biden as the new president.

Biden plans to fight climate change in a way no U.S. president has done before

Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter explains what Biden's "all hands on deck" approach could look like as the new administration takes on five big climate challenges.

theconversation.com

 

[watsup]

What, You cannot see that Hansen predicted peak warming at both poles, but the observed
warming is almost the opposite of that, with only minor warming in the South, and large warming in the North.
All this while CO2 saw the same increase everywhere.

When I click on the graph, all I get is a bigger graph. What I need to know us from where exactly you got this graph. It doesn’t tell me a whole lot standing alone. Please source it to the place where you got it.

 

[watsup]

Since 8000 years ago, we have been warming, and sea levels have been increasing slowly.
Permafrost has been melting, and everything that goes along with it.
If we look at the increase in CO2 vs the some of the older sea level gauges,
sea level appears to be largely ignoring the CO2 level.
View attachment 67313488

Again, we need your graph to be sourced to where you got it from so that we can put it in context. Please do so when you present a graph,

 

[jaeger19]

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in question, it can and does absorb 15 um photons.
The question is how the climate responds to added CO2.
All of the past CO2, is stated to have caused 6.6C of warming, 8.09 doubling s if counted from 1 ppm, for 30 W m-2 of imbalance.
Interesting enough, that looks like where the 3.71 W m-2 per doubling came from, since 30/8.09=3.708 W m-2.
Now we are expected to believe, that future doubling s of CO2, will have a much greater effect, than all past doubling s of CO2 had!

Why would you not believe that future doublings of CO2 will have a much greater effect.?

That seems pretty common sense that as CO2 doubles.. the mechanisms that convert that CO2 in the environment will eventually be overwhelmed to the point where any increase will have a much greater effect than previously.

 

[watsup]

Since 8000 years ago, we have been warming, and sea levels have been increasing slowly.
Permafrost has been melting, and everything that goes along with it.
If we look at the increase in CO2 vs the some of the older sea level gauges,
sea level appears to be largely ignoring the CO2 level.
View attachment 67313488

What your graph shows is a rise in sea level beginning basically with the onset of the Industrial Age. A more detailed graph would show that it is doing so at an increased rate in latter years, as the artful below shows. In addition, we would certainly not expect a 1:1 ratio in sea level rise versus increased amounts of CO2 because of lag time and numerous other variables. Anyway, from NOAA:

“Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2019, global mean sea level was 3.4 inches (87.6 millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). From 2018 to 2019, global sea level rose 0.24 inches (6.1 millimeters).”

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

 

[watsup]

Why would you not believe that future doublings of CO2 will have a much greater effect.?

That seems pretty common sense that as CO2 doubles.. the mechanisms that convert that CO2 in the environment will eventually be overwhelmed to the point where any increase will have a much greater effect than previously.

He is trying to make a 1:1 ratio when there are many other variables involved.

 

[longview]

When I click on the graph, all I get is a bigger graph. What I need to know us from where exactly you got this graph. It doesn’t tell me a whole lot standing alone. Please source it to the place where you got it.

Hansen's graph came from Hansen 1997 figure 4.
and the other side was taken directly from the GISS zone table.
GISS Zones
I think I average the pre 1900 data, and then averaged the last 10 years, to show warming by zone since 1900.

 

[longview]

Again, we need your graph to be sourced to where you got it from so that we can put it in context. Please do so when you present a graph,

Sorry, wrong reply, the New York sea level is from NOAA's sea level trends battery park.
Battery park NOAA sea level trend
and the CO2 data came from GISS CO2 info.
GISS CO2

 

[watsup]

Hansen's graph came from Hansen 1997 figure 4.
and the other side was taken directly from the GISS zone table.
GISS Zones
I think I average the pre 1900 data, and then averaged the last 10 years, to show warming by zone since 1900.

I think what is white amazing in the Hansen graph if how well predicted and actual followed. While there was more spacing at the Antarctic than the Arctic, his predictions are amazing similar to actualities. Although the study wouldn’t copy, the adjectives “constant” and “ consistent” were the adjectives used. There are many variables, and no one would expect an exact cloning of effects in both poles.

 

[watsup]

Sorry, wrong reply, the New York sea level is from NOAA's sea level trends battery park.
Battery park NOAA sea level trend
and the CO2 data came from GISS CO2 info.
GISS CO2

“he global mean water level in the ocean rose by 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, which was 2.5 times the average rate of 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century.”

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

 

[longview]

Why would you not believe that future doublings of CO2 will have a much greater effect.?

That seems pretty common sense that as CO2 doubles.. the mechanisms that convert that CO2 in the environment will eventually be overwhelmed to the point where any increase will have a much greater effect than previously.

Let's start with how CO2 levels grow, it has been increasing at between 2 and 3 ppm per year for 2 decades, with a slight upward trend.
On the other hand a doubling curve is a natural log function.
Because it is a doubling curve, each new unit of CO2 has less warming potential than the earlier units,
so the change from 140 ppm to 280 ppm, has the same warming potential as the change from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
As for CO2 conversion, it is just as efficient as burning gasoline is inefficient in creating CO2.
A pound of biomass, takes about 3 lbs of CO2 to create, and Earth still has a lot of potential greening.

 

[longview]

I think what is white amazing in the Hansen graph if how well predicted and actual followed. While there was more spacing at the Antarctic than the Arctic, his predictions are amazing similar to actualities. Although the study wouldn’t copy, the adjectives “constant” and “ consistent” were the adjectives used. There are many variables, and no one would expect an exact cloning of effects in both poles.

Hansen's graph clearly shows he expected similar levels of warming at both poles.

 

[longview]

“he global mean water level in the ocean rose by 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, which was 2.5 times the average rate of 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century.”

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

Yea, I would be cautious about what a satellite with a 34 mm accuracy tells about a single minimum unit of change.
Remember it cannot resolve anything between the minimum steps.

 

[watsup]

Hansen's graph clearly shows he expected similar levels of warming at both poles.
View attachment 67313501

You did not address the meat of my post. You deflected again.

 

[watsup]

Yea, I would be cautious about what a satellite with a 34 mm accuracy tells about a single minimum unit of change.
Remember it cannot resolve anything between the minimum steps.

It is quite clear that the annual amount of rise has increased in recent decades.

 

[istodolez]

It is quite clear that the annual amount of rise has increased in recent decades.

This is the beauty of statistics that an ensemble of small changes can still indicate real change over time.

 

[jaeger19]

He is trying to make a 1:1 ratio when there are many other variables involved.

I know.. its the typical thing that the anti science fellows seem to love to do. They look only at data that they THINK supports them.. and don;t even understand the data.
Its like these anti maskers... "but but.. masks don;t work.. the proof is that there is a mask mandate in california and there is MORE cases now in california than before the mandate".
And they think that proves their point.
And then I point out.. "Doctors are treating more patients with new medications and treatments than before.. and the number of covid deaths per day has increased... therefore using your logic... Doctors should stop treating covid patients... "
"Is that what you believe"
and they get left scratching their heads.

The global warming issue is pretty settled science that greenhouses gases.. which Co2 is one of them.. can increase warming of the earth.
Past studies of ice cores and climate have confirmed that.
Human activity that increases greenhouses gases.. of which Co2 is one.. can therefore increase warming of the earth. The greater the Co2increase.. over time. the greater the warming as those processes that convert Co2 get overwhelmed.

The big question that hasn;t been completely answered by science is what to do about it..and how large the effect will be.
The problem is.. the longer we wait to see... the worse the danger will potentially be.

 

[jaeger19]

Let's start with how CO2 levels grow, it has been increasing at between 2 and 3 ppm per year for 2 decades, with a slight upward trend.
On the other hand a doubling curve is a natural log function.
Because it is a doubling curve, each new unit of CO2 has less warming potential than the earlier units,
so the change from 140 ppm to 280 ppm, has the same warming potential as the change from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
As for CO2 conversion, it is just as efficient as burning gasoline is inefficient in creating CO2.
A pound of biomass, takes about 3 lbs of CO2 to create, and Earth still has a lot of potential greening.

No you cannot extrapolate that there is the same warming potential from a doubling of Co2 . And thats because you cannot assume that the processes that convert CO2 will increase at the same rate as the level of CO2 increases.
A pound of biomass is not created by 3 pounds of Co2.
If I spready ten tons of Co2 over my dirt field.. it does not magically make 3.3 tons of biomass suddenly grow on that field.

 

[watsup]

I know.. its the typical thing that the anti science fellows seem to love to do. They look only at data that they THINK supports them.. and don;t even understand the data.
Its like these anti maskers... "but but.. masks don;t work.. the proof is that there is a mask mandate in california and there is MORE cases now in california than before the mandate".
And they think that proves their point.
And then I point out.. "Doctors are treating more patients with new medications and treatments than before.. and the number of covid deaths per day has increased... therefore using your logic... Doctors should stop treating covid patients... "
"Is that what you believe"
and they get left scratching their heads.

The global warming issue is pretty settled science that greenhouses gases.. which Co2 is one of them.. can increase warming of the earth.
Past studies of ice cores and climate have confirmed that.
Human activity that increases greenhouses gases.. of which Co2 is one.. can therefore increase warming of the earth. The greater the Co2increase.. over time. the greater the warming as those processes that convert Co2 get overwhelmed.

The big question that hasn;t been completely answered by science is what to do about it..and how large the effect will be.
The problem is.. the longer we wait to see... the worse the danger will potentially be.

They continually recreate the old fable about the blind man who feels the leg of an elephant and proclaims that it is a tree. They do essentially the same by focusing on small details and refusing to look at the big picture.

 

[watsup]

Let's start with how CO2 levels grow, it has been increasing at between 2 and 3 ppm per year for 2 decades, with a slight upward trend.
On the other hand a doubling curve is a natural log function.
Because it is a doubling curve, each new unit of CO2 has less warming potential than the earlier units,
so the change from 140 ppm to 280 ppm, has the same warming potential as the change from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
As for CO2 conversion, it is just as efficient as burning gasoline is inefficient in creating CO2.
A pound of biomass, takes about 3 lbs of CO2 to create, and Earth still has a lot of potential greening.

The spew of CO2 manmade emissions into the air is far outstripping any "greening" of the Earth. That is why we are having global warming and its potentially terrible long-term environmental effects.

 

[longview]

The spew of CO2 manmade emissions into the air is far outstripping any "greening" of the Earth. That is why we are having global warming and its potentially terrible long-term environmental effects.

We know that CO2 levels are raising, and that some of that raising is from Human emissions,
Although the exact percentage is uncertain.
What I am advocating, (the storage of surplus energy as transport fuels) would cut Human emissions
by nearly 1/3 globally, and solve the problem of the duck curve for alternative energy sources.
While my concerns are for future energy sustainability, the path also solves the most difficult portion of the CO2 emission problem.
I find it odd, that the very people who claim to want to reduce CO2 emissions, and the ones who push back the hardest
against, what could be the only viable solution within reach of current technology.

 

[ataraxia]

I think the greatest hoax, is relevant, as we are attempting to correct something that may not even be a problem.

Yes, we should never do anything ever because we don’t know anything and we can never know if doing anything will have an effect.

We should always just helplessly sit around and take whatever happens to us because doing anything is a liberal hoax to impose communist tyranny.

Yay freedom.

 

[longview]

Yes, we should never do anything ever because we don’t know anything and we can never know if doing anything will have an effect.

We should always just helplessly sit around and take whatever happens to us because doing anything is a liberal hoax to impose communist tyranny.

Yay freedom.

Thank you for your opinion, it is not my opinion.
I think we have a very real energy problem, that we need to address!

 

[ataraxia]

Thank you for your opinion, it is not my opinion.
I think we have a very real energy problem, that we need to address!

How do you know? Where’s the data? We can’t be sure of anything. You are just proposing tyranny. Just let it all hang loose and free man.