Deniers, explained.

[Jack Hays]

. . . "Rocks for Jocks" is the pejorative term that is applied to intro geology precisely because it is almost always a lower impact, less stressful science class that gives kids a chance to take a science class they might actually be able to generate an interest in without it threatening their GPA.

Again, not at DePauw.

 

[istodolez]

Again, not at DePauw.

So how did they teach it? I'm curious now. I worked at a significant number of universities teaching intro geology so I'm always interested to hear how other places taught it.

 

[Jack Hays]

So how did they teach it? I'm curious now. I worked at a significant number of universities teaching intro geology so I'm always interested to hear how other places taught it.

Please keep in mind this was 1969, so I make no claims about memory. Class was taught by Dr. Thiruvathukal. (I suspect he was not yet a full professor, but he had his Ph.D.) Three sessions per week. I don't recall a lab but there were exhibits to go with his lectures. Lots of data and a thick accent. Very big on sea-floor spreading; went on to co-author an oceanography textbook, I believe.

 

[Jack Hays]

So how did they teach it? I'm curious now. I worked at a significant number of universities teaching intro geology so I'm always interested to hear how other places taught it.

Tracked this down.

[h=3]John V. Thiruvathukal (born August 4, 1939) | World Biographical ...[/h]prabook.com › web › john_v.thiruvathukal

John V. Thiruvathukal, American science educator, consultant, writer. Chairman Moscow State University President's Commission on Affirmative Action, Upper ...

 

[Threegoofs]

Took Zoology to complete the science requirement. Most of my grades were A.

Hence the term ‘Easy A’.


LOL

Most historians of science know zoology and geology are the science clssses for non scientists.

 

[Threegoofs]

Again, not at DePauw.

It is definitely true at DePauw.

You can show up to half the classes and study for the final at Marvin’s.

 

[Jack Hays]

Hence the term ‘Easy A’.


LOL

Most historians of science know zoology and geology are the science clssses for non scientists.

Don't let Charles Darwin find out.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is definitely true at DePauw.

You can show up to half the classes and study for the final at Marvin’s.

Interesting. Founded the year I graduated. Never heard of it.

You seem unfamiliar with first class education.

 

[Threegoofs]

Don't let Charles Darwin find out.

A historian of science would know that he’s....dead.

 

[calamity]

Took Zoology to complete the science requirement. Most of my grades were A.

:roll:

:lamo

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Because the IPCC does not present evidence for an urgent need for action, they present a range of possibilities, 1.5 to 4.5°C.
The range is not a statistical distribution, but a collection of model results, and not all based on the same assumptions.
The mid to high end of that range may be of concern, but the models based or actual observations, mostly come in at 2°C or below.
The entire concept of AGW, is that IF Humans stop sinning (emitting CO2), the world will not warm, and sea levels will not raise.
The reality is that the climate will continue to warm, until it starts to cool, and the sea level will continue to raise, until it starts to fall.
The best course of Human action, is to address the actual problems, rather than the imagined ones.
At some point, the low cost energy we get from stored fossil energy, will no longer be low cost.
We need to be able to do the same things that we do with oil based fuel products.
In addition, we need to be able to sustain the production of that energy for everyone alive!
I do not see any existing battery technology that can carry this load, in the near future.
For fixed applications like Grid storage, hydrogen storage has some possibilities, with bidirectional fuel cells.
For passenger jets, we are going to need hydrocarbon jet fuel, but it can be carbon neutral.

You demanded that I produced peer reviewed sources. So did you read the chapter from the IPCC report and the three sources from that report that I linked to. That just that chapter have in total nine pages of sources. So that there are a lot for you to read if you want to learn more about the urgent need for action.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf

"Here we use post-AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century and included an enhanced equatorial ocean response mechanism."

Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents | Nature

"Global warming and the associated rise in extreme temperatures substantially increase the chance of concurrent droughts and heat waves. The 2014 California drought is an archetype of an event characterized by not only low precipitation but also extreme high temperatures. From the raging wildfires, to record low storage levels and snowpack conditions, the impacts of this event can be felt throughout California."

Error - Cookies Turned Off

"Whilst future air temperature thresholds have become the centrepiece of international climate negotiations, even the most ambitious target of 1.5 °C will result in significant sea-level rise and associated impacts on human populations globally. Of additional concern in Arctic regions is declining sea ice and warming permafrost which can increasingly expose coastal areas to erosion particularly through exposure to wave action due to storm activity."


Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 degC future | SpringerLink

Also you still provided no evidence for why these 31 leading scientific organizations shouldn't be trusted in their conclusions that there are an urgent need for action on climate change. So it much more likely that they are right and that your conclusions are based on your cognitive bias.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

Also the transition away from fossil fuels is happening right now. For example Denmark got 64% of their electricity from wind and solar power, Ireland got 49% and Germany 42% the first half of years.

https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/

 

[calamity]

A historian of science would know that he’s....dead.

:lamo

 

[longview]

Random internet pundit thinks the entire postulation of AGW ‘defies logic’.

Totally believable.

So how do you reconcile two ideas belonging to the same concept that contradict each other?
On the one side, the basis of the concept of the greenhouse effect,
that Earth is 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent, from a top of atmosphere imbalance of 150 W/m2.
and on the other side that doubling the CO2 level will cause a 3.71 W/m2 imbalance, that through feedbacks will be amplified to
produce warming of 3C or greater.
Earth's greenhouse effect, says that each watt per meter square of imbalance will in the long term, result in .22C of warming.
While Human understanding the greenhouse effect is over a century old, the basis of the calculation are many millennia old,
so that .22C per Watt per meter square, is the fully equalized result.
Using the greenhouse effect ratio, we see that a doubling of the CO2 level (3.71 W/m2) should produce a fully equalized
warming of 3.71 X .22 = .8162C.

Greenhouse effect 2XCO2 = .8162 C
AGW 2XCO2 = between 1.5 and 4.5C

We have to reconcile why the effect of the known energy imbalance, is so much less than the effect of the predicted energy imbalance!

 

[longview]

Apparently you disagree with the world's climate experts. Have you contacted them with your discovery? Or more importantly have you published? This is a very important topic and so you should find ample opportunity to get your word out there to some of the major journals.

It is not anything that is not already known, I.E. it is not new art!
Just like anyone who has looked at the RCP scenarios, know that RCP8.5 with it's 1370 ppm by year 2100, is not possible.

 

[calamity]

It is not anything that is not already known, I.E. it is not new art!
Just like anyone who has looked at the RCP scenarios, know that RCP8.5 with it's 1370 ppm by year 2100, is not possible.

 

[Surface Detail]

I am sure that the response would fall off it's natural log curve somewhere., but likely quite a bit before 1 ppm.

Right, we're slowly getting somewhere. You have at last acknowledged that the CO2 response is indeed dependent on the actual concentration.

Now perhaps you can justify your "likely quite a bit before 1 ppm" claim.

 

[longview]

You demanded that I produced peer reviewed sources. So did you read the chapter from the IPCC report and the three sources from that report that I linked to. That just that chapter have in total nine pages of sources. So that there are a lot for you to read if you want to learn more about the urgent need for action.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf

"Here we use post-AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century and included an enhanced equatorial ocean response mechanism."

Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents | Nature

"Global warming and the associated rise in extreme temperatures substantially increase the chance of concurrent droughts and heat waves. The 2014 California drought is an archetype of an event characterized by not only low precipitation but also extreme high temperatures. From the raging wildfires, to record low storage levels and snowpack conditions, the impacts of this event can be felt throughout California."

Error - Cookies Turned Off

"Whilst future air temperature thresholds have become the centrepiece of international climate negotiations, even the most ambitious target of 1.5 °C will result in significant sea-level rise and associated impacts on human populations globally. Of additional concern in Arctic regions is declining sea ice and warming permafrost which can increasingly expose coastal areas to erosion particularly through exposure to wave action due to storm activity."


Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 degC future | SpringerLink

Also you still provided no evidence for why these 31 leading scientific organizations shouldn't be trusted in their conclusions that there are an urgent need for action on climate change. So it much more likely that they are right and that your conclusions are based on your cognitive bias.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

Also the transition away from fossil fuels is happening right now. For example Denmark got 64% of their electricity from wind and solar power, Ireland got 49% and Germany 42% the first half of years.

https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/

I sure it would be of no value to say that palaeoclimate proxy records and modern instrument records have very different time standards.
You also cited sea level rise,
https://climaterealism.com/2020/07/noaa-bureaucrats-falsely-claim-extraordinary-sea-level-rise/

The best evidence is, regardless of what humans do, sea level will continue modestly yet relentlessly rising,
sometimes slower than others, until the next ice age begins.

We need a source of energy that covers the full duty cycle, Solar with storage could do it, but the level of storage needed is difficult,
without using man made hydrocarbons. Hydrogen storage has some potential, but has it's own issues.

 

[longview]

Right, we're slowly getting somewhere. You have at last acknowledged that the CO2 response is indeed dependent on the actual concentration.

Now perhaps you can justify your "likely quite a bit before 1 ppm" claim.

It seems you neglected to quote the rest of my statement.

Sort of like in a vacuum system, when you hit the boundary between viscus flow and molecular flow.
There are modtran runs I think going back to 1ppm, that are still on the same log curve.

While I am not going to go through the effort, one can calculate the mean free path of a photon
with the partial pressure of a molecule like CO2 at roughly 1 micro Torr.
It is likely under 10 meters, which means that a photon could not escape the atmosphere without striking a CO2 molecule, at 1 ppm.
It is just a suspicion on my part, but when the mean free path exceeded ~15000 meters, we would be near the lower boundary of CO2's log curve.

 

[Surface Detail]

It seems you neglected to quote the rest of my statement.

While I am not going to go through the effort, one can calculate the mean free path of a photon
with the partial pressure of a molecule like CO2 at roughly 1 micro Torr.
It is likely under 10 meters, which means that a photon could not escape the atmosphere without striking a CO2 molecule, at 1 ppm.
It is just a suspicion on my part, but when the mean free path exceeded ~15000 meters, we would be near the lower boundary of CO2's log curve.

Again, the same old crap. No actual references, just supposition and guesses. "It is likely...", "It is just a suspicion on my part...".

Anyway, the point is made. The ECS is not a constant value, as you appear to imagine when making your arguments, but is actually dependent on the concentration of CO2.

 

[longview]

Again, the same old crap. No actual references, just supposition and guesses. "It is likely...", "It is just a suspicion on my part...".

Anyway, the point is made. The ECS is not a constant value, as you appear to imagine when making your arguments, but is actually dependent on the concentration of CO2.

Sorry, most people with a Physics background understand mean free path.
On the significance of mean free path to vacuum physics and technology - ScienceDirect
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1542476/files/Vacuum-IEdited1-pdfx.pdf
It is a fairly straight forward concept, How far can a photon travel before it will strike something on average.
Over the log range of CO2, ECS should be fairly constant, Why would the result one top of the atmosphere energy imbalance
respond differently than any other top of the atmosphere energy imbalance?

 

[istodolez]

It is not anything that is not already known, I.E. it is not new art!

Well you seem to be taking away a new view of the data. So clearly you need to communicate to the world's experts the fact that they seem to be completely confused on the science they study.

It's always possible that over the past 60 years or so >90% of the earth's experts all independently drew the wrong conclusion.

Those who see the error that almost all of the earth's climate scientists have failed to see over the last 60 or so years will surely be up for a Nobel in a few years. Now's the chance! PUBLISH! Put your work up for a legit high-impact journal and get the important word out!

 

[longview]

Well you seem to be taking away a new view of the data. So clearly you need to communicate to the world's experts the fact that they seem to be completely confused on the science they study.

It's always possible that over the past 60 years or so >90% of the earth's experts all independently drew the wrong conclusion.

Those who see the error that almost all of the earth's climate scientists have failed to see over the last 60 or so years will surely be up for a Nobel in a few years. Now's the chance! PUBLISH! Put your work up for a legit high-impact journal and get the important word out!

You are an intelligent guy! Tell us what the average CO2 increases need to be per year,
to move from 410 ppm to 1370 ppm, in the next 80 years?
Keep in mind that for the last 20 years, the CO2 growth rate has been between 1 to 3 ppm per year!
Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

 

[istodolez]

You are an intelligent guy! Tell us what the average CO2 increases need to be per year,
to move from 410 ppm to 1370 ppm, in the next 80 years?

You seem really amped up by RCP8.5. Why? I understand it is controversial among "skeptics" and denialists but it isn't like the creators wanted it accepted as a fait acompli. NONE of the scenarios are listed by "likelihood". My understanding is this is the worst case scenario.

Why do you guys always pick at the edges of the distribution of things? I'm curious because it feels like that's where the highest "doubt" resides and as such provides easy targets which allows us to ignore the very real danger we are facing here.

It all feels like "doubt for doubt's sake". Don't get me wrong: doubt is good, skepticism is good, but bashing on about the edges of the distribution is like worrying over the 1 kid in the entire school district who is 3 standard deviations taller than her or his classmates in order to suggest humans are becoming GIANTS.

 

[longview]

You seem really amped up by RCP8.5. Why? I understand it is controversial among "skeptics" and denialists but it isn't like the creators wanted it accepted as a fait acompli. NONE of the scenarios are listed by "likelihood". My understanding is this is the worst case scenario.

Why do you guys always pick at the edges of the distribution of things? I'm curious because it feels like that's where the highest "doubt" resides and as such provides easy targets which allows us to ignore the very real danger we are facing here.

It all feels like "doubt for doubt's sake". Don't get me wrong: doubt is good, skepticism is good, but bashing on about the edges of the distribution is like worrying over the 1 kid in the entire school district who is 3 standard deviations taller than her or his classmates in order to suggest humans are becoming GIANTS.

All the alarmist statements, if you follow them back to their source, are tied to RCP8.5, and it is not realistic.
I see that you did not answer the question of how fast CO2 growth would have to average to hit that RCP8.5 number!

 

[Surface Detail]

Sorry, most people with a Physics background understand mean free path.
On the significance of mean free path to vacuum physics and technology - ScienceDirect
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1542476/files/Vacuum-IEdited1-pdfx.pdf
It is a fairly straight forward concept, How far can a photon travel before it will strike something on average.
Over the log range of CO2, ECS should be fairly constant, Why would the result one top of the atmosphere energy imbalance
respond differently than any other top of the atmosphere energy imbalance?

Of course I know what mean free path is, but it is completely beside the point. You appear to be incapable of following a single train of thought. My sole point is that, contrary to your assumption, simple logic tells you that ECS must indeed depend on CO2 concentration. So stop pretending that it doesn't.