Religion of Green

[Jack Hays]

It must have been hard to buck the experts in an area you were just getting up to speed on. Back in the 70's it wasn't as easy to find confirmation-bias supporting sources of information as easily as it is today and it often required reading the actual technical literature.

Research was much more difficult back in the day. I cut my teeth on literature reviews that involved actually going to the library and pawing through countless journals and then sometimes coming away with information that didn't confirm my initial hopes or impressions.

That's one reason why Raytheon hired me in 2010.

 

[noonereal]

sometimes coming away with information that didn't confirm my initial hopes

Well, those days are gone here in wild world of Trumpism!

 

[istodolez]

That's one reason why Raytheon hired me in 2010.

So what happened? Why are you now a one-man confirmation bias machine? Seriously I've seldom seen you quote anything that wasn't just a straight up denialist/climate skeptic blog.

You don't appear to have even basic math or graph skills, let alone deeper understanding of how data is processed and yet you hold forth at length on a topic you can't even summarize in your own words.

It would be interesting to know what kind of projects you directed at Raytheon because basic math skills would seem to be a pre-requisite. I've worked in tech and science my entire career and I've been around the block enough to know what I'm seeing in your posts.

(Sorry this comes across as a bit harsh, and I apologize for it. But it is a mystery to me.)

 

[mrjurrs]

Quite a few aspects of the green movement, look like a religion.
The prophets saying that doom will befall humanity, unless we change our evil ways, of course they are in charge of defining our evil ways!
The problem with a religion that claims to be based in Science, is that science is about repeatable testing.
The concept of catastrophic Human caused climate change, cannot demonstrate a repeatable test in support of it's central claim.
CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses, but the central claim of the catastrophic response is that climate feedbacks will make the warming much worse.
The fact that these strong feedbacks cannot be uniquely identified in the observed warming record, should give all true believers pause.

"Ice albedo. Ice is white and very reflective, in contrast to the ocean surface, which is dark and absorbs heat faster. As the atmosphere warms and sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, causes more ice to melt, and makes the Earth warmer overall. The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback."

The Study of Earth as an Integrated System

Earth system science is the study of how scientific data stemming from various fields of research, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land ice and others, fit together to form the current picture of our changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[istodolez]

"Ice albedo. Ice is white and very reflective, in contrast to the ocean surface, which is dark and absorbs heat faster. As the atmosphere warms and sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, causes more ice to melt, and makes the Earth warmer overall. The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback."

The Study of Earth as an Integrated System

Earth system science is the study of how scientific data stemming from various fields of research, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land ice and others, fit together to form the current picture of our changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

The list of basic positive feedbacks is nearly endless. They will all be ignored I suspect.

 

[istodolez]

Well, those days are gone here in wild world of Trumpism!

Confirmation Bias and Dunning Kruger is a really harsh combination.

 

[noonereal]

Confirmation Bias and Dunning Kruger is a really harsh combination.

not that the dolts have ever heard of either

it would not matter, they would choose not to believe the effects anyway

a sordid, misfit gang of orange worshipers

 

[longview]

"Ice albedo. Ice is white and very reflective, in contrast to the ocean surface, which is dark and absorbs heat faster. As the atmosphere warms and sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, causes more ice to melt, and makes the Earth warmer overall. The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback."

The Study of Earth as an Integrated System

Earth system science is the study of how scientific data stemming from various fields of research, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land ice and others, fit together to form the current picture of our changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

But not a different feedback that has been ongoing since the glaciers started to recede 12000 years ago.
The evidence I am speaking of, is that there is nothing in the observed temperature record, that could be pointed to and named without question as being caused from positive feedback!

 

[istodolez]

But not a different feedback that has been ongoing since the glaciers started to recede 12000 years ago.

You DO know why the glaciers started to recede 12,000 years ago, right? It was due to Milankovich Cycles as we entered an interglacial. The orbital eccentricity of the earth drove that temperature change.

Ironically enough we should be heading back into the next ice age. But we are not. We are, in fact WARMING, which is not where we should be if we could rely on the "natural" forcings like the Milankovich cycles.

What is the new factor? Well, interestingly enough scientists have been working on this for over 100 years and they have come to a pretty strong conclusion: human activities. Greenhouse gases, land use changes, etc.

So, yeah, ice albedo loss will be a significant positive feedback to global warming. Because global warming is resulting in ice loss. DESPITE the fact that we should be going into a cooling phase if the natural forcings were dominant.

The evidence I am speaking of, is that there is nothing in the observed temperature record, that could be pointed to and named without question as being caused from positive feedback!

Basic PHYSICS tells you that is an incorrect statement. As noted earlier water vapor is increasing as a function of global warming (as verified by satellite data). Given that H2O is a greenhouse gase that stands to reason that it will contribute some warming. IF it results in clouds at ONE level of the atmosphere it may actually also act to decrease the warming, but the opposite is true if it forms clouds in a DIFFERENT level of the atmosphere.

Global warming IS resulting in permafrost melting and release of CH4. CH4 is another very powerful greenhouse gas. So there's YET ANOTHER reason.

Basic chemistry tells us that if you warm a solution containing CO2 dissolved in it, the CO2 will RELEASE. That's what one would expect from warming the oceans which is happening. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, another positive feedback.

In fact that last one is often misused by skeptics and denialists when they look at the last several ice ages where it appears that CO2 lags temperature increases during the interglacials. But that's only because the skeptics and denialists often lack even an intro chemistry class and can't comprehend that CO2 can LEAD AND LAG temperature for this very reason.

 

[Jack Hays]

So what happened? Why are you now a one-man confirmation bias machine? Seriously I've seldom seen you quote anything that wasn't just a straight up denialist/climate skeptic blog.

You don't appear to have even basic math or graph skills, let alone deeper understanding of how data is processed and yet you hold forth at length on a topic you can't even summarize in your own words.

It would be interesting to know what kind of projects you directed at Raytheon because basic math skills would seem to be a pre-requisite. I've worked in tech and science my entire career and I've been around the block enough to know what I'm seeing in your posts.

(Sorry this comes across as a bit harsh, and I apologize for it. But it is a mystery to me.)

My work was classified.

 

[istodolez]

My work was classified.

Sure, got it.

Im just curious if you relied on confirmation bias as much then as you do now.

 

[longview]

You DO know why the glaciers started to recede 12,000 years ago, right? It was due to Milankovich Cycles as we entered an interglacial. The orbital eccentricity of the earth drove that temperature change.

Ironically enough we should be heading back into the next ice age. But we are not. We are, in fact WARMING, which is not where we should be if we could rely on the "natural" forcings like the Milankovich cycles.





Basic PHYSICS tells you that is an incorrect statement. As noted earlier water vapor is increasing as a function of global warming (as verified by satellite data). Given that H2O is a greenhouse gase that stands to reason that it will contribute some warming. IF it results in clouds at ONE level of the atmosphere it may actually also act to decrease the warming, but the opposite is true if it forms clouds in a DIFFERENT level of the atmosphere.

Global warming IS resulting in permafrost melting and release of CH4. CH4 is another very powerful greenhouse gas. So there's YET ANOTHER reason.

Basic chemistry tells us that if you warm a solution containing CO2 dissolved in it, the CO2 will RELEASE. That's what one would expect from warming the oceans which is happening. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, another positive feedback.

In fact that last one is often misused by skeptics and denialists when they look at the last several ice ages where it appears that CO2 lags temperature increases during the interglacials. But that's only because the skeptics and denialists often lack even an intro chemistry class and can't comprehend that CO2 can LEAD AND LAG temperature for this very reason.

We do not exact

You DO know why the glaciers started to recede 12,000 years ago, right? It was due to Milankovich Cycles as we entered an interglacial. The orbital eccentricity of the earth drove that temperature change.

Ironically enough we should be heading back into the next ice age. But we are not. We are, in fact WARMING, which is not where we should be if we could rely on the "natural" forcings like the Milankovich cycles.





Basic PHYSICS tells you that is an incorrect statement. As noted earlier water vapor is increasing as a function of global warming (as verified by satellite data). Given that H2O is a greenhouse gase that stands to reason that it will contribute some warming. IF it results in clouds at ONE level of the atmosphere it may actually also act to decrease the warming, but the opposite is true if it forms clouds in a DIFFERENT level of the atmosphere.

Global warming IS resulting in permafrost melting and release of CH4. CH4 is another very powerful greenhouse gas. So there's YET ANOTHER reason.

B

The timing and exact causes of the ice ages are not well known enough to say if we should have already entered another one.
Any statement otherwise are pure speculation.
Feedbacks, if positive, would have to show up in the temperature record, beyond the the forcing warming.
Land and sea cover loosing their ice would affect albedo, but such loss would have to be somehow different than the rate of loss already happening.
Consider that absent Humans, the same cycles happened, ice loss and albedo reductions occurred, until they did not, and the cycle reversed.

Basic Physics says that if the energy imbalance were present, the temperature would be forced to increase.
Within the record, we have a recorded warming period, and a latency period. The post warming period should
contain the warming from any new forcing, any natural or other man caused warming, AND the portion of the feedbacks within that latency period.
Hadcrut4 shows that Globally we had .258C of pre 1950 warming, and warming of .703 C between 1950 and 2015, in the decade smoothed record.
From 1950 to 2015, the AGGI also records that most of the greenhouse gasses increased to cause forcing warming of .579C.
The difference of .124C is all that could possibly be considered positive feedback, but that would be before any other factors were considered.
From 1950 we still had several years of TSI increases, and we also had an increase in insolation from ~1985 to 2015, and the accuracy of the record itself.
Global Dimming and Brightening
So again there is noting in the instrument record, that could be pointed to without question as positive feedback, yet some should be there.

 

[istodolez]

The timing and exact causes of the ice ages are not well known enough to say if we should have already entered another one.

We have a pretty good idea. We have a lot of data for Holocene continental glaciation. I have little doubt that Milankovich cycles are not the ONLY driver, but they are a major enough one that know that we should be heading into another. There have been a number of North American ice ages in the Cenozoic.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

.

Any statement otherwise are pure speculation.

Or science.

 

[longview]

Ice ages
"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to predict that emissions have been so high that it will not. "
So we are not delaying a new ice age now, as the expected start is within 1500 years.

 

[istodolez]

Ice ages
"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to predict that emissions have been so high that it will not. "
So we are not delaying a new ice age now, as the expected start is within 1500 years.

You do realize the article mentioned in this very quote suggests that human emissions will defer the next ice age, right? Did you read what you posted?

If not, here's a link to an article discussing the research: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807

While I'm not entirely certain it looks like THIS might be the actual article itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1358


And it basically states that CO2 levels we see due to human activities will cause a delay in the next ice age.

"At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down," said Luke Skinner from Cambridge University.

You are free to disagree with experts in the field, it is a common thing here on debatepolitics, but it does get kinda boring seeing that every one of the world's climate and earth science experts is somehow mistaken unless they comport with your personal favorite view.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sure, got it.

Im just curious if you relied on confirmation bias as much then as you do now.

Apart from leadership experience, my role was to provide the operator perspective.

 

[longview]

You DO know why the glaciers started to recede 12,000 years ago, right? It was due to Milankovich Cycles as we entered an interglacial. The orbital eccentricity of the earth drove that temperature change.

Ironically enough we should be heading back into the next ice age. But we are not. We are, in fact WARMING, which is not where we should be if we could rely on the "natural" forcings like the Milankovich cycles.

What is the new factor? Well, interestingly enough scientists have been working on this for over 100 years and they have come to a pretty strong conclusion: human activities. Greenhouse gases, land use changes, etc.

So, yeah, ice albedo loss will be a significant positive feedback to global warming. Because global warming is resulting in ice loss. DESPITE the fact that we should be going into a cooling phase if the natural forcings were dominant.



Basic PHYSICS tells you that is an incorrect statement. As noted earlier water vapor is increasing as a function of global warming (as verified by satellite data). Given that H2O is a greenhouse gase that stands to reason that it will contribute some warming. IF it results in clouds at ONE level of the atmosphere it may actually also act to decrease the warming, but the opposite is true if it forms clouds in a DIFFERENT level of the atmosphere.

Global warming IS resulting in permafrost melting and release of CH4. CH4 is another very powerful greenhouse gas. So there's YET ANOTHER reason.

Basic chemistry tells us that if you warm a solution containing CO2 dissolved in it, the CO2 will RELEASE. That's what one would expect from warming the oceans which is happening. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, another positive feedback.

In fact that last one is often misused by skeptics and denialists when they look at the last several ice ages where it appears that CO2 lags temperature increases during the interglacials. But that's only because the skeptics and denialists often lack even an intro chemistry class and can't comprehend that CO2 can LEAD AND LAG temperature for this very reason.

You do realize the article mentioned in this very quote suggests that human emissions will defer the next ice age, right? Did you read what you posted?

If not, here's a link to an article discussing the research: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807

While I'm not entirely certain it looks like THIS might be the actual article itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1358


And it basically states that CO2 levels we see due to human activities will cause a delay in the next ice age.

"At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down," said Luke Skinner from Cambridge University.

You are free to disagree with experts in the field, it is a common thing here on debatepolitics, but it does get kinda boring seeing that every one of the world's climate and earth science experts is somehow mistaken unless they comport with your personal favorite view.

It says that alright, but also says the beginning of the next ice age has about 1500 years of uncertainty.
So it cannot be said with any certainty that
We should already be entering another ice age.

 

[istodolez]

It says that alright, but also says the beginning of the next ice age has about 1500 years of uncertainty.
So it cannot be said with any certainty that
We should already be entering another ice age.

It doesn't say 1500 years of uncertainty.

 

[longview]

It doesn't say 1500 years of uncertainty.

No, it says the next ice age should begin in the next 1500 years, we can ether take as uncertainty or claim
That the uncertainty is say 500 years, and the next ice age should begin between 1000 and 2000 years from now.
Neither supports your statement that the next ice age should have already begun!

 

[Buzz]

We do not exact

The timing and exact causes of the ice ages are not well known enough to say if we should have already entered another one.
Any statement otherwise are pure speculation.
Feedbacks, if positive, would have to show up in the temperature record, beyond the the forcing warming.
Land and sea cover loosing their ice would affect albedo, but such loss would have to be somehow different than the rate of loss already happening.
Consider that absent Humans, the same cycles happened, ice loss and albedo reductions occurred, until they did not, and the cycle reversed.

Basic Physics says that if the energy imbalance were present, the temperature would be forced to increase.
Within the record, we have a recorded warming period, and a latency period. The post warming period should
contain the warming from any new forcing, any natural or other man caused warming, AND the portion of the feedbacks within that latency period.
Hadcrut4 shows that Globally we had .258C of pre 1950 warming, and warming of .703 C between 1950 and 2015, in the decade smoothed record.
From 1950 to 2015, the AGGI also records that most of the greenhouse gasses increased to cause forcing warming of .579C.
The difference of .124C is all that could possibly be considered positive feedback, but that would be before any other factors were considered.
From 1950 we still had several years of TSI increases, and we also had an increase in insolation from ~1985 to 2015, and the accuracy of the record itself.
Global Dimming and Brightening
So again there is noting in the instrument record, that could be pointed to without question as positive feedback, yet some should be there.

How can you find evidence of positive feedbacks in a temperature record that doesn't include much of the part of the planet where the feedbacks are known to be mostly happening?

 

[longview]

Which portions of the planet are those?
Here is the map of HadCrut4's coverage.

 

[Buzz]

Which portions of the planet are those?
Here is the map of HadCrut4's coverage.

Oh, come on long... why do you pretend ignorance. You know that the HadCrut temperature records do not include most of the Arctic and Antarctic circles. And most of the observed feedbacks are happening in the Arctic. That is why that area of the planet is warming far faster than the rest of the planet.

Your insistence on just using HadCrut4 to measure feedbacks is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Quaestio]

Citation please. I have no idea what you are claiming here.



I don't get this claim. You act as if the S. Hemisphere is being ignored. It isn't. Sure more temperature stations may be in the more populous N. Hemisphere but trust me, the AGW scientists actually KNOW to include estimates based on S. Hemisphere data in the analysis.



What? I don't think that's accurate at all. We are dealing with GLOBAL warming. OF COURSE people are concerned with warming in the S. Hemisphere. I mean half of the stories of negative impacts of sea level rise are coming from S. Pacific island nations!



Well if you start from the flawed assumption that no one is paying attention to the S. Hemisphere you are probably able to draw all manner of conclusions that don't necessarily comport with fact.

Pretty much everything he claims is based on flawed or false assumptions. His first false assumption is that he believes he knows better that all the climate scientists or experts in atmospheric physics on the planet and that they are all wrong and he is right. The next false assumption is that he understands the basic science involved, yet continually shows he doesn't with his number salads that make no sense.

 

[longview]

Oh, come on long... why do you pretend ignorance. You know that the HadCrut temperature records do not include most of the Arctic and Antarctic circles. And most of the observed feedbacks are happening in the Arctic. That is why that area of the planet is warming far faster than the rest of the planet.

Your insistence on just using HadCrut4 to measure feedbacks is intellectually dishonest.

Actually the map cited chows that plenty of Arctic and Antarctic sites are represented in HadCrut record.
Also the entire Southern would have to have negative feedback.

 

[Jack Hays]

Climate Of Violence: Prominent AGW Skeptic Threatened With “Baseball Bats”…”Smash Your Face”…”Bye Bye Family”
By P Gosselin on 26. December 2020

Share this...
Over the recent weeks, leading AGW science skeptic Marc Morano of Climate Depot has received messages threatening him and his family with bodily injury (or worse).
WARNING: PROFANE LANGUAGE!
Copies of the criminally threatening messages have been made available to NTZ and other skeptics. The threats of bodily injury to Mr. Morano and his family members made in the messages meet the criminal threshold in Europe, experts say. . . .