Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Have temperatures gone down since we started dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere? And please don't use some cherry picked starting point (1998) for your answer.

If you want a clue- look here:

Yes, we stared using lots of carbon fossil fuels in the 1940's. The temperature went down a bit in the late 1950's/1960's.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

One has to be constantly on guard to avoid learning. As soon as you let your guard down for a second it will creep up on you.

So that's how you maintain your faith then.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, we stared using lots of carbon fossil fuels in the 1940's. The temperature went down a bit in the late 1950's/1960's.

That's some crack analysis.

As we've pointed out umpteen times, There is a lag effect, temperatures are naturally chaotic, and the long term trend is the important point.

Like this:

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I didn't expect you to pay attention and you didn't disappoint.

Don't get all stompy foot, when you start playing the role of debate guide and attempt to break down the disagreement into easier chunks you should at least stop and read what you wrote to see if it makes sense. Obviously you don't understand energy imbalance even on the most basic level as your simplification ignores shortwave radiation, essentially treating the planet as a black body absorbing all shortwave radiation.

As I said before, learn the subject you are discussing because right now I need to teach you the basics of statistics and planet energy budgets just to get to the basic level of understanding.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
Have temperatures gone down since we started dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere? And please don't use some cherry picked starting point (1998) for your answer.

If you want a clue- look here:

Graph as per the top of this page.

Yes, we stared using lots of carbon fossil fuels in the 1940's. The temperature went down a bit in the late 1950's/1960's.

That's some crack analysis.

As we've pointed out umpteen times, There is a lag effect, temperatures are naturally chaotic, and the long term trend is the important point.

Like this:

So why did you post the wrong graph?

Why would there be a lag in land surface temperature increase if it's all due to IR absorption? It would take time for the full temperature rise to happen but the hypothesis says that the effect should begin quickly.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's some crack analysis.

As we've pointed out umpteen times, There is a lag effect, temperatures are naturally chaotic, and the long term trend is the important point.

Like this:

Why is it you argue against lag when I bring it up regarding solar changes?

 

[Threegoofs]

Why is it you argue against lag when I bring it up regarding solar changes?

I don't think I ever have.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think I ever have.

I'm pretty sure you have. All the others in your camp do.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm pretty sure you have. All the others in your camp do.

I doubt it...because I don't get dragged into the weeds of your goofy theories.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I doubt it...because I don't get dragged into the weeds of your goofy theories.

No.

You just dismiss them out of hand. You are right, I stand corrected. Your responses always entail you acknowledging you have faith in those who write the dogma.

 

[Threegoofs]

faith in those who write the dogma.

aka 'the published scientific literature'.

I was reminded of you today. An old doc was in a meeting and we were reviewing some pretty established science. He was a bright guy, but had some cockamamie theory that he came up with on his own to treat a certain type of patient. It was not only non-evidence based, but ran counter to established science. In fact, a version of the theory had been tested and was shown to be fairly useless. But you couldn't shake this guy. He KNEW he was right. Felt sorry for his patients, though.

 

[Lord of Planar]

aka 'the published scientific literature'.

I was reminded of you today. An old doc was in a meeting and we were reviewing some pretty established science. He was a bright guy, but had some cockamamie theory that he came up with on his own to treat a certain type of patient. It was not only non-evidence based, but ran counter to established science. In fact, a version of the theory had been tested and was shown to be fairly useless. But you couldn't shake this guy. He KNEW he was right. Felt sorry for his patients, though.

Let me ask you something.

Is published scientific literature never shown to be wrong in the future?

 

[Threegoofs]

Let me ask you something.

Is published scientific literature never shown to be wrong in the future?

Of course.

But almost never is it shown to be wrong by some amateur dude doing math in his kitchen pretending he's a PhD physicist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course.

But almost never is it shown to be wrong by some amateur dude doing math in his kitchen pretending he's a PhD physicist.

Almost never...

Ponder that a moment please.

 

[Threegoofs]

Almost never...

Ponder that a moment please.

I did. And it aint gonna be you.

Look. The science is pretty damn well established. Decades of work. Predictions thirty and forty years ago are right on - the world is becoming measurably warmer. And everything we have points to the obvious reason.. we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. You dont want to believe it, so you come up with some goofy forcing calculations, and prattle on about the sun or cosmic rays or soot on ice (you do realize they quantify the effect of that, right?) or whatever.

But the actual people who are investing massive amounts of talent , time and energy into solving this complex puzzle are advancing on, and nothing is really telling them they are on the wrong track about AGW.

Best case scenario is that its not as bad as we predict, or other factors will become more important. But ever year that is looking less and less likely. Worst case scenario is that its going to be a runaway effect, and a whole lot worse than anyone expects. The most rational scenario is the ones scientists communally figure out together.. and that is reported in the IPCC synthesis report. Some of the denier nuts think the IPCC is invalid because it changes (but thats what science does), some denier nuts think its invalid because scientists get grant money to study warming (thats pretty silly -they could be cleaning up getting grant money from Exxon, or quitting science and working at Goldman Sachs...) and some deniers think the science is thin and basic (and they dont know what they are talking about). You seem to take a little of all of these arguments, and add in a bizarre unique twist.. that you can prove AGW wrong by simple calculation. To be honest, that one really amuses me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I did. And it aint gonna be you.

Look. The science is pretty damn well established.

Established on a foundation that has not been reevaluated.

 

[code1211]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

How well do you remember the mid Holocene period? The only records of it come from reconstructions. There is no way to know which reconstruction is most accurate. Live with reality.

We can draw conclusions based on the way that people lived and on what has been revealed.

Otsi the Ice man died about 5000 years ago. He was wounded and sat down on dry ground protected from a snow storm by a rocky nook to die. He died and was buried by snow. The snow continued to fall and the world was cooling. The snow turned into a glacier and that glacier stayed on him. The burial under the snow apparently happened pretty quickly as there was no sign of scavengers nibbling on him.

The Glacier stayed on top of him until the 1990's when it warmed enough to recede and reveal him. It was cooling 5000 years ago from a warmer time and this is born out by the reconstruction proxies. It is warming now and has been for about 2000 years.

5,300-Year-Old Otzi The Iceman Has 19 Living Relatives In Austria [PHOTO]

The moral of the story? The glacier was not there prior to 5300 years ago and it stayed there until abut 20 years ago.

There are anecdotal evidence like this around the world.

 

[code1211]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Finally you have revealed the source of denier science. The Farmer's Almanac.

The best evidence for questioning the expertise of the AGW Scientists is the prediction of the AGW Scientists.

 

[code1211]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The two groups of people financially benefitting from the energy status quo, the most expensive scenario for everyone else, are the fossil fuel profiteers and the media political evangelists.

Follow the money.

Oh wait, they told you that they weren't the culprits so must be they are not.

Sucker.

The United States Government spends 22 Billion Dollars each year to support research on AGW.

How much does the oil industry spend in pursuit of whatever it is you think they are doing?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The United States Government spends 22 Billion Dollars each year to support research on AGW.

How much does the oil industry spend in pursuit of whatever it is you think they are doing?

Not only that, but what the oil industry DOES spend its R&D dollars on almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. And even if it did, the oil industry is making out like bandits on green energy projects and would have no incentive whatsoever to promote skepticism that would stop that gravy train.

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Not only that, but what the oil industry DOES spend its R&D dollars on almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. And even if it did, the oil industry is making out like bandits on green energy projects and would have no incentive whatsoever to promote skepticism that would stop that gravy train.

The oil refineries are the best situated to produce any large scale solution.
Weather organic oil continues for 50 years, or some hydrocarbon equivalent fuel is developed,
The technology and production edge will be with the oil companies.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The oil refineries are the best situated to produce any large scale solution.
Weather organic oil continues for 50 years, or some hydrocarbon equivalent fuel is developed,
The technology and production edge will be with the oil companies.

They will be significant for some time to come. But R&D is expensive and the environmental restrictions and other costs make refinery construction almost prohibitive these days. So the oil companies are quite happy to take advantage of government initiatives, however wasteful or ill conceived, that give the oil companies a chance to increase their bottom line. I'm pretty sure all the oil companies big wigs have looked at the data re global warming--they need to know about stuff like that so they don't get blind sided. And I'm pretty sure most of them are pretty sure there is no real evidence to support it as a problem. But they aren't stupid. If the government is going to pass out free money to anybody, they see no reason not to go after a share of it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The best evidence for questioning the expertise of the AGW Scientists is the prediction of the AGW Scientists.

View attachment 67162883View attachment 67162884

As shown in blog graphs published by creationist scientists...

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

They will be significant for some time to come. But R&D is expensive and the environmental restrictions and other costs make refinery construction almost prohibitive these days. So the oil companies are quite happy to take advantage of government initiatives, however wasteful or ill conceived, that give the oil companies a chance to increase their bottom line. I'm pretty sure all the oil companies big wigs have looked at the data re global warming--they need to know about stuff like that so they don't get blind sided. And I'm pretty sure most of them are pretty sure there is no real evidence to support it as a problem. But they aren't stupid. If the government is going to pass out free money to anybody, they see no reason not to go after a share of it.

The technology I think will first replace organic oil fuels is man made hydrocarbons.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Audi to open natural gas hydrogen plant in 2013 - MSN Autos
The technology is already being used, but the core of it is critical to why I think the oil companies are well
situated to take advantage.
To make liquid hydrocarbon fuel from air, water ,and energy, you first create olefins.
This is what a modern refinery does.
From the olefins you can recombine the building blocks to make any hydrocarbon fuel you want.
This is the same process oil companies have been tweeking for a century, and they are getting good at it.
The same process that recombines organic olefins, will work on the man made variety.
The big bonus, it the infrastructure for distribution and sales is in place, and the energy medium is what we already use.

 

[code1211]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

As shown in blog graphs published by creationist scientists...

Dr. James Hansen is a Creationist Scientist?