Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 426

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #181
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    1,888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The role of climate in those previous collapses is very debatable, and we have far superior technology that can offset the chages. The bronze age collapse.was local, China and India were no affected. It was not a global.collapse.

    In those days you only had local.resources to carry you through. Being globally connect will.offset the impact. A waming climate could improve agriculture in places like Canada, a longer growing season would help. To assert that growing would be adversely effected throughout every part of the world is nonsense. Farmers can and do shift the type of crops.they produce all the time, and the warming the Global. The warming Alarmist warn against isn't going to suddenly appear overnight or in a single season, and if he climate warms, FAA mers will.shift the kind of crops they will grow. The variety of crops.available the o modern farmers is far greater than to ancient farmers.
    Superior technology means more complex logistic..hence is more susceptible to aby trade disruption, complications ;-) pirates, local/civil wars, revolutions... For example our agriculture is dependant on phosforus..which is mostly produced by China, China which also produce a lot of rare metals and other stuff. And basically all our electronics is running on very rare materials. Im not alarmist but go look how prizes of oil and other rare stuff goes up and down due to various local conflicts...

    At the same time our civilization moved from having enough food reserved to more dynamic system. Why are people running to clear any local store in case of Hurricanes, Floods..anything? Because normal family has food reserves for week two? Like can you imagine sieges lasting for 1-2 years in our conditions? All our freezers are for nothing if you have no food to store in them. In those older days, people had resources to go through winter. State reserves in these days are only for emergency, you are counting that globally others will help you. Which make sense. Why safekeeping tons of food that has limited lifespan?

    You are right that if changes are slow enough, people will have time to shift productions, plants..and our global connection is advantage up to the certain point. But at the same time, getting hit be global problems or more global problems at the same time, that could be nasty...

    Now we both agree that things like explosion of supervolcano or major meteor are very unlikely scenarios but world food supply is on average only lasting for 74 days....that is old number from 2013/4. Sorry 4 AM here. If numbers are better these days good. If not..well.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...crisis-warning

  2. #182

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Superior technology means more complex logistic..hence is more susceptible to aby trade disruption, complications ;-) pirates, local/civil wars, revolutions... For example our agriculture is dependant on phosforus..which is mostly produced by China, China which also produce a lot of rare metals and other stuff. And basically all our electronics is running on very rare materials. I´m not alarmist but go look how prizes of oil and other rare stuff goes up and down due to various local conflicts...

    At the same time our civilization moved from having enough food reserved to more dynamic system. Why are people running to clear any local store in case of Hurricanes, Floods..anything? Because normal family has food reserves for week two? Like can you imagine sieges lasting for 1-2 years in our conditions? All our freezers are for nothing if you have no food to store in them. In those older days, people had resources to go through winter. State reserves in these days are only for emergency, you are counting that globally others will help you. Which make sense. Why safekeeping tons of food that has limited lifespan?

    You are right that if changes are slow enough, people will have time to shift productions, plants..and our global connection is advantage up to the certain point. But at the same time, getting hit be global problems or more global problems at the same time, that could be nasty...

    Now we both agree that things like explosion of supervolcano or major meteor are very unlikely scenarios but world food supply is on average only lasting for 74 days....that is old number from 2013/4. Sorry 4 AM here. If numbers are better these days good. If not..well.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...crisis-warning

    Farmers can.switch crops in a single season. Farmers in a temperate zone could plant crops suitable for a tropic zone the next season if they had to, and to argue that the climate could change so rapidly they couldn't adapt is just being alarmist, the kind that discredits the Climate Change proponents. If Climate Change keep making those unfounded alarmist charges it will only cause more people to be skeptical of all their claims. If the Climate Change proponents don't want to be tainted by these overblown claims, they need to publically disavow these claims before actual events prove it hem wrong, not after the fact.

  3. #183
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Alamannia
    Posts
    3,376

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    What we badly need is money for the development of hydroponic farms. It's possible to feed those billions properly, we just have to think vertically. Artificial meat also seems to become a "viable" (largely enjoyable) substitute.

  4. #184
    Akrotatos's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Farmers can.switch crops in a single season. Farmers in a temperate zone could plant crops suitable for a tropic zone the next season if they had to, and to argue that the climate could change so rapidly they couldn't adapt is just being alarmist, the kind that discredits the Climate Change proponents. If Climate Change keep making those unfounded alarmist charges it will only cause more people to be skeptical of all their claims. If the Climate Change proponents don't want to be tainted by these overblown claims, they need to publically disavow these claims before actual events prove it hem wrong, not after the fact.
    Don’t know what kind of farming experience you have but my grandfather was forced to change from vineyards (for Corinthian raisins) to olive trees (he had switched in the 90s to raisins as they are GOLD) as the climate is too unstable and dry to profitably cuktivate raisins. This is a several thousand euros investment that has put him in debt and the trees need at least 3 years to fruit.

    And he has experience on olive trees, I can’t imagine Mediterranean farmers easily switching to tropical fruits or desert plants in a season. Needs money for seeds, equipment, KNOWLEDGE of diseases, best practices not to mention to know people who will buy it as traders tend to specialise.


    So yeah....not so easy as you suggest
    Gems of TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    News flash but groups like al-Qaeda or Taliban are not Islamist.

  5. #185
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    1,888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Yup exactly. Im not farmer, im physicist. But I believe you cannot just pack yourself, go to Greenland, remove snow and expect next year same harvest as in others areas. Same with tropical forrests in amazonia, if you remove them, the soil is not so rich and just after a few years it is not usable for massive agriculture. Taiga,permafrost are laso not very rich soils... Now of course almost all problems are solveable with enough money and technology, but thats requiring no other problems around the world.

    My main issue is, that global warming might easily start cascade of events which in turn will create such doomsday scenario. Again, every smaller even local event might be solveable with technology and money, but having enough troubles around the world...

    Underground water running out in certain areas like middle east, rising temperatures around India, Indonesia, rising water. Pollutions. Add local conflicts between India/China, India/Pakistan, China around South China Sea....Yeah, we are running out of global enviroment problems into different geopolitical ones but we have to keep in mind that world is just big ball. Everything is somehow connected. ;-) Historically changes in enviroment wwere a few times co-authors of huminity decline and while we have technics to prevent some mechanics, we are at the same time susceptible to others. There was no electronic in older ages. One big enough sollar storm and thats it. There were no nuclear bombs. One dumb war and billion people might need new home...

  6. #186
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,767

    Default

    Farmers can.switch crops in a single season. Farmers in a temperate zone could plant crops suitable for a tropic zone the next season if they had to, and to argue that the climate could change so rapidly they couldn't adapt is just being alarmist, the kind that discredits the Climate Change proponents. If Climate Change keep making those unfounded alarmist charges it will only cause more people to be skeptical of all their claims. If the Climate Change proponents don't want to be tainted by these overblown claims, they need to publically disavow these claims before actual events prove it hem wrong, not after the fact.
    No you can't. Different crops different methods and equipment. Different pests, different risks, different soil and growing degree days, light, pollinators, different need for water and when... Agriculture really does not change on a dime. Take Iowa nice prime Corn and Soy Bean territory. And at every step of the way locked into that rotation and those two crops. Now sure there a small farms doing truck farming for the farmers market but its corn and beans done a certain way across 99% of the state. A switch to say dry land wheat is simply not something farmers can do in a year. Nor to mass irrigation because the infrastructure does not exist like in Kansas (and they are draining the aquifer anyway at an unsustainable rate).

    I spent 5 years working as an RA at Iowa State. The project was to find a viable 3rd crop for rotation, or a long term rotation alternative for a model 500 acre farm. We pored over data from every land grant university from 10 states going make 150 years, counted the cost of equipment, did all the economic voodoo we could do with insurgence, puts holds and long term storage and nada. Outside of either a massive front end investment to cattle and pasture as a 10 year rotation, or a massive investment into the small organic market (but that required not everyone do it)- there was simply no drop in additional crop that would be useful. The path dependency of the system precluded almost all other crops even if you grow them that ship turns very slowly.

    My wife is a geneticist and plant breeder for the USDA were her walls of white boards for projects are on a 7 -25 year scale. It would be the same at Monsanto or Texas A&M etc. That is about how fast you change Ag in just the seeds, ignoring the infrastructure.

    Not to over harp on that last point but I will a farmer in Iowa could wake up tomorrow and decide to plant all 1000 acres in potatoes. But he would have nowhere to store them, no trucks to move them no equipment to harvest them to workers for hire familiar with them to easy way to the chemicals for pest or weed or fungus control he would need no easy access to experienced reps or ag extension advice... Just not a tomorrow decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    What we badly need is money for the development of hydroponic farms. It's possible to feed those billions properly, we just have to think vertically. Artificial meat also seems to become a "viable" (largely enjoyable) substitute.
    The problem there is the same hospitals have and greenhouses now constant infestations that can't be effectively unless you are willing to pay for massive compliance and A type employees who will follow every rule. Artificial meat lab grown means all the cost of a well run lab and that ain't cheap.
    Last edited by NorseThing; April 24, 2019 at 07:01 PM. Reason: member dbl post
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  7. #187

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrotatos View Post
    Don’t know what kind of farming experience you have but my grandfather was forced to change from vineyards (for Corinthian raisins) to olive trees (he had switched in the 90s to raisins as they are GOLD) as the climate is too unstable and dry to profitably cuktivate raisins. This is a several thousand euros investment that has put him in debt and the trees need at least 3 years to fruit.

    And he has experience on olive trees, I can’t imagine Mediterranean farmers easily switching to tropical fruits or desert plants in a season. Needs money for seeds, equipment, KNOWLEDGE of diseases, best practices not to mention to know people who will buy it as traders tend to specialise.


    So yeah....not so easy as you suggest
    Wine growing is one of the tougher forms of growing, since soil and other factors can effect flavor. Other forms are not as tough, and switch ching from rye or barely in northern grwoing areas to wheat or sorghum is not that tough. Small farms.lime what your grandfather's obviously (he could have put in irrigation otherwise) isre a dyning breed, and were long before Global Warming appeared.
    Farmers swich crops.depending on the market all.the time, and much, most? of the farming in the developed countries like the US are done by large farms that have the resources to make the changes. Areas have often become.wetter and drier do to change that had nothing to do with Global Warming.

    Yes, it wouldn't necessarily be easy, but to claim claim civilization will collapse.due to the lack of wine and olives is ridiculous. Sorry. But farmers can shift their crops, and for farmers in northern regions, warming means a longer growing which will be an aid to them. Since most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere, and much of it like Siberia and Canada in areas of rather marginal farming due to the short growing season, global civization won't collapse.

  8. #188

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Indeed. The global climate was slightly cooling during the past 4000 years. Adding a tiny bit of CO2 in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing when it permits to delude a new glaciation. This is why a compromise around +1.5C/+2C is good enough (which is already a lot). The fear is more about going too far and recreating the climate of the Miocene (or even the PETM for the worst case scenario).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    Jem Bendell is not a climatologist and anything related to Earth sciences directly. He got a Bachelor in Geography and a PhD in philosophy.
    https://jembendell.wordpress.com/about/
    https://www.cumbria.ac.uk/study/acad...em-bendell.php

    As the subject is abandoned by the right-wing, it is not surprising that it is exploited by people with a lefty sensitivity.

    There are plenty of doomsayers, survivalists and similar things like that. Even on the right-wing.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Survivalism



    Well, if the climate change fast enough (admitting a +3 or +4C at the end of the century), the adaptation could be quite intensive to cope with the warming. Especially from an economical perspective, farmers are not in the best position for this kind of adaptation. Which will probably increase the participation of the governments and the increasing costs of the food. Theoretically, farmers can cope with anything but it is often cumulative effects that cause them trouble.

    Moreover, soils do not change fast enough. It will put a limit to a quick transition.



    Sure. But how much do you think the scientific community is corrupted? A few scientists why not but do you know how much scientists from different fields and different countries are supporting the actual understanding of the current warming for decades?

    Physicists, chemists, geologists, climate scientists etc. etc.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Take a look on these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_David_Keeling
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker

    Worldwide academical statements:
    https://scienceblogs.com/significant...ound-the-world
    Scientist are human, and it is human to find the data you are looking for. Given the complexity of the climate, and the statistical nature of the data, the kind of data that is.most sensitive to manipulation, yes, these scientist can be wrong. They could allow their beliefs to cause them to toss out or ignore data that doesn't support their beliefs, and do it while.sincerely believing they were justified in doing so. I don't think they necessarily would outright lying in their own minds, but that doesn't mean their conclusions are correct. The majority of scientist can be writing ng sometimes. The majority of scientist initially rejected continental drift, and at one time the majority of scientist believed the sun revolved around the earth. Even the famous scientist Tycho Brahe rejected Copernicus theory. Politicizing leads to bad science, and Climae Change change has thoroughly polticized the science, making I an issue of "social justice" rather than science. Even skeptics of Einstein are not called deniers and treated with more respect. Sorry, but the science is never settledd. And despite claim.s.which I have seen made, the scence of Global Warming is not as well.established as the eath being a sphere, yet I have seen Climate Change proponents make it that cl






    Actually there was no prediction from a scientific publication saying the Arctic Ice Cap would be gone these years. Only claims in media.
    There most certainly was, and false claims like is why the skeptics reject the results of the Climate Change proponents. Peter Wadham, who is not a friend scientist, predicted in 2016 the Arctic Ice cap would be clear in the center by the summer of 2017, and the 2007 American Geophysical Society Fall conference it was also claimed that the ice cap would be gone in summer by now. The claims were not an invention by the media, and if Climate Change proponents don't hesitate to make claims.easily program to be false, why should anyone trust what they say on the more complex data where one has to trust soley on their integrity?

  9. #189
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Peter Wadham, who is not a friend scientist, predicted in 2016 the Arctic Ice cap would be clear in the center by the summer of 2017
    Wadham is retired and it was a claim in The Guardian, during an interview. Not a study, not a scientific publication.


    and the 2007 American Geophysical Society Fall conference it was also claimed that the ice cap would be gone in summer by now.
    You are referring to the work of Maslowski et al. which reviewed different projection from the literature. Actually they never said that. Al Gore said that based on their work, which he misunderstood. Al Gore is not a scientist.

    Here the explanation of Maslowski in a published paper:

    We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. […]

    Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. […]

    It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two.


    The claims were not an invention by the media
    Yes it is. Media, social networks and deniers cherry-picked the claims of a few people to discredit the entire scientific community.

    Here the ipcc models:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Does it look over-alarming? No.

    and at one time the majority of scientist believed the sun revolved around the earth.
    They actually believed on the Sun revolved around the Earth because of religious writing and philosophical delirium, not scientific evidences. They were simply trying to save their belief at any cost. It is the exact opposite of the actual consensus on climate change, it was evidences that convinced the scientific community. Even skeptics (true skeptics at this time, not deniers).

    The majority of scientist initially rejected continental drift,
    When the evidences were not clearly available the geologists were skepticals, when the evidences has been made in the 1960s they changed their mind in the huge majority. Because scientists want to know the truth, to better understand the world. Nothing else.

    And this is clearly the same for climate science and global warming. Scientists were skepticals from the work of Callendar and Arrhenius and it was Gilbert Norman Plass that made the final demonstration in the 1950s. Since his work, the scientific community agrees on the idea of the CO2 influencing the global temperature.

    https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate

    Sorry, but the science is never settledd. And despite claim.s.which I have seen made, the scence of Global Warming is not as well.established as the eath being a sphere, yet I have seen Climate Change proponents make it that cl
    Why American physicists are saying this then?

    Quote Originally Posted by American Physical Society
    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. [...]

    The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.
    Why American geologists are saying this then?

    Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
    Last edited by Genava; April 22, 2019 at 11:36 AM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  10. #190
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,767

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    he could have put in irrigation otherwise
    Yep everyone is sitting on aquifer, or has a water right in their back pocket. You might ask Kansas how that just put in irrigation and set and forget thing is going. Going to dry land ag soon and yields will not make farmers happy.

    Yes farmers do rotate crops but in general in tight bands of what the regional system is and with fairly specific seed varieties designed for that area. There is a reason why even in states that allowed hemp as an industrial crop and where it had some value as a rotation crop it failed to be used. There was simply no infrastructure in the US to grow it or store it or find a mass market for it since the mid 40s. A farm in the Palous will rotate wheat with rapeseed and lentils because they have to but wheat is what pays the bills and all the loans for all the equipment, but Sorghum, rye really? A farmer who made that choice likely will face a divorce from their spouse doing the job that gets the medical insurgence. And that still assumes they find a way to properly store and market it or even harvest it. Last I checked there is no round up ready (or similar )Rye - which means again you have to plan your whole season different from the ground up. If you can't confidently depend on just spraying your field for weeds and no worry about the crop, well now that means more till and you loose the soil conservation of 'no till', more fuel cost for a crop that is not going to make more money.
    Last edited by conon394; April 22, 2019 at 07:00 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  11. #191
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    1,888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Yes, it wouldn't necessarily be easy, but to claim claim civilization will collapse.due to the lack of wine and olives is ridiculous. Sorry. But farmers can shift their crops, and for farmers in northern regions, warming means a longer growing which will be an aid to them. Since most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere, and much of it like Siberia and Canada in areas of rather marginal farming due to the short growing season, global civization won't collapse.
    You realize that not every piece of soil is the same? That there is different amount of nutrients? That there are different chemical compounts, ph...not suitable for every plant? And that especially this soil around Greenland, Canada and Siberia is not so rich?

    Of course you can beat it. More fertilizers, grow a few times different plants to change the composition....this all means only one thing. Money. More money and less food for poorer parts of world because they cannot pay enough to get enough food. Somebody will have to pay for it... ;-)

    Last edited by Daruwind; April 22, 2019 at 08:10 AM.

  12. #192
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    298

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    They actually believed on the Sun revolved around the Earth because of religious writing and philosophical delirium, not scientific evidences. They were simply trying to save their belief at any cost. It is the exact opposite of the actual consensus on climate change, it was evidences that convinced the scientific community. Even skeptics (true skeptics at this time, not deniers).
    It gets rather tiresome when deniers continually conflate the modern scientific method with religious dogma during the 16th century in regards to trying to draw a flimsy comparison between scientists who were surpressed by the Inquisition and people trying to get their paper accepted by most of the scientific community no matter how biased and badly researched it may be.

    Not to mention they really don't show much consideration for the scientific method, thinking that this one paper completely disproves the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Not bothering to check how reliable it is or if it actually supports the consensus on anthropogenic climate change or even consider the idea that you need other scientists to replicate the experiment and its results in order for it's conclusion to be widely accepted.
    Last edited by RandomPerson2000; April 22, 2019 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Fixing up the quote

  13. #193

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Yep everyone is sitting on aquifer, or has a water right in their back pocket. You might ask Kansas how that just put in irrigation and set and forget thing is going. Going to dry land ag soon and yields will not make farmers happy.

    Yes farmers do rotate crops but in general in tight bands of what the regional system is and with fairly specific seed varieties designed for that area. There is a reason why even in states that allowed hemp as an industrial crop and where it had some value as a rotation crop it failed to be used. There was simply no infrastructure in the US to grow it or store it or find a mass market for it since the mid 40s. A farm in the Palous will rotate wheat with rapeseed and lentils because they have to but wheat is what pays the bills and all the loans for all the equipment, but Sorghum, rye really? A farmer who made that choice likely will face a divorce from their spouse doing the job that gets the medical insurgence. And that still assumes they find a way to properly store and market it or even harvest it. Last I checked there is no round up ready (or similar )Rye - which means again you have to plan your whole season different from the ground up. If you can't confidently depend on just spraying your field for weeds and no worry about the crop, well now that means more till and you loose the soil conservation of 'no till', more fuel cost for a crop that is not going to make more money.
    The battle over water would exist whether there was climate change or not, and existed before Climate Change. The problems of small farmers existed long before Climate Change became an issue, and it is less than honest to blame all the woes of farmers on it.

    To assert as some Climate Change proponents do, that civilization will collapse as a result of it is nonsense. Even rapidly changing Climate Change isn't going to change so rapidly that farmer's couldn't adjust, the climate is not going to change in a single or even a couple of years. And some crops like corn/maize, can be grown all the way from the tropics (like the Yucatan) to the American Midwest, so a warming climate wouldn't necessarily require different crops. Wheat was traditionally grown in hotter climates (such as the Mideast) than places like Kansas where it is grown today. Different variety of the same crops might be grown, geared to the new climate, but that wouldn't necessarily be the catastrophe that is universally asserted.



    Yes, changes would occur, but changing markets is a fact of life. Soybeans were not a major US crop prior to the 1930's, and its rise was not due to a sudden climate shift, but economic factors. Obviously, US farmers handles a shift to a relatively new crop, and farmers handled the production of tobacco outside the America's, and the Americas became a major coffee producer. If the world's farmers could handle the Columbian Food exchange which resulted from Columbus' discovery of the New World, it should be able to handle the shift in crops caused by Climate Change. Crops like potatoes were originally grown in the high altitude Ande, yet it has adapted well to places like Idaho and Ireland, quite different from its native lands. The claim that farmers couldn't adapt to new and unfamiliar crops when history has shown just that, in some cases rather rapidly, in not a credible claim.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; May 01, 2019 at 04:45 PM.

  14. #194

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Wadham is retired and it was a claim in The Guardian, during an interview. Not a study, not a scientific publication.
    No, but Wadham was a respected scientist who wrote the book on sea ice. He was not some fringe scientist as you try to make out. Regardless of whether it was a scientific paper or not, when one of the foremost experts on sea ice makes a claim, it is not something that the media can or should ignore. Contrary to what you have repeatedly claimed, the media did not invent the claims. If the rest of the Climate Change proponents found Wadham's claims inaccurate, and doubted them, the time to dispute them was when Wadham made them, not after they were proven false. Can you provide evidence Climate Change scientist disputing Wadham's claims at the time he made them, and not after the predictions were proven false?



    You are referring to the work of Maslowski et al. which reviewed different projection from the literature. Actually they never said that. Al Gore said that based on their work, which he misunderstood. Al Gore is not a scientist.

    Here the explanation of Maslowski in a published paper:

    We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. […]

    Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. […]

    It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two.
    Changing the prediction after earlier predictions have shown not to have come to pass doesn't account for much. The media did not create the claims, which were made by prominent and respected Climate Change proponents. Can you show the scientific papers that disputed Maslowki's predictions, and instead predicted the summer sea ice wouldn't likely disappear until the later half of the 21st century? Sure, Climate Change proponents are now predicting the summer sea ice will likely still be around in 2020, 2030, but name the papers t hat were making those predictions in 2007, when Maslowski and his team was making their predictions.

    Unlike calculating the average global temperatures, which is complex and depends on the interpretation of the data, a prediction about sea ice is pretty straight forward, and not subject to interpretation bias.


    Yes it is. Media, social networks and deniers cherry-picked the claims of a few people to discredit the entire scientific community.
    It is not cherry picking to point out claims made Climate Change proponents have not always been proven true, and some have failed to come to pass. If the Climate Change community did not dispute the claims made by prominent Climate Change proponents when they were made, and not after they were proved wrong, then by their silence of the Climate Change community they were tacitly agreeing with the changes. The medium didn't invent these claims, and if the media failed to publicize the claims made by other Climate Change proponents that said the claims of Al Gore and the like were somewhat overstated, then I agree the media shares some of the blame. But don't blame climate change skeptics for this condition, it is a natural reaction to find well publicized claims by prominent Climate Change proponents proven wrong, and then reading about a bunch of excuses being after the claims have been proven wrong and try to assert the claims were never made that many become skeptical of all the Climate Change claims.

    It is one thing to say that, that yes, a few of the claims of the more extreme Climate Change proponents were wrong, and another to assert as you and many Climate Change proponents do that these claims were never made at all, and just an invention of the media.

    Do you believe that that Climate Change will bring an end to World Civilization, as some Climate Change proponents are saying? If Climate Change proponents such as yourself don't publicly speak out against those views, then Climate Change proponents are guilty of indirectly supporting such views and it is no good to later claim when civilization doesn't collapse that such views represented only a minority viewpoint of Climate Change community.



    [quote]
    Here the ipcc models:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    The temperatures of the 1980's, when the chart starts, seem to a relatively low point in the 20th century.


    They actually believed on the Sun revolved around the Earth because of religious writing and philosophical delirium, not scientific evidences. They were simply trying to save their belief at any cost. It is the exact opposite of the actual consensus on climate change, it was evidences that convinced the scientific community. Even skeptics (true skeptics at this time, not deniers).
    When Climate Change proponents display such ignorance, it becomes hard to take their arguments seriously. There was an article in Scientific America I believe, that pointed out one of the biggest issues with the Copernicus theory, which caused some prominent scientist to reject it. That is because of the apparent diameter of the stars, caused by the blurry effect of the atmosphere, and lack of parallax on the stars, it implied that stars much be enormous, far bigger than stars were even in real life. Some scientist just found such huge stars unrealistic, causing them to reject the theory. It wasn't until a couple centuries later that an explanation was finally found that resolved this issue. The reason Greek astronomer's accepted a earth centric view had nothing to do with religion, and the Church officials accepted existing Greek scientific teaching, just as it accepted the Greek view of a spherical earth (claim otherwise is a modern myth created in the 19th century. Major medieval Catholic scholars such as the Venerable Bede taught the earth was spherical, and Bede's work was a standard medieval text.
    '
    Here is the article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...th-star-sizes/


    When the evidences were not clearly available the geologists were skepticals, when the evidences has been made in the 1960s they changed their mind in the huge majority. Because scientists want to know the truth, to better understand the world. Nothing else.
    The Continental Drift theory has not become politicized as Climate Change has. There were not young people demonstrating on behalf of Climate Change, and skeptics of Plate Tectonics were not insulted with the term "denier", and skeptics of Plate Tectonics were not accused of being in the pay of big oil companies, as skeptics of Climate Change are. Any climate change scientist would be committing career suicide if they openly claimed any skepticism. If even a professor of Biology claimed skepticism of Climate Change, I doubt very much they would get tenure. The proponents of Plate Tectonics didn't insist on changing government regulation and instituting policies that will have major impact on certain industries.

    And the supporting data was not like Climate Change data, the evidence of Plate Tectonics is much more straight forward. That climate changes all the time is a fact every one agrees on, which is why the Global Warming proponents abandoned the term, and substituted the term "Climate Change", so no matter what, they can claim they were correct.


    And this is clearly the same for climate science and global warming. Scientists were skepticals from the work of Callendar and Arrhenius and it was Gilbert Norman Plass that made the final demonstration in the 1950s. Since his work, the scientific community agrees on the idea of the CO2 influencing the global temperature.

    https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate



    Why American physicists are saying this then?
    Biases and academic politics, plain and simple. Scientist are human, and the data of Climate, being mostly statistical in nature, lends itself to distortion in interpretation that is almost impossible to disprove.

    For example, when it was shown that temperature rose BEFORE CO2 levels rose, the data was all explained away by admitting what was impossible to dismiss, but asserting in circular logic that the rest of the warming effect was due to the rise in CO2, assuming the very effect that is under debate. Another alternative explanation would be that the following temperature rise, as well as the initial rise, was not due to CO2, and the rise in CO2 was merely an effect, not cause, of rising temperatures. The fact is that temperatures in the past have been warmer than even today, despite having lower CO2. The existence of the 5000 year old Ozi the Iceman mummy found in the Alps, shows us that temperatures at the time Ozi died were as higher or as high as today, despite a lower CO2 than at present.

    Now, in the case of Climate Change, the majority of science does support global warming, and the evidence does in fact support humanity as being the cause, with CO2 being the primary factor. However, given the statistical nature of the data and complexity of climate change, and the fact the climate has undergone rapid temperature changes even before the rise of humans, there is some room for skepticism, and insulting anyone who might disagree is not going to change peoples mind. The science is complex, but people know when they are being insulted (and calling them deniers is insulting), and falsely accused. The majority of the Climate skeptics are not flunkies of the oil companies, as so many Climate Change proponents seem to imply, and wild claims of imminent global collapse will only hurt the Climate Change cause, as do claims by prominent Climate Change proponents that prove to be false. It is not good enough to claim "Al Gore" is not a scientist, he got a Nobel Prize for his support of climate change. If he was busy promulgating false claims, he shouldn't have gotten the Nobel Prize, and the Climate Change community should have spoken up.

    Like it or not, there are many, intelligent, educated people who are skeptical of the claims of Climate Change, and they have and will block the actions Climate Change proponents insist on. Whether or not a majority, they do represent a significant block of voters, and it would be far easier if they could be persuaded than if you have to pass the legislation despite their opposition.

    If you want to convince skeptics, you are going about it all wrong.

    1. Admit the complexity of the climate, and acknowledge room for possible being wrong, but explain that the experts in the field, who have dedicated they life to studying the data, all agree. Ask the mechanic, and skeptical engineer, what if non experts in the field insist they were wrong and knew more than they.

    2. Stress, that even though in this life we can't be absolutely certain about most things, to the best of all our knowledge the data all supports Climate Change, and even though some might exaggerate a little, the consequences seem pretty dire, and that it will be too late if we wait until the data is absolutely unambiguous to everyone.

    3. That all the actions used to combat Climate Change are worthwhile in and of themselves, and would be a good idea even if Global Warming wasn't a problem. Reduction in the use of fossil fuels, greater reliance on renewable energy like solar and wind, are just good things to do even if warming was not a concern.

    4. That is we take action now, it will be a lot easier and better than if we wait and matters get worse. If we wait until the Antarctic ice cap actually melts, it will be to late to advert disaster.

    5. The consequences of global warming, even if it doesn't cause civilization to collapse, will be very bad. We buy car insurance, hoping we will never need it, and wear seat belts, even though we hope never to get into an accident, and taking actions against Climate Change is no different. Better an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure. All we need to do is convince the skeptics that the possibility of Climate Change is real, and that it would be best to play it safe and act as if it was real. Greater use of renewable resources mostly has an upside, and very little downside.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; May 01, 2019 at 07:28 PM.

  15. #195
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    If the rest of the Climate Change proponents found Wadham's claims inaccurate, and doubted them, the time to dispute them was when Wadham made them, not after they were proven false. Can you provide evidence Climate Change scientist disputing Wadham's claims at the time he made them, and not after the predictions were proven false?
    Here: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/201...se-each-other/

    It is not cherry picking to point out claims made Climate Change proponents have not always been proven true, and some have failed to come to pass. If the Climate Change community did not dispute the claims made by prominent Climate Change proponents when they were made, and not after they were proved wrong, then by their silence of the Climate Change community they were tacitly agreeing with the changes. The medium didn't invent these claims, and if the media failed to publicize the claims made by other Climate Change proponents that said the claims of Al Gore and the like were somewhat overstated, then I agree the media shares some of the blame. But don't blame climate change skeptics for this condition, it is a natural reaction to find well publicized claims by prominent Climate Change proponents proven wrong, and then reading about a bunch of excuses being after the claims have been proven wrong and try to assert the claims were never made that many become skeptical of all the Climate Change claims.
    The scientific community has published numerous projections, maybe you should consider more this literature than garbage medias. You have simply no idea of the debate in the scientific community through watching the tv and reading newspapers. You are assuming that you know, but no. It is not the case.

    The Continental Drift theory has not become politicized as Climate Change has.
    Most of climate science either. The consensus was built before the politicization of the subject in the late 80s.

    Here the President’s Science Advisory Committee Report on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from 1965: http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Here the review from the National Academies of Science, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment" made in 1979: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment

    Here the documents from Exxon in 1982:
    https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
    http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

    It doesn't look politicized to me. Even Exxon accepted the consensus and did a nice summary of it.

    Biases and academic politics, plain and simple. Scientist are human, and the data of Climate, being mostly statistical in nature, lends itself to distortion in interpretation that is almost impossible to disprove.
    So you trust physicists to send engine and satellite in space, to study astronomy and other things as much complex but not to evaluate the climate consensus and theory?

    Moreover, the effect from CO2 is clearly seen and demonstrated by satellite data and field measurements:

    https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbe...rTrenberth.pdf
    http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/jou...eldman_CO2.pdf
    https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...on-properties/

    Even the American Chemical Society explains the basics behind the greenhouse effect and CO2 on its webpage: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...icwarming.html

    This is a bit obvious that the actual trend is not due to orbital oscillation and solar variations.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Finally, the CO2 is the best explanation because observations match our understanding of the physics behind the wavelength absorption and emission from CO2 and match the consequences on the temperature of the different layers in the atmosphere:
    https://climatenexus.org/climate-new...ingerprinting/
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    For example, when it was shown that temperature rose BEFORE CO2 levels rose, the data was all explained away by admitting what was impossible to dismiss, but asserting in circular logic that the rest of the warming effect was due to the rise in CO2, assuming the very effect that is under debate. Another alternative explanation would be that the following temperature rise, as well as the initial rise, was not due to CO2, and the rise in CO2 was merely an effect, not cause, of rising temperatures.
    I am starting to think that you are only trolling. I politely indicated to you to check the previous pages of the thread. Here the article I posted multiple times:

    A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.

    It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks.

    In the geologic past, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases acted primarily as feedbacks to external climate forcings. Our current and basically unprecedented experience is that we as humans are directly emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that affect climate change.

    That distinction – greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks – is critical in understanding the behavior of these gases in the paleoclimatic and present periods.

    The figure to the right shows changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past 450,000 years. Four distinct ice ages occurred during that time. The strong correlation of the curves makes it immediately apparent that some relationship seems to exist between temperature and CO2.

    During both the transition in to and out of a glacial period, CO2 concentrations appear to lag temperature changes by an average of between 600 and 1,000 years (though some recent research suggests that this lag may be shorter than previously thought).

    If CO2 lags behind temperature changes, it stands to reason that some other mechanism is responsible for the initial temperature change. In fact, we do know just such a mechanism that does a reasonably good job accounting for the initial cause and end of ice ages: changes in orbital forcing known as Milankovitch cycles.

    Milankovitch cycles refer to the effects of periodic variations in Earth’s orbit on the amount of solar radiation reaching parts of the Earth’s surface. Three cycles are particularly important: the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit (e.g., how elliptical the Earth’s orbit is); the axial tilt of the Earth (known as obliquity); and the change in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation (known as precession). Each of these Milankovitch cycles has a recurring periodic variation, and the overlap of these periods combine to change the total solar forcing in a way that helps explain Earth’s periodic ice ages, as shown below.

    Initial temperature changes at the beginnings and ends of ice ages are caused by changes in orbital forcings. These temperature changes have effects on the natural carbon, nitrogen, and methane cycles. In particular, initial warming reduces ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon (because warmer water can absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere), and warmer temperatures increase the decay rate of vegetative matter. Similarly, cooling at the start of an ice age increases ocean uptake and reduces emissions from vegetative decay.

    There are many other important interactions between temperature changes and the carbon cycle and many outstanding questions are only beginning to be answered by paleoclimatologists. However, the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as a feedback to Milankovitch forcings during glacial and interglacial transitions provides a compelling explanation for observed changes. Jeff Severinghaus, professor of geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, succinctly explains:

    The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

    So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations …

    The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway.


    Current climatic changes are substantially different from those that occurred in the past. For one thing, they are happening at a much faster rate than changes in past glacial periods. Significant climate changes are occurring over the course of decades and centuries, rather than millennia. Scientists know that Milankovitch forcings are not having a significant impact on changes observed over the past century, as they do not operate on such a short timescale, and scientists have good measurements of what their effect should be. For the first time, greenhouse gasses are primarily acting as forcings in the climate system instead of as a feedback to external forcing (though their role as feedbacks is still important, as illustrated in discussions of a potential methane feedback from melting arctic permafrost).

    While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth’s climate.

    As Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington who works extensively with ice cores, remarks, “the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature”.

    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/
    This is nothing new, this was already an interpretation when the Vostok ice cores data came out. Here an article from 1987: https://www.nature.com/articles/329414a0 (I can send you the article if you do not know how to bypass the paywall).

    The main reason is because we cannot explain the ice age fluctuations in temperature only by the changes induced by changing insolation from orbital variations. Using our current understanding of the greenhouse gases permit to understand these variations and to modelise them correctly.

    Admit the complexity of the climate, and acknowledge room for possible being wrong, but explain that the experts in the field, who have dedicated they life to studying the data, all agree. Ask the mechanic, and skeptical engineer, what if non experts in the field insist they were wrong and knew more than they.
    Complexity is in the feedback between the constituents of the Earth. Greenhouse effect amplification is simply a change in the energy balance of the planet, this is not that much complex. The main underlying driver of the planetary temperature is quite well understood:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  16. #196
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    If you are looking to a non partisan review of climate news:
    https://www.facebook.com/ClimateFeedback/
    https://climatefeedback.org/

    A few examples:

    Senator Sanders’ claim that climate change is making tornadoes worse isn’t supported by published research https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...shed-research/

    Claim that cows have more impact on climate than cars depends on the timescale https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...nancial-times/

    The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...ndrew-griffin/

    Metro’s claims of coming “mini ice age” have no basis in reality https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...is-in-reality/

    Oceans are currently acidifying, claims to the contrary contradict observations https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...-observations/

    Earth is not at risk of becoming a hothouse like Venus, as Stephen Hawking claimed https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...g-claimed-bbc/
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  17. #197

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    A bunch of private tweets between does not represent a publicly rejection in Wadham's claims, especially when.it became clear Wadham's predictions were not going to come to pass. Where are the scientific papers disputing Maslowski's claims that the sea ice in summer would be gone by 2030?


    scientific community has published numerous projections, maybe you should consider more this literature than garbage medias. You have simply no idea of the debate in the scientific community through watching the tv and reading newspapers. You are assuming that you know, but no. It is not the case.
    Then I here should be no problem for you provide the scientific papers.as requested. Where are the scientific papers that dispute Maslowski's predictions, and instead say that the sea ice in summer instead won_t disappear until the second half of 21st century? You set the standard of scientific paper, now show me that Climate Change community disagreed with Maslowski's claims on the basis of scientific papers, not Tweets.

    Most of climate science either. The consensus was built before the politicization of the subject in the late 80s.
    That scientist have long been fixated on CO2 has long been known, the scientist of the late 19th century wrongly though that CO2 was the Earth's primary greenhouse gas, which we know now to be wrong. There is no evidence that the scientist in that article are even aware that water vapor, not CO2 is the world's number one greenhouse gas. Also, we know from the ice core samples that the initial rise in CO2 was caused by the initial rise in temperature, and so the 7% rise in CO2 that th y said could only have a human cause could have been a byproduct.of the initial temperature rise, same as previous warming periods.

    Here the President’s Science Advisory Committee Report on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from 1965: http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Here the review from the National Academies of Science, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment" made in 1979: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment
    Here the documents from Exxon in 1982:
    https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
    http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

    It doesn't look politicized to me. Even Exxon accepted the consensus and did a nice summary of it.
    Since I can't access either article, I can't comment on it. Second one seems to have a bad link.


    So you trust physicists to send engine and satellite in space, to study astronomy and other things as much complex but not to evaluate the climate consensus and theory?
    Yes, because physicist make precise predictions that can be proven true or false, while the Climate Change make vage predictions, that are not falsifiable. Warming the scientist assert is caused by human produced CO2 could in fact be caused by other factors, and the Earth has been as warm or warmer with a lower level of CO2, nor.do the.climate change makes specific predictions that can be clearly tested. If the sea ice isn't gone by 2028, then they say it will be gone by 2030, then 2050, or whatever.

    [Quot e=]
    Moreover, the effect from CO2 is clearly seen and demonstrated by satellite data and field measurements:

    https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbe...rTrenberth.pdf [/quote]

    There 2 links do not prove what you claim. The first link says the he CO2 absorbtion is mostly in the stratosphere, same as O3, which would not seem that greatly seem to effect "climate" temperatures, which are mostly the product of the lower atmosphere. The other article talks about absorption, but I don't see anywhere when it specifically breaks out CO2 contributions or shows how much the CO2 warms the earth, and contributed to global warming. They show that CO2 does absorb some wavelengths of light, but that is no the issue and never had been

    The first at least does support the effect of CO2, but relies on calculations and assmptions that might or might not be correct. The second link is basically making assertions without any actual facts to prove the claims, just suggestive data.

    Even the American Chemical Society explains the basics behind the greenhouse effect and CO2 on its webpage: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...icwarming.html
    Again, the article merely shows that CO2 does absorb some wavelengths and does have some greenhouse potential. But it does not prove the claims that CO2, in the small amount is in the air, produced the degree of warming that Climate Change people are asserting

    This is a bit obvious that the actual trend is not due to orbital oscillation and solar variations.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Finally, the CO2 is the best explanation because observations match our understanding of the physics behind the wavelength absorption and emission from CO2 and match the consequences on the temperature of the different layers in the atmosphere:
    https://climatenexus.org/climate-new...ingerprinting/
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    I don't see where the links directly correlate the orbit and axial tilt and changes in solar radiation with the initial warming periods. Although those changes have been speculated to be the cause of the initial warming, I have not seen the evidence that proves it. Simply because it is possible, does not make it so. The burden is on the Climate Change proponents to prove that orbital and/or axial tilt,.solar radiation variation is what caused the intial warming. If you can't prove what caused the initial warming in the warming cycle, you have no right to assert that CO2 caused the rest of the warming either. It remains.just a possibility, not a proven fact.


    I am starting to think that you are only trolling. I politely indicated to you to check the previous pages of the thread. Here the article I posted multiple times:
    If your article can positively prove what the intial cause of the warmings.were, positively correlating them with specific orbit/axial tilt/solar radiation changes, then yes I would like you to forward.the article. If a the article does is give some possible explanations, but provides no positive proof for its claims, then don't bother to waste your time. Unless we know for certain what the cause of the iniisl watmi g is, we can't claim the following warming was due to CO2. All you have is a theory, not a fact as Climate Change proponents assert.


    Note, while it is claimed that as t the Milankogitch cycle is the driving force for ty warming, I don't see where the exact Milankovitch cycle is mapped against the warming period. Nor would it explain why CO2 would lag temperature cooling - if CO2 is not the driving force in either warming or cooling, at the beginning or.end of a warming cycle, then maybe it is not responsible.for the middle of the cycle either.

    [Quote]
    This is nothing new, this was already an interpretation when the Vostok ice cores data came out. Here an article from 1987: https://www.nature.com/articles/329414a0 (I can send you the article if you do not know how to bypass the paywall).

    The main reason is because we cannot explain the ice age fluctuations in temperature only by the changes induced by changing insolation from orbital variations. Using our current understanding of the greenhouse gases permit to understand these variations and to modelise them correctly.



    Complexity is in the feedback between the constituents of the Earth. Greenhouse effect amplification is simply a change in the energy balance of the planet, this is not that much complex. The main underlying driver of the planetary temperature is quite well understood:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    [/QUOTE


    Your article just speculates, it doesn't actually prove its claims. That the intial warming might have been due to orbital shifts, variation in solar radiation, etc., M ight be the case does not make it sftus the case. A proposed.theory is not a fact, it requires proof, and so far I don't see your articles lack that. Unless we can say for certain what the initial cause of the warming was, we can't say for certain what the cause.of the flowing warming was. Yes, CO2 does have a warming effect, but CO2 is only in the atmosphere in a very small amounts nt, and CO2 contribution might be rather insignificant compare to other factors. Simply because arsenic is a toxin, and person has some arsenic in their system does not automatically mean the person died arsenic, and not the knife sticking in their heart.

    And just as important is when it starts to cool, CO2 should proceed the decline in trmperature, if CO2 were the major factor. If temperstue declines first, before CO2, then that is saying CO2 is not the primary factor in temperature change. The CO2 level in 1320 was around 283.3 ppm, and it would not exceed that value until 1805 (283.4 ppm), yet around 1300 was the start of the Little Ice Age. In fact, in the last 2000 years, CO2 has actually undergone only relatively minor fluctuation until the 19th century, going from around 280, yet at least a couple times, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, it has been as warm as it is today despite a much lower CO2 level.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; May 02, 2019 at 11:55 PM.

  18. #198
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The first link says the he CO2 absorbtion is mostly in the stratosphere, same as O3, which would not seem that greatly seem to effect "climate" temperatures, which are mostly the product of the lower atmosphere.
    You are of bad faith. The first link is an article called "Infrared radiation and planetary temperature", where comes this text:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    The whole point of the lower stratosphere being colder than upper stratosphere and troposphere is because of the greenhouse gases in the troposphere trapping infrared radiation.

    The other article talks about absorption, but I don't see anywhere when it specifically breaks out CO2 contributions or shows how much the CO2 warms the earth, and contributed to global warming. They show that CO2 does absorb some wavelengths of light, but that is no the issue and never had been
    You should notice the intensity of the fluxes and see how much the greenhouse effect is important in comparison with the sunlight reaching the ground.

    This image comes from the article and you can see the same picture on the webpage of the American Chemical Society :


    The first at least does support the effect of CO2, but relies on calculations and assmptions that might or might not be correct.
    Scientists when they are studying the Earth didn't have to explain the principles of gravity and motions, nor to quote Newton for this. This is the same here, the principles of blackbody radiation, radiation absorption and emission, are mostly 19th century physics. This is why I gave you the link of the American Chemical Society, because the webpage teaches the basics about these. The principles here can be resumed easily, they are using an interferometer to observe the changes related to specific wavelengths, only related to CO2. As they said:

    Quote Originally Posted by [URL="http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf"
    Nature paper[/URL]]Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of 0.06 W m−2 per decade and 0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

    The measured spectrum in Fig. 1a shows Planck function behaviour near the centre of the fundamental (ν2) CO2 band and exhibits a departure from a Planck curve in the P- and R-branches of this feature, indicating that the emission in these branches is sub-saturated and could increase with increasing CO2. Water-vapour features, continuum emission, and O3 emission are seen in the infrared window between 800 cm−1 and 1,200 cm−1, and lesser features from CH4 are seen around 1,300 cm−1. Calculated transmission and the change in transmission with a 22 ppm CO2 increase are also shown, indicating that weak vibration-rotation features in the far wings of the fundamental and in the infrared window dominate surface radiative forcing from rising CO2.

    We can exclude alternative explanations for the change in these measurements, such as instrument calibration or the temperature, water vapour, or condensate structure of the atmosphere because they would produce significant (P < 0.003) trends in other spectral regions outside the CO2 absorption bands—see Fig. 2b and e. Moreover, the spectral forcing from CO2 is a strong function of changes in the CO2 column concentration, and nonlinear interactions between temperature and water vapour were weak, as indicated by the lack of statistically significant differences in the seasonal and annual spectral trends in the CO2 P- and R-branches. Therefore, the atmospheric structure of temperature and water vapour does not strongly affect CO2 surface forcing, which is consistent with the findings of others.
    This is maybe too much complicated physics for you but this is simply a matter of energy balance at the end. This is only the math that are quite complicated (Fourier).

    Since I can't access either article, I can't comment on it. Second one seems to have a bad link.
    Copy-paste problem from a previous message in this thread. Here there are:
    Exxon 1982
    https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
    http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

    Presidency advisory committee 1965:
    http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Carbon Dioxide and Climate - A Scientific Assessment (1979)
    https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

    The CO2 level in 1320 was around 283.3 ppm, and it would not exceed that value until 1805 (283.4 ppm), yet around 1300 was the start of the Little Ice Age. In fact, in the last 2000 years, CO2 has actually undergone only relatively minor fluctuation until the 19th century, going from around 280, yet at least a couple times, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, it has been as warm as it is today despite a much lower CO2 level.
    What?


    Yes, CO2 does have a warming effect, but CO2 is only in the atmosphere in a very small amounts nt, and CO2 contribution might be rather insignificant compare to other factors.


    Temperature from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and TSI from the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos/World Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC)

    A bunch of private tweets between does not represent a publicly rejection in Wadham's claims, especially when.it became clear Wadham's predictions were not going to come to pass.
    Wadham was mocked and no media was talking about it. You biased by the importance of the Wadham's claim, which is actually not important from a scientific point of view. There was a few short discussion in published paper (very politely this time) like the following one. But nobody has time to lose with this. You are overreacting about it because it gives you an opportunity to criticize the scientific community, but your position does not represent something rational and objective.

    Where are the scientific papers disputing Maslowski's claims that the sea ice in summer would be gone by 2030?
    You are a grown-up man isn't it? Check for yourself here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?c...13703567148252

    Here is one (you can even see that it talk about Wadham's prediction shortly):
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....1002/grl.50316

    A point about your exasperation of alarmist predictions

    The scientific community in its majority stands with the actual consensus, you recognized it. Only a minority are against it. You should notice that the scientific community is made of thousands of persons and there is no puppet master behind them checking their claims in media. Wadham's claims, although alarmist, was fair because it was during the 2012 arctic sea ice decline and he thought it was the beginning of a collapse, with an increasing decline. Most of the climate scientists were skeptical and were simply patient to gather more data to see the 2012 trend will change.

    What exasperate me with your exasperation, is that you are using it against the scientific community. You are saying the deniers have an excuse to not believe the consensus because of these few claims. But look at your position and your own side's claims.

    Check the huge number of false and dull claims from the deniers: https://climatefeedback.org/

    Check the dull prediction of Richard Lindzen and the failed physics of Roy Spencer I discussed before (previous page).

    The deniers are a minority but they are producing so many utterly non sense and garbage claims everywhere. Even their so-called "scientists" are saying wrong stuff, so wrong that any undergraduate in Earth science can debunk them easily. Roy Spencer is confusing relative and absolute humidity, this is incredible. But Stario didn't have even notice this.

    And here you are: despite the huge number of their wrong claims, you are standing at their side.

    This is not about science, this is only your political opinions and your distrust of the scientific institutions that you are expressing here.
    Last edited by Genava; May 03, 2019 at 06:48 AM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  19. #199

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    You are of bad faith. The first link is an article called "Infrared radiation and planetary temperature", where comes this text:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    The whole point of the lower stratosphere being colder than upper stratosphere and troposphere is because of the greenhouse gases in the troposphere trapping infrared radiation.
    The claims that it is only CO2 that keeps the earth warm enough is really an unassumption, and not necessarily true. Mars, with more than 10 times the level of CO2, is not not warm enough to prevent Mars from being a mostly frozen planet. Moreoever, it assumes "once in equalibrium" . Unlike Venus, Earth's seasonal and nightly temperature changes means that the assumption that earth is in equlibrium is not really valid.



    You should notice the intensity of the fluxes and see how much the greenhouse effect is important in comparison with the sunlight reaching the ground.

    This image comes from the article and you can see the same picture on the webpage of the American Chemical Society :




    Scientists when they are studying the Earth didn't have to explain the principles of gravity and motions, nor to quote Newton for this. This is the same here, the principles of blackbody radiation, radiation absorption and emission, are mostly 19th century physics. This is why I gave you the link of the American Chemical Society, because the webpage teaches the basics about these. The principles here can be resumed easily, they are using an interferometer to observe the changes related to specific wavelengths, only related to CO2. As they said:



    This is maybe too much complicated physics for you but this is simply a matter of energy balance at the end. This is only the math that are quite complicated (Fourier). [/quote]

    I don't see where scattering effect of aerosals and microscopic dust particles (pollen, soot, etc.) on CO2. Such particles are as likely to reflect the part of the infrared away from the earth as toward the earth. The size of the particles being of the order of the wavelength of the infared light will have more an effect on it than on the visible light spectrum. And unless you have satellites in earth orbit very precisely measuring the incoming solar radiation broken down by wavelength, and the reflected earth light and emitted radiation flux broken down by wavelength, the effects and values given could only be estimates. Most of the outgoing longwave radiation that is absorbed would be absorbed by water vapor, not CO2, simply because water vapor is a couple of order's more plentiful than CO2.

    Also missing from you picture, is that clouds not only reflect light away from the earth, but they also reflect light back toward the earth as well. A cloudy winter night will usually be warmer than a cold clear winter night sky, yet that mechanism is not reflected in your chart.



    Copy-paste problem from a previous message in this thread. Here there are:
    Exxon 1982
    https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
    http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/ [/quote]

    Thanks, not sure why I could not open it before. While the report seemed rather accurate in its prediction for Global CO2 level (407 ppm for 2015 Table 5), its prediction for warming seems a little bit on the high side, the 0.8 C increase it predicted is rather higher than the 0.5 C change actually experienced for the same time frame. Also, it demonstrated a fallacy in what you claim - if it was just a matter of basic physics and blackbody radiation, then the uncertainty in what the initial CO2 levels were should not really have effected what the temperature rise would have been. For a given increase of CO2, it should be a straight forward calculation of the temperature increase, but that is not the case. For a given level of CO2, we should know what the temperature effect would be. But that was not the case. It is because, they assumed (not calculated) that a certain amount of CO2 had a given effect on temperature, and that an X increase in CO2 would have a Y increase in temperature. Had it all been based solely on physics, regardless of what the initial CO2 level was, the effect on temperature should have been able to be calculated. Indeed, it should have been able to calculate the initial CO2 levels based solely on observed temperatures, after substracting the effects of water vapor and clouds.


    Presidency advisory committee 1965:
    http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Carbon Dioxide and Climate - A Scientific Assessment (1979)
    https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf
    That scientist have long been fixated on CO2 as the greenhouse gas has been long known. The late 19th century scientists wrongly believed CO2, not water vapor, was Earth's primary greenhouse gas. While they now know that water vapor has the greatest greenhouse effect, they just can't shake the idea of the central role of CO2 to the greenhouse process on Earth.


    [quote]
    What?



    [/quote}

    This graph demonstrates exactly why the Climate Change proponents like yourself cannot be trusted. The right end of the graph, which shows the dramatic temperature rise, is based on instrument reading, a different method that the proxy temperature values for the previous centuries. Instrument temperature readings just simply can't be directly compared to proxy temperature values from the previous eras, since proxy temperature values tend to flatten out the temperature, giving lower values. You can see t his if you look close, the instrument temperature readings are higher than the proxy temperature readings for the same period if you look close. All this is discussed in the following link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...l-warm-period/

  20. #200
    Genava's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The claims that it is only CO2 that keeps the earth warm enough is really an unassumption, and not necessarily true. Mars, with more than 10 times the level of CO2, is not not warm enough to prevent Mars from being a mostly frozen planet.
    What is the predicted temperature of Mars without atmosphere and what is the observed temperature? What is the atmospheric pressure of Mars which is related to air density?

    Unlike Venus, Earth's seasonal and nightly temperature changes means that the assumption that earth is in equlibrium is not really valid.
    What is your explanation for Venus temperature then?

    I don't see where scattering effect of aerosals and microscopic dust particles (pollen, soot, etc.) on CO2. Such particles are as likely to reflect the part of the infrared away from the earth as toward the earth. The size of the particles being of the order of the wavelength of the infared light will have more an effect on it than on the visible light spectrum.
    I am not sure you are understanding correctly why light is interacting with matter differently at different wavelength. But if you read my quote from the article, they are using the principle that CO2 is interacting strongly at specific wavelength and water vapor and other stuff interacting at other wavelengths. In fact dust and pollen interact mostly in the visible and NIR spectra, quite easy to see in case of trouble and messing with the equipment. Their demonstration is grounded by the fact they see the changes, even the seasonal variations from photosynthesis and respiration, at specific wavelengths and not occurring at other wavelengths associated to others gases.

    A cloudy winter night will usually be warmer than a cold clear winter night sky, yet that mechanism is not reflected in your chart.
    In the night, which mecanism and which wavelengths are mostly involved in what you are describing?

    Also, it demonstrated a fallacy in what you claim - if it was just a matter of basic physics and blackbody radiation, then the uncertainty in what the initial CO2 levels were should not really have effected what the temperature rise would have been.
    You are misinterpreting my comment. Put it back in the context of the paper discussing direct measurement of increasing greenhouse effect from co2. The Exxon document discuss what is called equilibrium climate sensitivity. This is involving feedback mechanisms, mostly from CO2 to water vapor, temperature and albedo etc. Etc.

    While the report seemed rather accurate in its prediction for Global CO2 level (407 ppm for 2015 Table 5), its prediction for warming seems a little bit on the high side, the 0.8 C increase it predicted is rather higher than the 0.5 C change actually experienced for the same time frame.
    You are using which reference as a standard for the calculation of the anomaly? Different institution have different standard (zero baseline).

    Exxon is predicting in 2015 an increase of 0.84C from 1979 (table 4).
    NASA GISS dataset gives +0.16 in 1979, +0.86 in 2015, +0.98C in 2016 and +0.90C in 2017. Which is an increase of +0.70, +0.82 and +0.74C respectively from 1979. It seems quite accurate, more than in your estimation. Especially when Exxon is specifying this is the high case scenario. Table 5, with probably the median of their predictions, gives +0.82C which is the value we got in 2016.


    That scientist have long been fixated on CO2 as the greenhouse gas has been long known. The late 19th century scientists wrongly believed CO2, not water vapor, was Earth's primary greenhouse gas. While they now know that water vapor has the greatest greenhouse effect, they just can't shake the idea of the central role of CO2 to the greenhouse process on Earth.
    This is totally wrong. And I know what I am saying, I have read both Tyndall and Arrhenius. Water vapor is known since the beginning to be the strongest greenhouse gas. Arrhenius simply made a good point about water vapor, this is a condensable gas contrary to the CO2. In your mind what is the consequences on the water vapor if the CO2 rises and increases the greenhouse effect? If you dont find, go on the webpage of the American Chemical Society. There is an article about it.

    Most of the outgoing longwave radiation that is absorbed would be absorbed by water vapor, not CO2, simply because water vapor is a couple of order's more plentiful than co2
    Nope. This is exactly a part of the demonstration of Gilbert Norman Plass in 1956. In high troposphere, there is less water vapor and CO2 become more efficient to trap the outgoing longwaves. The final trapping gas in the troposphere is the CO2 and the other non condensable greenhouse gases. This is why they matter a lot.
    Last edited by Genava; May 05, 2019 at 09:27 AM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •