Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:41 pm

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8693
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Simple Minded » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:58 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


95-Degree Days
How Extreme Heat Could Spread Across the World



This scary, folks .. have a look


.



Thanks for posting HP. The scientists in SimpleMindedStan have been monitoring this phenomena for decades. They even have a scientific name for it. Summer.

We thought it time to share some of our data with the NYT. As usual, they can't get anything right.

Oddly enough, our peers in the Southern Hemisphere are always claiming our data is wrong. F**k those Flat Earth bastages!
Enquiring minds want to know. And if we don’t know, or can't know, then we’ll just imagine or project.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Typhoon » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:46 am

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


95-Degree Days
How Extreme Heat Could Spread Across the World



This scary, folks .. have a look


.


Always the ever receding future tense, never the present.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Ammianus » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:17 am

The Great Barrier Reef is dying:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -laid-bare

Perhaps most disturbingly, what Marshall and Vevers have witnessed on Lizard Island is in no way unique. In the upper third of the 2,300km reef it’s estimated that about half the coral is dead.

Surveys have revealed that 93% of the almost 3,000 individual reefs have been touched by bleaching, and almost a quarter – 22% – of coral over the entire Great Barrier Reef has been killed by this bleaching event. On many reefs around Lizard Island and further north, there is utter devastation.

Further south, the bleaching is less severe. Since tourists usually go diving and snorkelling in the middle and southern sections, there are plenty of spectacular corals for them to see there. But they shouldn’t be fooled by that – the reef is in the midst of a major environmental catastrophe.

Many scientists are now saying it is almost too late to save it. Strong and immediate action is required to alleviate water pollution and stop the underlying cause: climate change.


But I am sure this is pure alarmism. After all, if only 1/3rd of the Great Barrier Reef is left standing a decade from now, that's still a lot of reefs, right? Why worry about that?
User avatar
Ammianus
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:55 am

You should go down there and fix it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:35 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:You should go down there and fix it.

Rude comment :|
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:59 am

What does he want me to do about it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Simple Minded » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:55 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:What does he want me to do about it.


go down there and fix it for him? Maybe....
Enquiring minds want to know. And if we don’t know, or can't know, then we’ll just imagine or project.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Typhoon » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:00 pm

Simple Minded wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:What does he want me to do about it.


go down there and fix it for him? Maybe....


Could think of worse places to visit . . .

However, no need. The GBR corals have repeatedly bleached and recovered countless times since they first evolved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

The world’s coral reefs are being degraded, and the need to reduce local pressures to offset the effects of increasing global pressures is now widely recognized. This study investigates the spatial and temporal dynamics of coral cover, identifies the main drivers of coral mortality, and quantifies the rates of potential recovery of the Great Barrier Reef. Based on the world’s most extensive time series data on reef condition (2,258 surveys of 214 reefs over 1985–2012), we show a major decline in coral cover from 28.0% to 13.8% (0.53% y−1), a loss of 50.7% of initial coral cover. Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate. Importantly, the relatively pristine northern region showed no overall decline.


The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/microdoc ... horns.html

Tl;dr: Fertilizer runoff → plankton bloom → more COTS → less coral

However, the kiddie crusaders that now write for the MSM such as The Grauniad would never allow reality to get in the way of a scary MMGW bedtime story.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Typhoon » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:04 pm

Nat Rev |[Yet another] Climate Lawsuit Brewing?

Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor who claims the U.S. can run solely on renewables, tells his critics he’s hired an attorney.


Sympathy for the defendants, if it comes to pass.

On the other hand, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:19 am

The crazy lunatic is back.

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby noddy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:04 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:The crazy lunatic is back.




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/rat ... _=tt_ov_rt


its an amazing stat: ~80% of the population voted either 10 or 1, ~95% of the population [8 -> 10] or [1 -> 3] - all true believers or haters

barely a triangulator to be found.
noddy
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Simple Minded » Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:23 pm

noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:The crazy lunatic is back.




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/rat ... _=tt_ov_rt


its an amazing stat: ~80% of the population voted either 10 or 1, ~95% of the population [8 -> 10] or [1 -> 3] - all true believers or haters

barely a triangulator to be found.


At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."

I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."

AGW has been pushed onto gradeschoolers in US public schools for at least 10 years now. The science, er, uh, I mean brainwashing is settled.

In a completely unrelated topic:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/02/ ... l-average/
Enquiring minds want to know. And if we don’t know, or can't know, then we’ll just imagine or project.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Typhoon » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:43 pm

Gore is the secular version of the televangelists that fleece their flock to maintain a materially luxurious lifestyle.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:16 pm

Typhoon wrote:Gore is the secular version of the televangelists that fleece their flock to maintain a materially luxurious lifestyle.

Scientism. It's part of an identity politics based crowd manipulation scheme. The goal is to get people to blindly follow any doctrine presented as science by the designated high priests of scientism.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:14 am

I think these people are dangerous.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:33 pm

It's so easy to beat these people. Just ask questions and ask for facts. They evaporate.

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Ammianus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:09 am

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... ide-000511

It’s also difficult, but not impossible, to run farm-scale experiments on how CO2 affects plants. Researchers use a technique that essentially turns an entire field into a lab. The current gold standard for this type of research is called a FACE experiment (for “free-air carbon dioxide enrichment”), in which researchers create large open-air structures that blow CO2 onto the plants in a given area. Small sensors keep track of the CO2 levels. When too much CO2 escapes the perimeter, the contraption puffs more into the air to keep the levels stable. Scientists can then compare those plants directly to others growing in normal air nearby.

These experiments and others like them have shown scientists that plants change in important ways when they’re grown at elevated CO2 levels. Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

Earlier this summer, a group of researchers published the first studies attempting to estimate what these shifts could mean for the global population. Plants are a crucial source of protein for people in the developing world, and by 2050, they estimate, 150 million people could be put at risk of protein deficiency, particularly in countries like India and Bangladesh. Researchers found a loss of zinc, which is particularly essential for maternal and infant health, could put 138 million people at risk. They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia.

There aren’t any projections for the United States, where we for the most part enjoy a diverse diet with no shortage of protein, but some researchers look at the growing proportion of sugars in plants and hypothesize that a systemic shift in plants could further contribute to our already alarming rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease.


e journal Nature that looked at key crops grown at several sites in Japan, Australia and the United States that also found rising CO2 led to a drop in protein, iron and zinc. It was the first time the issue had attracted any real media attention.

“The public health implications of global climate change are difficult to predict, and we expect many surprises,” the researchers wrote. “The finding that raising atmospheric CO2 lowers the nutritional value of C3 crops is one such surprise that we can now better predict and prepare for.”

The same year―in fact, on the same day―Loladze, then teaching math at the The Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, published his own paper, the result of more than 15 years of gathering data on the same subject. It was the largest study in the world on rising CO2 and its impact on plant nutrients. Loladze likes to describe plant science as ““noisy”―research-speak for cluttered with complicating data, through which it can be difficult to detect the signal you’re looking for. His new data set was finally big enough to see the signal through the noise, to detect the “hidden shift,” as he put it. What he found is that his 2002 theory—or, rather, the strong suspicion he had articulated back then—appeared to be borne out. Across nearly 130 varieties of plants and more than 15,000 samples collected from experiments over the past three decades, the overall concentration of minerals like calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron had dropped by 8 percent on average. The ratio of carbohydrates to minerals was going up. The plants, like the algae, were becoming junk food.

What that means for humans―whose main food intake is plants―is only just starting to be investigated. Researchers who dive into it will have to surmount obstacles like its low profile and slow pace, and a political environment where the word “climate” is enough to derail a funding conversation. It will also require entirely new bridges to be built in the world of science―a problem that Loladze himself wryly acknowledges in his own research. When his paper was finally published in 2014, Loladze listed his grant rejections in the acknowledgements.
User avatar
Ammianus
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Alexis » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:42 am

Typhoon wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

(...)

The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/microdoc ... horns.html

Tl;dr: Fertilizer runoff → plankton bloom → more COTS → less coral

However, the kiddie crusaders that now write for the MSM such as The Grauniad would never allow reality to get in the way of a scary MMGW bedtime story.


Which is what the study's authors propose to do.

However, an important caveat they underlined was:

Thus, reducing COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.



Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."

I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."


Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.

It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climat reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.
User avatar
Alexis
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Typhoon » Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:10 pm

Alexis wrote:
Typhoon wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

(...)

The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/microdoc ... horns.html

Tl;dr: Fertilizer runoff → plankton bloom → more COTS → less coral

However, the kiddie crusaders that now write for the MSM such as The Grauniad would never allow reality to get in the way of a scary MMGW bedtime story.


Which is what the study's authors propose to do.

However, an important caveat they underlined was:

Thus, reducing COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.


The authors presented their results as quoted. The part you highlighted is speculative boilerplate that is obligatory in a climate related paper.

Alexis wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."


I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."

Alexis wrote:Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.


The Wikiped page ignores that physical reality that CO2 absorption at the relevant infrared wavelenghts is logarithmic and thus saturates:

Image

MODTRAN

This issue is far more complicated than is presented to the general public

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/09/26/ ... onne-talk/

The relevant part starts at page/slide 17.

Tl:dr; To achieve that forcing quoted in the Widiped page and used in current models, one has to assume a hypothesized secondary, as yet unobserved, CO2 - water feedback mechanism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 022466/pdf

Alexis wrote:It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climate reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.


A claim that has become an article of faith.

Not familiar with this survey paper, however, the original paper by Cook et al. that started it has been thoroughly debunked.

The debunking of this claim has been purposely ignored by the mainstream media as it is a useful appeal to presumed authority to promote that AGW agenda.

Unlike the history of the consensus of experimental scientific evidence*, the history of consensus of the opinion of scientists is one of being often wrong.

*No one argues anymore about the mass or charge of the electron as a preponderance of experiments have pinned these results down to within tiny statistical and systematic uncertainties.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Simple Minded » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:42 pm

Alexis wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."

I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."


Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.

It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climat reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.


the part of the AGW religion that defies belief is the accuracy claim. Measure the Earth's temperature within 0.1 degree? Really?

Based on life experience, remaining in the same spot outside for more than 10 minutes, often results in a noticeable temperature change (3 degrees?). The same or greater temperature change can also often be felt by moving 100 feet in the X.Y. or Z direction.

So, to anyone who says they can record the instantaneous temperature of even an a single acre of the Earth with a data point from one thermometer, I say I'll bet you a year's pay, you can't prove it. And give me an identical thermometer, and I'll bet you another year's pay I can disprove your claimed accuracy by taking simultaneously temperature measurements, 9 times out of 10.

If NASA or NOAA claims they are recording dozens of temperature data points per acre, several times per minute, of the entire Earth, I would agree they are getting the accuracy of data they claim. IIRC, some areas of many square miles are claimed to be accurately measured by a single data point. Prove that assertion. Now to claim the same accuracy from any source that is not following the above methodology (tree rings or ice cores for example) is an act of blind faith.

We all know the effect of the Sun on the local temperatures on a daily and yearly basis, due to distance and angle changes, but is the Sun's output really perfectly constant over decades and centuries? Does the Earth's orbit not vary by even a few miles at times? Can either be proven?

Why write the sun out of the equation? Cause it don't fit the narrative?

Seems more like a First World Guilt Religion's version of original sin to me. which kinda splains their sales pitches and defensive arguments.
Enquiring minds want to know. And if we don’t know, or can't know, then we’ll just imagine or project.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Postby Doc » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:03 pm

Simple Minded wrote:
Alexis wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."

I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."


Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.

It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climat reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.


the part of the AGW religion that defies belief is the accuracy claim. Measure the Earth's temperature within 0.1 degree? Really?

Based on life experience, remaining in the same spot outside for more than 10 minutes, often results in a noticeable temperature change (3 degrees?). The same or greater temperature change can also often be felt by moving 100 feet in the X.Y. or Z direction.

So, to anyone who says they can record the instantaneous temperature of even an a single acre of the Earth with a data point from one thermometer, I say I'll bet you a year's pay, you can't prove it. And give me an identical thermometer, and I'll bet you another year's pay I can disprove your claimed accuracy by taking simultaneously temperature measurements, 9 times out of 10.

If NASA or NOAA claims they are recording dozens of temperature data points per acre, several times per minute, of the entire Earth, I would agree they are getting the accuracy of data they claim. IIRC, some areas of many square miles are claimed to be accurately measured by a single data point. Prove that assertion. Now to claim the same accuracy from any source that is not following the above methodology (tree rings or ice cores for example) is an act of blind faith.

We all know the effect of the Sun on the local temperatures on a daily and yearly basis, due to distance and angle changes, but is the Sun's output really perfectly constant over decades and centuries? Does the Earth's orbit not vary by even a few miles at times? Can either be proven?

Why write the sun out of the equation? Cause it don't fit the narrative?

Seems more like a First World Guilt Religion's version of original sin to me. which kinda splains their sales pitches and defensive arguments.


0.1 degrees huh? Is that instantaneous or an average? If average, over what time period starting at what time of day? With or without a breeze? With the same amount of cloud cover on the same day of the year with the Earth the same distance from the Sun? Or something with some or all of these parameters random?
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Previous

Return to Science + Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest