patrick.net

Rew says

Mell, please link me to relevant discussions where solar is now the leading concern for climate and earth scientists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+activity&oq=solar+activity&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.2200j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=solar+activity&tbm=nws

for a start. The winter the east coast had this year is a tropical paradise compared to what a maunder minimum would bring. Is it likely going to be as dire as outlined? Probably not, there's a similar level of sensationalism as there is to global warming. But solar activity IS declining significantly.

CiC, uh ... The concentrations of CO2 and the effects on physiology due to respiration have nothing to do with green house effects. Your chart shows CO2 near 400ppm ... That's correct. If you further look at data from noaa and nasa, you can get more accurate measurements for right now ... showing things above 400. Keep drinking that bitter salty water of cherry picked Internet sources. Grab any recent scientific journal ... and no one is thinking as you: climate change not real, just a political talking point.

Mell, one study, even 10 studies, does not change where the unified consensus of Science is right now with climate change. Low sun activity for 10 years doesn't negate climate change and global warming.

To the climate deniers : Like proving the world was round before, there will be some "flat-worlders" in the population. Just know denying overwhelming scientific fact usually means you are wrong. There just isn't much counter Science left challenging climate change and global warming. Unless you are more credible than the experts, no amount of fast facts on the internet amount to anything credible. Fortunately, the deniers are an aged and dwindling breed, like the flat-worlders before them.

mell says

That's true but a minor change in the solar cycles towards less sun activity will obliterate any and all global warming that this earth may ever have experienced so far.

Burglars could be killed by a drunk driver on the way to my house. I'm still locking my door and arming the alarm.

I would welcome a heueuge solar minimum, but it will be a hell of a coincidence. I'm praying for one. This still doesn't solve ocean acidification or the issue of what the hell we do when the solar minimum ends. Nor does it disprove any current mainstream beliefs about the effects of high atmospheric carbon.

mell says

Also the model predicted a much sharper rise in temperatures, which have effectively stagnated over the last decade, which is why some say that model has failed and needs to be tossed out.

Models never have total predictive certainty. The question is whether a model has missed so much that we're outside a couple of standard deviations or a 95% confidence interval. I doubt that we are, but I'd welcome some links.

This is probably not a relevant concern, anyway: the NOAA and a lot of other researchers believe that the move from ships to buoys, which provide lower temperature readings, skewed the ocean-surface data lower between 2000 and 2014. I assume you have heard this? If so, I'm not sure why you're so certain that there has been a decrease in the warming rate - we're still warming, it's only the rate which has been in question:

This does not inspire confidence but, if true, it means there has been no slowdown, and it certainly doesn't mean that the warming has stopped, as you claim ("effectively stagnated").

Finally, things could actually be worse than the models suggest - in which case the models also need to be thrown out.

From the 5th IPCC report (.pdf):

It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (above 700 m) has warmed from 1971 to 2010, and likely that it has warmed from the 1870s to 1971.
Confidence in the assessment for the time period since 1971 is high based on increased data coverage after this date and on a high level of agreement among independent
observations of subsurface temperature [3.2], sea surface temperature [2.2.2], and sea level rise, which is known to include a substantial component
due to thermal expansion [3.7, Chapter 13].

There is less certainty in changes prior to 1971 because of relatively sparse sampling in earlier time periods. Strongest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m between 1971–2010), decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade at 700 m. It is very likely that the surface intensification of this warming signal increased the thermal stratification of the upper ocean by about 4% between 0 and 200 m depth. Instrumental biases in historical upper ocean temperature measurements have been identified and mitigated since AR4, reducing artificial decadal variation in temperature and upper ocean heat content, most prominent during the 1970s
and 1980s. [3.2.1–3.2.3, Figures 3.1–3.2, Figure 3.9]

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700–2000 m from 1957 to 2010, based on five-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth from circa 1992 to 2005. The largest changes in deep ocean temperature have been observed close to the sources of deep and bottom water in the northern North Atlantic and especially in the Southern Ocean, with amplitudes lessening along the routes through which these waters spread. [3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figure 3.2b, Figure 3.3, FAQ 3.1]

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0–700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010. The rate of increase was
likely 137 [120–154] TW (1 TW = 10^12 Watts), calculated using a statistical analysis of ocean variability to estimate change in sparsely sampled areas and to estimate uncertainties. Published rates for that time period range from 74 TW to 137 TW, with generally smaller trends for estimates that assume zero
anomalies in regions with sparse data. While not all trends agree within their statistical uncertainties, all are positive, and all are statistically different from zero.
[3.2.3, Figure 3.2]

Warming of the ocean between 700 and 2000 m likely contributed about 30% of the total increase in global ocean heat content (0–2000 m) between 1957 and 2009.
While globally integrated ocean heat content in some of the 0–700 m estimates increased more slowly from 2003–2010 than over the previous decade, ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m likely continued unabated during this period. [3.2.4, Figure 3.2, Box 9.2] Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in Earth's energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 with warming of the upper (0–700 m) ocean accounting for about 64%of the total. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers) and warming of the continents and atmosphere account for the remainder of the change
in energy. The estimated net increase in Earth's energy storage between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] ZJ (1 ZJ = 1021 Joules), with a heating rate of 213 TW
from a linear fit to annual inventories over that time period, equivalent to 0.42 W m–2 heating applied continuously over Earth's entire surface, and 0.55 W m–2
for the portion owing to ocean warming applied over the ocean's entire surface area.

lostand confused says

The whole mess is because the far lefties got involved and presented global warming as absolute fact and already started to see taxes as a solution

I'm thinking it is because some atmospheric and oceanic scientists took careful readings of surface (land and water) temperatures over the past 45 years, and noticed an upward trend so strong that it can't possibly be by chance. But I don't know for sure what goes on in their labs: perhaps they say to one another "Gotta boost these results - the lefties demand it!" or maybe there are actual armed lefties patrolling the offices with automatic weapons.

indigenous says

Not to worry I'm sure they will find something superfluous to bloviate about.

GAAAH! Oh my gawd - the FED is coming! DA FED is gonna rape all owah dauttahs! Help! HELLLLP!!

Rew says

But I'm glad there are good average Americans who can so easily wave off the entire scientific community and academic journals still with regards to this issue.

Hey, the 9-11 truth was revealed by a team of convenience store clerks and others researching YouTube videos in between pizza deliveries.

This is the new trend in research: The Daily Mail, which reports celebrity personal lives with 38% accuracy, is now a go-to source.

HydroCabron says

Burglars could be killed by a drunk driver on the way to my house. I'm still locking my door and arming the alarm.

That's a minor and very cost-efficient measure to maximize security, it's all about the pot-odds. You could also install a highly-sensitive, state of the art security system, but that would cost you much more and the increase in security is likely not worth it. Enacting draconic CO2 policies based upon a theoretical model is a different beast and likely not worth the pot-odds. Based on satellite records global temperatures have only slightly risen in the last 15-20 years, seems like a weak argument to me. Don't forget that acid rain was supposed to kill the majority of forests as predicted by scientists back in the 70s and 80s and if you denied that back then you were committing heresy as it is today with global warming. I would much rather see emissions watched for real pollutants that are harmful for humans in small concentration increases and use the money saved on global warming measures to combat those.

HydroCabron says

GAAAH! Oh my gawd - the FED is coming! DA FED is gonna rape all owah dauttahs! Help! HELLLLP!!

Only a mutt would say that is bloviating
.

Call it Crazy says

These scientists, on the other hand, need to follow the "narrative" so they can keep the money flowing and pay their bills....

Yes, being a "paid expert" for an energy company wouldn't be nearly as lucrative. *cough cough*
Let's be clear on who's narrative it doesn't fit: yours. Your only option, per the above, is to attack and try and discredit science itself. What a horrible position to be in. See how the GOP comments on climate have evolved the past three years. Quite funny.

Call it Crazy says

Hopefully, some day you'll wake up from listening to the "political talking points" and see the true data, but I doubt it....

Via one pretty good study, it doesn't seem "the people" are that far apart on the issue ...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/democrats-and-republicans-agree-on-climate-change/

The politicians, and apparently you, however are ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/upshot/on-climate-republicans-and-democrats-are-from-different-continents.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/republicans-climate-change_n_7119158.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/17/top-republican-bows-to-scientists-on-climate-change/
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

There is no major American GOP/Democratic influence over the international body of science, and they all say the same thing: climate change real, a problem we need to work on, heavy causation by man.

mell says

Don't forget that acid rain was supposed to kill the majority of forests as predicted by scientists back in the 70s and 80s

I'm delighted that you brought up acid rain.

Acid rain didn't morph into a nightmare because it was cleaned up by ... drum roll ... government action: you know, that thing you hate so much you would change your name, reverse any principle you hold, renounce all your personal possessions and earthly ties, and saw your own arms and legs off to avoid.

Specifically, market-based emissions trading and smokestack scrubbers brought emissions of SO2 and NOx down to pre-1980 levels and, as a result of the pricing in of externalities and a level playing field (all market participants being subject to the same constraints), streamlining and clean technology has reduced the overall cost to 1/4 of that originally predicted. Ah, a regulated competitive market is a beautiful thing, indeed!

The cap and trade methods proposed for carbon emissions - which look strikingly different from wealth redistribution to me, and anyone else outside a psych ward - are strangely similar in structure to the acid rain program, which is widely considered a success by industry, government, independent economists and most environmentalists.

Call it Crazy says

These scientists, on the other hand, need to follow the "narrative" so they can keep the money flowing and pay their bills....

You're right!

Check out this guy:

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

mell says

it's all about the pot-odds. You could also install a highly-sensitive, state of the art security system, but that would cost you much more and the increase in security is likely not worth it.

Not worth what?

What are you trying to save that's more important? The right to drive muscle cars and have 5 kids?

"There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

It would be "pot odds" if we were betting on something far less certain.

I'm trying to think of something worse for this planet than a mass extinction. I can't come up with anything.

mell says

if you denied that back then you were committing heresy as it is today with global warming

You are so brave, speaking truth to power. It must be something to be such a huge victim that you must risk your life to whisper the truth.

Get real: the actual victims are the scientists trying to tell people like you what you don't want to hear. Everywhere I go there are bloviating deniers saying whatever they want, and laughing freely in the face of reality. The actual researchers, however, must choose their words carefully, and are under relentless attack.

HydroCabron says

'm delighted that you brought up acid rain.

Acid rain didn't morph into a nightmare because it was cleaned up by ... drum roll ... government action: you know, that thing you hate so much you would change your name, reverse any principle you hold, renounce all your personal possessions and earthly ties, and saw your own arms and legs off to avoid.

False, despite the fact that I am not against regulating real pollutants. Even trees constantly fumigated with acidity were thriving:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290345/sp4-083-5-1-e-e.pdf

There were negative effects, but they were utterly insignificant, and the forests never died in Germany, the UK or anywhere else with or without government intervention. All of this doesn't mean that protecting the environment is not desired, but with limited resources you have to focus on what gets you the best results, i.e. the worst offenders. CO2 is certainly not one of them.

mell says

i.e. the worst offenders. CO2 is certainly not one of them.

Your sources including The Daily Mail.

I give you credit for sticking with it.

Since global warming scientists are quoted in the Daily Mail, they must all be wrong.

Call it Crazy says

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again:

You are not actually asking anything. You've made up your mind to the correct answers to these already.
I'll play though. Your last question is where you are horribly mistaken. You have decided low concentration changes always have little impact. That's beyond false. Here ya go ... in order ...

Call it Crazy says

So, there's been an average 0.6 degree rise C in 115 years! Does that sound extreme to you? Should we all put on scuba equipment so we don't drown from all the melting glaciers and ice caps?

The amount the temperature has risen cannot be defined as "extreme". No. We only need to continue the trend to experience extremeness in the actual temperature.

There are other weather events and phenomena that might be considered extreme. Here are the things climatologists have observed right now:
- hottest decade on record
- tree lines moving north and to higher elevations
- the rate of warming higher than past 11,000 years
- arctic sea ice lowest ever seen, and losing 13% per decade
- Greenland loosing 300 giga-tons of ice a year
- Antarctica, also an ice looser
- Ocean temperatures warming, ocean becoming more acidic
- sea level rising
- more extreme weather events ('weather throws the punches, climate trains the boxer')

As to if we should put on scuba gear, my house is at high enough elevation I won't need to do that. Estimates are that I'll be dead, as well, by the time we see a 10-20ft rise in ocean level.

Call it Crazy says

Tell me something, how much did the temperature rise at your house today between 6 AM and 2 PM? Did you see any melting icebergs pass by along the coast?

- Atmospheric temperature probably rose and fell around 20-30 degrees total yesterday.
- Icebergs melt long before they reach me.

Call it Crazy says

Yep, which makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere... Do you really think a few ppm makes a difference??

Absolutely! A few ppm changes the physical properties of solutions and gases. A few ppm can kill you, if we are talking a toxin.

Rew,
The consolation prize for arguing with denialists is that I will get to see them watch their loved ones suffer as the earth reaches the boiling point.
Sociopaths don't care about anything but themselves.

HEY YOU says

The consolation prize for arguing with denialists is that I will get to see them watch their loved ones suffer as the earth reaches the boiling point.

Sociopaths don't care about anything but themselves.

I think the attitudes of denial will be extinct long before climate change, outright, kills a denier. They are a dying breed.

Hey 99% of the tea I drank was tannic acid and H20.

The 1% is arsenic. That trace amount isn't gonna kill me.

Call it Crazy says

Oh no... You're going to die!!!

Try reading the whole sentence, the whole thought. I know you can do it CiC ... I believe in you!

CIC says..."So, there's been an average 0.6 degree rise C in 115 years! Does that sound extreme to you? Should we all put on scuba equipment so we don't drown from all the melting glaciers and ice caps?"

That sounds very extreme. As you point out, the temperature varies by >10C every day. But what you don't mention is that 10C global average temperature change is the difference between the coldest ice age and the warmest period on record. Also, 100 years is a very short time period.

CO2 toxicity to humans is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming. No one ever said it was a problem. Might as well discuss the price of tea in China.

Unfortunately, common sense is useless in this discussion.

Common sense did not tell us the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun. It did not tell us about molecules, atoms, chemistry, or any of that. It did not even tell us about gravity. All of these things and any other interesting scientific discovery took deep theoretical thinking and high level math.

The common sense and follow the money skeptic arguments are quite silly. There is plenty of money available to disprove global warming as well. Oil companies have been funding skeptic science for decades despite pretty much knowing it was bullshit.

Gee, here is another report from some of y'alls favorite news source Huffinton Post about the upcoming mini-ice age.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/12/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-will-hit-in-15-years/21208356/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1115257387?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

YesYNot says

CO2 toxicity to humans is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

You're talking about someone who would wave a rock around, screaming "Why isn't this a tree yet? Checkmate, liberal evolutionists!"

Call it Crazy says

CO2 increases in the atmosphere is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

Call it Crazy says

*

Do you really think you're on to something here? That the fact that the CO2 percentage of air is small means it has a small effect on global warming?

I mean, honestly, in all of the global warming literature (both pro-warming and anti-warming) have you seen any scientist make this inane argument?

Hey, this Paint is only 1% Lead. Think I will lick it, after all, it's only a trace amount.

July the 4th at around 4:15pm the tide at Hollywood beach was so low people were wadding out over 3/4 of a mile from shore with the water level not even reaching their knees.
I've been living here now for going on 30 years, I've never seen the tide so low. From the tide line to the level of where our beach chair was had to have been over 15 to 20 feet high. I've never seen it over 8.

I thought the Sea level was rising globally or this a regional thing where the Ocean knows who's in on the scam?

Call it Crazy says

CO2 increases in the atmosphere is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

So says CiC on the Pnet forums, and thus, the international scientific community was rendered nullified.

You seem to willfully pride yourself on ignorance.

The fact that you have to keep redefining your terms at the very minimum suggests a serious weakness in your science.

"Global warming is making the Earth warmer. We're all gunna die if we don't raise money quickly."

Oh wait, how do we explain regional cooling and record breaking winters?

"Climate change is making the Earth warmer. Don't you know that when the Earth gets warmer that we have bigger winters? We're all gunna die if we don't raise money quickly."

Oh wait, we're about to enter into a mini-ice age?

"Don't you know the difference between global weather and solar weather? What happens on the sun has nothing to do with the fact that if none of that were happening, we'd be right."

What?

It's bad science when you have to keep changing your reasoning in order to make your conclusions stand amidst changing facts. Why didn't they consider the solar cycle when they made their warming conclusions in the first place? Is the solar cycle something new? They are going to be right no matter how much of the story they have to rewrite. Personally, I find that a little suspicious. It reminds me of when kids who are sore losers changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game so they can still stand a chance at winning the game.

Call it Crazy says

Ignorance is what's being shown by the Libbie/alarmists

You have a closed system (a bottle with some air and water in it)
you apply heat from a light source for 12 hours at a steady rate into the bottle
followed by no heat (darkness) for 12 hours
bottle is in a temperature controlled room

You repeat this process 200 times and your findings would be relatively steady. If all things are held in constant for this system as described above, you would have a bottle which heated up, condensed water on the inside of the bottle, and was extremely steady in behavior. Correct? It would reach peak temperature and cooling, provided the room temperature was held constant.

However, if you increased the C02 content of the air inside the bottle, holding all other factors steady, the bottle would exhibit hotter temperatures. This is factual. Can be proven. This is because of greenhouse effect where more light is reflected multiple times back into the bottle, as it bounces off CO2. (excuse my simplified explanation, I know actual light physicists and science can do it better, but that's my abbreviated version above, and would generally be given a nod.)

Water vapor is the leading cause of the greenhouse effect on Earth, correct, but that doesn't mean CO2 doesn't play a role.

Would the added heat caused by the CO2 cause more or less water vapor, the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, to form?
Yes. Yes it would. More heat, would mean more evaporation which would mean more water vapor.

This is where you claim that more water vapor automatically means more clouds, and that would keep things in balance by reflection. Current science says it isn't that simple at all. Clouds can actually heat or cool depending on how much they are reflecting or trapping heat. Additionally, just because there is a bunch of water vapor in the air, doesn't mean it condenses into cloud.

Hotter temperatures are however contributors to larger more high energy storms.

Call it Crazy says

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Good source CiC ...

The Recent Role of the Greenhouse Effect

Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

The Main Greenhouse Gases

The most important GHGs directly emitted by humans include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and several others. The sources and recent trends of these gases are detailed below.

Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change. CO2 is absorbed and emitted naturally as part of the carbon cycle, through animal and plant respiration, volcanic eruptions, and ocean-atmosphere exchange. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to rise.

CIC your ignorance would be astounding if we were not used to it by now.

YesYNot says

Unfortunately, your scientists want to blame the CO2 for the temperature rises when it is in fact the warming of the sun and the increase of water vapor that holds in the majority of the heat.

Which is why Climatologists show high levels of CO2, measured in ice cores and other places, throughout the historical record coincide with high Earth temperatures. There is causation and relation.

That bit of ignorance was CIC, not me

You should look in the mirror before posting gifs. You cast the first "ignorant" stone. It is quite ironic because you keep posting well known facts that do not refute gw theory as if they do.

I've posted why your thought that 0.6 oC is meaningless is incorrect. Also posted why co2 toxicity is meaningless. The water thing is a canard. The natural fluxes are large but balance out. So the small imbalance is important. It is also important for the co2 balance bc co2 from fossil fuels is small versus the natural co2 fluxes. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up. The thing is that the small additional emissions are cumulative and have resulted in a huge increase in the atmospheric concentration of co2. I'm not going to bother googling these things and providing links. This stuff is pretty obvious to those of us who have a high level of math and science training and have been following this issue for a long time.

Call it Crazy says

How could that be if the ramp up in burning of fossil fuel has only been over the last 50+ years. How do you explain the CO2 levels in those historic ice cores?

Historical CO2 levels have to do with volcanism, CO2 burial in sediments, and release from rock weathering. It also has to do with animal and plant gaseous exchange with the environment.

The last time CO2 was measured at this high of a level was before Human life ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

CiC: How old do you think the Earth is? Where did humans come from?

CiC, I like how you just say "wrong answer" with nothing to back that up but statements. Burden of proof is with you. I'm representing the majority of current science. My answer above is what they would say.

Maybe since also the GOP position, and right, is scared by so much these days ... (ebola, the gays, socialism, government concentration camps, Muslims, "coming to take your guns", graying culture wars, decline of Christian married families, the "browning of America", government elite world control, white minority status, unions ...) ...

... you know what. I change my mind. You poor scared little guy. You are right. Don't worry about CO2 emissions. Take your meds, have a whiskey, and watch The Golden Girls.

It's ok. We will take care of you.

I think I see Dolly in there!