Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14641519
Besoeker wrote:But to what extent, if any, is it anthropogenic?



Pretty much 110% or so. All natural forcing functions have been accounted for. If not for fossil fuel burning, we would be in a gradual cooling trend towards the next Ice Age. Instead, with a perhaps unprecedented rate of atmospheric CO2 rise, we are flirting with global warming catastrophe as eventually unstoppable positive feedback loops could start if we do nothing to stop CO2 rise (it may be too late already). Civilization as we know it will end as virtually all of today's coastal cities will drown beneath sea level rise in the centuries ahead and large portions of the equatorial regions will become uninhabitable (to humans) because of the heat.
#14641964
oscar wrote:

Pretty much 110% or so. All natural forcing functions have been accounted for. If not for fossil fuel burning, we would be in a gradual cooling trend towards the next Ice Age. Instead, with a perhaps unprecedented rate of atmospheric CO2 rise, we are flirting with global warming catastrophe as eventually unstoppable positive feedback loops could start if we do nothing to stop CO2 rise (it may be too late already). Civilization as we know it will end as virtually all of today's coastal cities will drown beneath sea level rise in the centuries ahead and large portions of the equatorial regions will become uninhabitable (to humans) because of the heat.


Don't much disagree with that except the armagedon scenario.
#14642200
A bit more.........I meant Armageddon of course. And no, I don't see it that way.

We won't continue to burn fossil fuels. They are a finite resource. We will run out sooner or later. So that, as a source of CO2, will cease.
Renewable energy sources exist such as wind and solar. These suffer from being on availibility and we have on demend expectations. Energy storage could take up the slack - if we had at utility scale levels. We are not remotely close to that. Yet. But developments continue.

Then there is hydroelectric. It has been around for more than a century and, in recent decades, on a grand scale. Itaipu, Three Gorges to mention but a couple. And Norway is more than 90% hydroelectric despite being in the top 15 oil producers. One advantage Hydro has is energy storage - all that water behind that damn dam......
Of course, it needs the topography and the rivers.

The rising sea levels - well, we're not looking at a step change. People will move. We are adaptable.
#14642294
A certain amount of sea level rise is already "locked in" and I strongly suspect low lying places like Miami, Fla and most of southern Florida are already doomed in the decades head.

"...Recent reports out from Climate Central and supported by the work of experts show that a sea level rise of at least 6 meters could already be locked in. And as bad as that sounds, a six meter sea level rise from the warming already set in motion by high atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and likely to come from further human emissions could be a best-case or even unrealistic scenario.

....

Starting with the current climate that is now being rapidly warmed by human fossil fuel burning, we find that this year peak monthly CO2 levels hit near 404 parts per million. It’s a value fast approaching the top of this key greenhouse gas’s range during the Pliocene around 3.5 million years ago. A time when temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius hotter and sea levels were between 25 and 75 feet higher than they are today....
"

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/14/a ... o-context/
#14642539
oscar wrote:A certain amount of sea level rise is already "locked in" and I strongly suspect low lying places like Miami, Fla and most of southern Florida are already doomed in the decades head.

"...Recent reports out from Climate Central and supported by the work of experts show that a sea level rise of at least 6 meters could already be locked in. And as bad as that sounds, a six meter sea level rise from the warming already set in motion by high atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and likely to come from further human emissions could be a best-case or even unrealistic scenario.

....

Starting with the current climate that is now being rapidly warmed by human fossil fuel burning, we find that this year peak monthly CO2 levels hit near 404 parts per million. It’s a value fast approaching the top of this key greenhouse gas’s range during the Pliocene around 3.5 million years ago. A time when temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius hotter and sea levels were between 25 and 75 feet higher than they are today....
"

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/14/a ... o-context/

Seems to be a bit of a muddled article.
#14661753
Besoeker wrote:But to what extent, if any, is it anthropogenic?

oscar wrote:Pretty much 110% or so.

No. Anthropogenic effects are at most about a third of it, of which CO2 is maybe around three quarters.
All natural forcing functions have been accounted for.

No, that's just false. There is not a single climate model that predicts high CO2 sensitivity and also accounts for the most important natural forcing: the increase in solar activity to a multi-millennium high over the ~150 years up to around 2000. Solar activity has weakened substantially in the most recent cycle, and some solar physicists are warning that we may be in for a return to Little Ice Age levels in the next few decades, which would result in disastrous if not catastrophic global cooling.
If not for fossil fuel burning, we would be in a gradual cooling trend towards the next Ice Age.

Nope. Flat wrong. Solar activity was at a sustained high for over a century up to 2000, and since it has slackened, temperature has obediently stopped rising -- despite continued exponential rise in CO2. And if it were true that CO2 was the only thing preventing a new Ice Age, we would be well advised to emit as much of it as possible, as a new Ice Age would be a civilization-ending catastrophe that would make global warming look like springtime in Vienna.
Instead, with a perhaps unprecedented rate of atmospheric CO2 rise, we are flirting with global warming catastrophe as eventually unstoppable positive feedback loops could start if we do nothing to stop CO2 rise (it may be too late already).

Garbage with no basis in fact. Temperatures were far warmer in the past, CO2 far higher, and life thrived. Remember, in the paleoclimate record, temperature leads CO2.
Civilization as we know it will end as virtually all of today's coastal cities will drown beneath sea level rise in the centuries ahead and large portions of the equatorial regions will become uninhabitable (to humans) because of the heat.

No. Neither of those scenarios is a remotely possible result of human CO2 emissions. Human beings evolved in some of the hottest climates on earth, we still choose to live predominantly in warm to hot climates, and even those who live in cooler areas typically go on vacation to warmer climes, even in summer, because they are more comfortable there.

As for sea level rise, it began long before CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor, and has not noticeably accelerated. It would be nice to slow, halt, or even reverse it, but a far cheaper and more effective way to do that would be by large-scale hydrological projects to sequester fresh water in areas that need it -- of which there are many. We should be doing that anyway, to control floods, relieve droughts, and ensure that fresh water can be used for human benefit instead of being wasted when it runs back into the sea. The waters of some substantial rivers, such as the Nile, Colorado and Hwang Ho, are already being used so extensively that they no longer reach the sea unless they are in flood, and that's a good thing. Most of the world's rivers should be dammed and diverted into arid areas where the fresh water is needed, and won't contribute to sea level rise.

A place like Australia, which is chronically short of fresh water, should not be allowing any of it to run back into the ocean. It should all be retained for human use and to improve agriculture and the environment.
#14661808
Truth To Power wrote: There is not a single climate model that predicts high CO2 sensitivity and also accounts for the most important natural forcing: the increase in solar activity to a multi-millennium high over the ~150 years up to around 2000. Solar activity has weakened substantially in the most recent cycle, and some solar physicists are warning that we may be in for a return to Little Ice Age levels in the next few decades, which would result in disastrous if not catastrophic global cooling.
...
Nope. Flat wrong. Solar activity was at a sustained high for over a century up to 2000, and since it has slackened, temperature has obediently stopped rising -- despite continued exponential rise in CO2.

Maybe we should check with the International Astronomical Union:

The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.

The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public on 7 August at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA.

The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change. Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century — called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number — the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number — indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.
...
The results, presented at the IAU XXIX General Assembly in Honolulu, Hawai`i yesterday, make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.

The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries. The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.

http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corr ... ar-trends/

February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount

Climate change is usually assessed over years and decades, and 2015 shattered the record set in 2014 for the hottest year seen, in data stretching back to 1850. The UK Met Office also expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global temperature record will have been broken for three years in a row.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount


As for sea level rise, it began long before CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor, and has not noticeably accelerated.

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.abstract

It's your ability to be so completely wrong that is truly impressive.
#14662075
Truth To Power wrote: There is not a single climate model that predicts high CO2 sensitivity and also accounts for the most important natural forcing: the increase in solar activity to a multi-millennium high over the ~150 years up to around 2000. Solar activity has weakened substantially in the most recent cycle, and some solar physicists are warning that we may be in for a return to Little Ice Age levels in the next few decades, which would result in disastrous if not catastrophic global cooling.
...
Nope. Flat wrong. Solar activity was at a sustained high for over a century up to 2000, and since it has slackened, temperature has obediently stopped rising -- despite continued exponential rise in CO2.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Maybe we should check with the International Astronomical Union:

You mean, to see if they have obediently changed the facts to suit AGW theory, the way NASA, NOAA, etc. all have...?
The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.

So they have changed the facts to suit AGW theory. Shocker!
The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public on 7 August at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA.

You mean, the climate "research" that consists mostly of altering past temperature readings downward and current ones upward to fit the AGW narrative...? That climate research?
The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change.

What?? You mean, it's possible that the sun actually warms the earth?!? What a scandalous admission!! The Indisputably Correct Narrative states that only use of fossil fuels can warm the earth, and the sun is irrelevant.
Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century — called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

You mean, a general consensus among those unfortunates who had not received the memo explaining how to generate "data" that support the Indisputably Correct Narrative?
This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change.

The poor, naïve fools....
However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

And the answer: increase the number of sunspots observed centuries ago in BOTH series, to remove the pesky increase in solar activity that so inexcusably contradicted the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The two methods of counting the sunspot number — the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number — indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.

But there is now a very big difference between the historical records that were actually recorded at the time and the amended "records," which agree with the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The results, presented at the IAU XXIX General Assembly in Honolulu, Hawai`i yesterday, make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.

Which is precisely what those "results" were created to do.
The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries.

Which is why it had to be altered to fit the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number.

The "error" being that the empirically observed facts contradicted the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.

As the facts have been suitably amended to fit the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corrected-sunspot-history-suggests-climate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/

These sleazeballs are a disgrace to science.
February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount

Climate change is usually assessed over years and decades, and 2015 shattered the record set in 2014 for the hottest year seen, in data stretching back to 1850. The UK Met Office also expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global temperature record will have been broken for three years in a row.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount

Once the temperature records of earlier years had been suitably decreased and the current ones increased, that is.
As for sea level rise, it began long before CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor, and has not noticeably accelerated.

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis

Oooooh, a statistical "synthesis," was it? I wonder how that was designed to turn out...
of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries.

Except the 9th C, when the Netherlands, which had been dry land in Roman times, was inundated by the ocean....
Semiempirical modeling

"Semiempirical"...? Sounds like a glass half-empty, to me...
indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed.

You mean, without the global warming caused by the multi-millennium high in solar activity which has now been made not to have happened....?
Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.abstract

Yes, well, the differences between empirical observations and the Indisputably Correct Narrative have to be reconciled with the fact that the latter is Indisputably Correct, so the former have to be altered. No surprises there.
It's your ability to be so completely wrong that is truly impressive.

I want you to remember this when it is proved, and universally acknowledged, that I am completely right. And I want you to be aware that there will never be anything you can do to expiate the disgrace of having participated in and supported the grotesque scientific malfeasance of AGW theory.
#14662485
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Shorter Truth To Power:
All the scientists are lying!

No, a small minority of lying AGW scum are lying.
Only I know the true history of global climate!

The people who recorded it at the time knew. I'm the one here who is willing to know the fact that they knew. It is lying AGW scumbags who insist that only they know the true history of global climate, and they relentlessly change the historical data to agree with their view of it.
You'll all be sorry when something proves me right!

It's thermometers, tide gauges, sunspots, etc. that will prove me right -- in fact, they already have.
#14662670
Truth To Power wrote: It's thermometers, tide gauges, sunspots, etc. that will prove me right -- in fact, they already have.

It's the thermometers, tide gauges and sunspots that have already proven you wrong. I linked to the results, remember? You just asserted a load of bullshit, and all you can do is say anyone who produces facts that counter your bullshit is 'lying scum'.

Angry and wrong is no way to go through life, son.
#14662782
Equinox today, so it is the first day of Spring. Not that we had a real winter in sunny Essex, it's been extremely mild. The warmest winter on record.

This was in the Guardian..
This winter is on track to be the warmest ever recorded in England and Wales, according to preliminary figures from the Met Office.

The agency is due to process the final set of winter temperature readings from weather stations around the UK on Tuesday, with 2015/16 expected to beat records going back to the 17th century.

Preliminary data for the central England temperature series – the longest-running in the world – showed an average temperature of 7C (44.6F) this winter, beating a previous high of 6.8C (44.2F) set in 1868-69.

The UK mean temperature from 1 December to 24 February was also extremely mild at 5.6C – well above the long term average of 3.7C. Conditions in February have been close to average but the figures have been pulled upwards by an exceedingly balmy December.

England and Wales it is set to break previous records in 2007 and 1989 to be the warmest ever recorded.
#14663006
Truth To Power wrote: It's thermometers, tide gauges, sunspots, etc. that will prove me right -- in fact, they already have.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:It's the thermometers, tide gauges and sunspots that have already proven you wrong. I linked to the results, remember?



What you linked to were results that HAD TO BE CHANGED, in that case CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, to support your AGW nonscience. The original, unaltered results proved me right.
You just asserted a load of bullshit, and all you can do is say anyone who produces facts that counter your bullshit is 'lying scum'.

"Produces" facts?? Maybe in the sense of fabricates or concocts...
Angry and wrong is no way to go through life, son.

<yawn> If you are not rich, and you are not angry, then you do not understand what the rich are doing to you. And the facts prove me right.
#14663021
Truth To Power wrote:What you linked to were results that HAD TO BE CHANGED, in that case CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, to support your AGW nonscience. The original, unaltered results proved me right

No, the present count corrects a bias introduced in 1947:

The figure below illustrates the change between the original and new Sunspot Number series. The most notable correction is a lowering by about 18% of all numbers after 1947, to remove the bias produced by a new counting method started in 1947 in Zürich. A large variable drift affecting the "Brussels-Locarno" Sunspot Number since 1981 has also been eliminated.

Note that for the new Sunspot Number, the 0.6 conventional Zürich factor is not used anymore, which raises significantly the scale of the entire series. This simply reflects the choice of modern counts by A. Wolfer, Wolf's successor, as new reference. The new numbers thus now match much more closely the raw Wolf numbers obtained by all observers since 1993 until today.

http://www.stce.be/press/01/welcome.html

The reason for this work was:
However, the two parallel series showed strong differences hinting at strong inhomogeneities in either series or both. Since 2011, a group of 40 experts finally undertook a full revision of those two series in order to identify and fix the defects.

Only someone deeply paranoid and ill-informed would claim this work, accepted by the whole astronomical community, is "AGW nonscience".
#14663029
Truth To Power wrote: It's thermometers, tide gauges, sunspots, etc. that will prove me right -- in fact, they already have.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:It's the thermometers, tide gauges and sunspots that have already proven you wrong. I linked to the results, remember?



What you linked to were results that HAD TO BE CHANGED, in that case CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, to support your AGW nonscience. The original, unaltered results proved me right.
You just asserted a load of bullshit, and all you can do is say anyone who produces facts that counter your bullshit is 'lying scum'.

"Produces" facts?? Maybe in the sense of fabricates or concocts...
Angry and wrong is no way to go through life, son.

<yawn> If you are not rich, and you are not angry, then you do not understand what the rich are doing to you. And the facts prove me right.[/quote]
There are lots of papers by people with different agendas that suggest AGW is taking place.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/ATMS111%20Presentations/Folder%202/MeloottuA.pdf
#14663051
Truth To Power wrote:What you linked to were results that HAD TO BE CHANGED, in that case CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, to support your AGW nonscience. The original, unaltered results proved me right

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, the present count corrects a bias introduced in 1947:

Garbage. The blatant alteration of counts from the 18th and 19th centuries self-evidently has nothing to do with anything in 1947.
The figure below illustrates the change between the original and new Sunspot Number series. The most notable correction is a lowering by about 18% of all numbers after 1947, to remove the bias produced by a new counting method started in 1947 in Zürich. A large variable drift affecting the "Brussels-Locarno" Sunspot Number since 1981 has also been eliminated.

Note that for the new Sunspot Number, the 0.6 conventional Zürich factor is not used anymore, which raises significantly the scale of the entire series. This simply reflects the choice of modern counts by A. Wolfer, Wolf's successor, as new reference. The new numbers thus now match much more closely the raw Wolf numbers obtained by all observers since 1993 until today.

http://www.stce.be/press/01/welcome.html

Irrelevant garbage, as proved above. How does any change introduced in 1947, 1981, or 1993 justify drastically raising sunspot counts from the 18th century, hmmmmmm?
The reason for this work was:

However, the two parallel series showed strong differences hinting at strong inhomogeneities in either series or both. Since 2011, a group of 40 experts finally undertook a full revision of those two series in order to identify and fix the defects.

IOW, they took data sets whose differences might have recorded a significant but unknown physical fact about the sun, decided they should be the same, and changed them to be the same, deleting the information contained in the differences.
Only someone deeply paranoid and ill-informed would claim this work, accepted by the whole astronomical community, is "AGW nonscience".

A committee of 40 "experts" is not the whole astronomical community. And how many of the 40 are actually astrophysicists with no skin in the AGW nonscience game? The principal organizer of the revision effort, Leif Svalgaard, is a long-time AGW nonscience fanboy.
#14663067
Note that for the new Sunspot Number, the 0.6 conventional Zürich factor is not used anymore, which raises significantly the scale of the entire series
It would help if you bothered to read what you quoted. It would be even better if you read everything in other people's posts. It would be better still if you read a web page someone gives a link to. But, most of all, it would help if you had a basic understanding of the concepts of 'factor' and 'entire'.
#14663112
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Note that for the new Sunspot Number, the 0.6 conventional Zürich factor is not used anymore, which raises significantly the scale of the entire series
It would help if you bothered to read what you quoted.

I did.
It would be even better if you read everything in other people's posts.

I read everything in every post I quote or respond to. Always.
It would be better still if you read a web page someone gives a link to.

I read the relevant parts. I don't have time to read everything on every web page everybody links to.
But, most of all, it would help if you had a basic understanding of the concepts of 'factor' and 'entire'.

<yawn> Raising the scale of the entire series by a given factor couldn't change the ratio between the 18th century counts and the 20th century counts, and would thus have left the modern solar maximum intact.

It would help if you could find a willingness to understand the basic "logic" of what you say.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 21
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]