Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: MamaJ

We need to take all measures into consideration and focus on what we have control over to see if that will even work to reduce the warming.

Ah. So you think that a totalitarian approach is called for. Awesome, but I don't. I don't think it works.

Most people don't understand the seriousness the melting and methane present.

Methane may well prove to be a major factor. Right now though, CO2 is the priority.

A world plan is what we need quick or we will likely all be migrating within 10 years if we are alive and able.

Right On! NWO now baby! Or not.

Politicians are focusing on the wrong issues.

I agree.

a reply to: Phage

The other alternative is to die. Awesome!

Or... try calling your representatives.

a reply to: MamaJ

The other alternative is to die.

According to whom?

False dichotomy much?

a reply to: mc_squared

S&F
and adding super fun soundtrack

a reply to: Nathan-D

Murry Salby gives one of the better detailed talks on climate .

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Murry Salby is wrong.

Murry Salby is confused about the carbon cycle.

a reply to: mc_squared

so how do we fix this?

What steps do we need to take to reverse global warming?

a reply to: Reallyfolks

We most likely passed the point of no return for 2C warming considering we have no globally agreed upon plan to reduce CO2 emissions. 2C warming is going to be chaotic, it's going to hurt financially, it's going to cause some human migration, it's going to affect food production and most likely cause some new wars and revolutions.

We can still hold warming to 2C. The first step in that process is to stop denying what is causing the planet to warm. Had we acknowledged simple science 30 years ago when the first alarm was sounded (actually the first alarm was sounded in the late 1800's), we could have been a lot further ahead and maybe not have passed the 2C threshold. Should we continue the false debate and not try to hold to 2C? After 2C it's starts to get a whole lot less sure that humans can survive the chaos.

Maybe we should just spend the next few hundred years erecting an, as close to indestructible shrine as we can get, with pictographs of the history of the human race and warnings against all the things we did to off ourselves, for the next intelligent species Earth spawns.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Tactic???

You posted FALSE INFORMATION!!!

A simple search of Patrick Moore's name and the Heartland Institute on ATS's search engine and you will find I am correct.

I'm getting tired of the tactic whereby you think attacking the messenger refutes the message.

If your premise is that private funding makes a private statement from a private scientist invalid, then public funding makes a public statement from public scientists (NOAA, EPA, etc) equally invalid.

What is it about the funding that makes science legitimate or not?

Also:

www.greenpeace.org...

The group organised a boat, the Phyllis Cormack, and set sail to Amchitka to "bear witness" (a Quaker tradition of silent protest) to the nuclear test. On board were:

• Captain John Cormack, the boat's owner
• Jim Bohlen, Greenpeace
• Bill Darnell, Greenpeace
• Patrick Moore, Greenpeace
• Dr Lyle Thurston, medical practitioner
• Dave Birmingham, engineer
• Terry Simmons, cultural geographer
• Richard Fineberg, political science teacher
• Robert Hunter, journalist
• Ben Metcalfe, journalist
• Bob Cummings, journalist
• Bob Keziere, photographer

And even if Greenpeace ever scrubs this page, trust me there are people who have archived it as well as taken screenshots for posterity. And for people who attack the messenger.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We most likely passed the point of no return for 2C warming considering we have no globally agreed upon plan to reduce CO2 emissions. 2C warming is going to be chaotic, it's going to hurt financially, it's going to cause some human migration, it's going to affect food production and most likely cause some new wars and revolutions.

We can still hold warming to 2C. The first step in that process is to stop denying what is causing the planet to warm. Had we acknowledged simple science 30 years ago when the first alarm was sounded (actually the first alarm was sounded in the late 1800's), we could have been a lot further ahead and maybe not have passed the 2C threshold. Should we continue the false debate and not try to hold to 2C? After 2C it's starts to get a whole lot less sure that humans can survive the chaos.

Maybe we should just spend the next few hundred years erecting an, as close to indestructible shrine as we can get, with pictographs of the history of the human race and warnings against all the things we did to off ourselves, for the next intelligent species Earth spawns.

If we all sit in a drum circle, sing kumbuy-ya and agree that we have caused all of this, what then, could happen to reverse it? Or slow it down? remember, your answer needs to be realistic.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Greenpeace on Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

Moore’s claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that “clear-cutting is good for forests” and Three Mile Island was actually “a success story” because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying “my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn’t die.”

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media – especially conservative media – give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.

a reply to: network dude

If we all sit in a drum circle, sing kumbuy-ya

Go back to the kiddie table.

More CO2 means more temperature.

If that were the case then we should have seen an increase in the temperature as our CO2 emissions have increased. But is this so? The warming periods (according to Phil Jones, lead IPCC author) can be seen below, together with the amount of CO2 we emitted throughout the periods according to CDIAC.

Period----------Length in Years--------------Trend/Decade----------CO2 Emitted

1860-1880---------------21-----------------------0.163ºC---------------12 gigatonnes

1910-1940---------------31-----------------------0.150ºC---------------110 gigatonnes

1975-1998---------------24-----------------------0.166ºC---------------480 gigatonnes

1975-2009---------------35-----------------------0.161ºC---------------770 gigatonnes

It is interesting to note that despite producing 3500% more CO2 between 1975-1998 than we did between 1860-1880 the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. Also, we produced 700% more CO2 between 1975-2009 than we did between 1910-1940 and the rate of warming was similar. According to Phil Jones the warming trends above are not statistically significantly different from each other. One question that obviously comes to mind, is, how do you know that what has happened to the temperature is not merely the earth rolling on with natural temperature-cycles as it has done for eons? There is no anthropogenic signature in the global surface temperature record and the rate of warming we have experienced is within long-term natural variation.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We most likely passed the point of no return for 2C warming considering we have no globally agreed upon plan to reduce CO2 emissions. 2C warming is going to be chaotic, it's going to hurt financially, it's going to cause some human migration, it's going to affect food production and most likely cause some new wars and revolutions.

We can still hold warming to 2C. The first step in that process is to stop denying what is causing the planet to warm. Had we acknowledged simple science 30 years ago when the first alarm was sounded (actually the first alarm was sounded in the late 1800's), we could have been a lot further ahead and maybe not have passed the 2C threshold. Should we continue the false debate and not try to hold to 2C? After 2C it's starts to get a whole lot less sure that humans can survive the chaos.

Maybe we should just spend the next few hundred years erecting an, as close to indestructible shrine as we can get, with pictographs of the history of the human race and warnings against all the things we did to off ourselves, for the next intelligent species Earth spawns.

If we all sit in a drum circle, sing kumbuy-ya and agree that we have caused all of this, what then, could happen to reverse it? Or slow it down? remember, your answer needs to be realistic.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure you have participated in a few threads where I presented technologies that are carbon neutral even some that remove co2 from the atmosphere. So the technologies exist already but as long as our elected officials block them at the behest of the fossil fuel industry because they have successfully created a false narrative that the science on AGW is unsettled then we can expect things to get worse.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Demanding complete solutions or asking impossible questions can be considered a disinformation tactic... Not saying that is what you are trying to do here. However it needs to be noted that everyone of these climate discussions this seems to happen.

As someone who respects science and learning I find it extremely frustrating that almost every climate discussion gets bombarded with posters who will seemingly stop at nothing to smear good science and offering snake oil solutions with no merit as if some how the scientist got it wrong and their closed minded and ignorant view is correct.

The fallback argument that probably irks me the most is the claim that we are not significant enough to change the climate and we are arrogant for thinking we are that mighty.

I have been called out for using ridicule against climate deniers, and ridicule is a tool of manipulation so therefore I must be pushing some agenda or belong to the church/cult of AGW. I feel that given the account of information we have concerning human induced climate change, those who insist on denying deserve the ridicule. We can not expect to progress as a society when ignorance is encouraged and embraced. To deny that humans are causing changes to the climate is embracing ignorance and there are very real shills out there who get paid to spread ignorance regarding our role in climate change.

if this is such good science, why are the models and predictions alwàys wrong? I remember years ago when Obama and scientists were predicting stronger and dmore frequent hurricane instead the opposite has happened.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Nathan-D

Murry Salby gives one of the better detailed talks on climate .

The shock on Monckton's face at the end of the video when Salby says he isn't publishing made me laugh the first time I watched this video months ago. I like Salby. He's an awesome guy, though the bit at the end where he says that the residence time is not "200 years" after demonstrating it is short (he uses C14 bomb-data to show the residence time is 8 years) mixes up the claims for residence time with adjustment time. The residence time given by the IPCC is only a few years, as also suggested by the data Salby shows, but the 200 years claim as made by the IPCC is not residence time, but adjustment time. These two things are different. Residence time is how long, on average, a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before absorption and adjustment time is how long the system takes to return to equilibrium after a pulse concentration of CO2, and this apparently determined, in large part, by the Revelle Factor. As the Skeptical Science article menions above though, Salby needs to publish his calculations so people can evaluate them, and he has yet to do so. According to Salby his research files were confiscated, which he says his arguments are derived from, so that's why he says he isn't publishing.

a reply to: jrod

New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have 'essentially no effect' upon global temperature or climate
A new paper by USC Professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. George Chilingar (with three co-authors), finds that increasing levels of the greenhouse gases CO2 & methane will have "essentially no effect" upon global temperatures or climate.

The authors utilize a one-dimensional adiabatic model of climate to demonstrate that the entire tropospheric temperature profile of the atmosphere on both Earth and Venus may be mathematically derived solely on the basis of atmospheric pressure/mass and solar activity, confirmed by observations on both planets, despite vast differences in atmospheric composition and mass/pressure on Earth and Venus. The paper corroborates the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory and thereby excludes the alternative 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.

hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So once again you are trying to pass a blog, that is someone's opinion as a work of science....
(edit to add) I read the paper presented, not sure if it even peer reviewed and after skimming through I found a few inconsistencies.

Here is the abstract.

In the Earth atmosphere, methane gradually converts into carbon dioxide which, according to the conventional anthropogenic theory of global warming, is the main driver of global climate change. The authors investigated the greenhouse effect of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using their tested adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the
atmospheric pressure and solar activity. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Thus,
petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

First you guys scream the models are unreliable, then when someone creates a model that supports your mindset you now accept modeling. There are flaws in this papers oversimplified model of the effects of CO2 and CH4. Still over 97% of the papers written on this subject say our CO2 from burning fossil fuels is indeed causing changes to the climate.

I feel like we are trying to explain that the Earth revolves around the sun, yet you guys insist that is not true. The level of denial here is insane.

It's like you guys did not read the OP, and just want to add your opinion that does not represent science and pretend the scientist and environmentalist are the ignorant ones.


a reply to: Teikiatsu

You originally claimed Patrick Moore was a founder of Greenpeace which is false, then you provided a link to the Heartland Institute as if they have any credibility.

That is NOT attacking the messenger, that is pointing out basic facts. Patrick Moore has been caught in many lies and engages in anti-AGW propaganda and The Heartland Institute is a right wing think tank who gets funding from the Fossil Fuel industry.

Do you really think a group funded by the Fossil Fuel industry is going to bring out good science? Especially when addressing climate change and limiting CO2 levels will hurt their profits.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

More CO2 means more temperature.

If that were the case then we should have seen an increase in the temperature as our CO2 emissions have increased. But is this so? The warming periods (according to Phil Jones, lead IPCC author) can be seen below, together with the amount of CO2 we emitted throughout the periods according to CDIAC.

Period----------Length in Years--------------Trend/Decade----------CO2 Emitted

1860-1880---------------21-----------------------0.163ºC---------------12 gigatonnes

1910-1940---------------31-----------------------0.150ºC---------------110 gigatonnes

1975-1998---------------24-----------------------0.166ºC---------------480 gigatonnes

1975-2009---------------35-----------------------0.161ºC---------------770 gigatonnes

It is interesting to note that despite producing 3500% more CO2 between 1975-1998 than we did between 1860-1880 the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. Also, we produced 700% more CO2 between 1975-2009 than we did between 1910-1940 and the rate of warming was similar. According to Phil Jones the warming trends above are not statistically significantly different from each other. One question that obviously comes to mind, is, how do you know that what has happened to the temperature is not merely the earth rolling on with natural temperature-cycles as it has done for eons? There is no anthropogenic signature in the global surface temperature record and the rate of warming we have experienced is within long-term natural variation.

You misunderstand the concept and physics involved. An increase in CO2 doesn't mean instant reflection in warming.

Consider a furnace; if you raise the cap (the setting where the thermometer tells the furnace to turn off), the house does not instantly raise to that temperature. It takes a bit of time to build up. In a drafty house, the furnace might be running all day long trying to reach that cap.

That's how the Earth used to be, but we're plugging the cracks and holes with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. It's a big house, though - and the Sun emits energy at a relatively fixed rate.

Why do you say there is no anthropogenic signature in the global surface temperature record?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm getting tired of the tactic whereby you think attacking the messenger refutes the message.

So address my post, instead.