It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 25
37
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Because physics can only explain so much given that not all the forcings have been identified.


What about the forcings that have been identified and quantitfied heavily over many decades of work.



Really - we have so much trouble getting really accurate temperature data at all, its a wonder that any conclusion can be drawn.


How do you know that.



We keep getting told that the earth is like a green house. But it is not. I have been to many very large greenhouses. I have never seen one with its own oceans, trade winds, polar caps, naturally occuring clouds and a naturally variable heat source.

I am glad we are studying climate. We are learning lots and lots but we still don't know enough to make heads nor tails of it.

You can talk about physics but until you can take in all of the various factors ACCURATELY, you can't really apply it.

Tired of Control Freaks


Why don't we ask climatologists who study climate what they know well, and what they don't know well?




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I've only read the OP so this may have been stated before. In my neck of the woods we have what are called Mayflies.

Mayfly Hatch So Big It Showed Up On Radar


They hatch every year when certain conditions are met. I would guess mayflies used to come out during May, hence the name. At least like when the first European settlers in this area noted them coming out and named them. I think the Industrial Revolution etc. has very slowly changed the climate which has very tiny, yet significant, effects on bottom-rung species which works it's way up the food chain.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

What about the forcings that have been identified???? You just don't know what you don't know.

how do I know that we have trouble getting really accurate temperature data. That is what is being reported. Why is temperature data continuously , if it is accurate in the first place. Are you suggesting that any data set was accurate and it was adjusted until it was inaccurate simply to match some computerized climate model?

You want to ask climatologists about what they don't know? No need to ask. Just peruse the grant applications. You are not suggesting that some scientist would be so pathetic and shady that they ask for grants to pursue knowledge they already have?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

We were told by scientists at the Climate Talks in Paris that melting permafrost would release carbon, causing another tipping point.

This article is from June 2015.

www.pri.org...




“What’s important about these numbers is that, in theory, we can control deforestation and land use change [and] we can control our fossil fuel emissions — but once permafrost starts to thaw, we cannot control how much carbon dioxide and methane is released by microbes into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost,” Natali says. Permafrost is ground that remains frozen for two or more consecutive years. In some areas, permafrost has been frozen for as long as 40,000 years. Permafrost regions cover about 25 percent of the northern hemisphere's land area. Carbon in permafrost is frozen in the form of various types of organic matter. But when permafrost thaws, microbes decompose that organic matter. And just as humans breathe out carbon dioxide, so do microbes. And they also release methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Current projections indicate a 30 to 70 percent decline in near-surface permafrost by the end of this century, Natali says. That wide range is a result of different emission scenarios. “Under low emission models, we can expect about a 30 percent decline in permafrost. But under our current emissions scenario, up to 70 percent,” she explains. If 70 percent of the permafrost thaws, scientists expect to lose 130 to 160 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by the end of this century. To put that in perspective, in 2013 the United States emitted 1.4 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.


I guess these "scientists" didn't get the word. Maybe their "math" was a little off.

I guess they just didn't know what they didn't know

www.scientificamerican.com...




Now researchers report that they've found a new strain of methane-eating microbes in soil samples from Axel Heiberg Island, in the Canadian high Arctic. The soils on the island are not rich in carbon, meaning there's not a lot of methane waste. So these still-unnamed bacteria instead harvest the gas straight out of the air. And as that air warms up, they’re getting hungrier. The scientists project that as temperatures rise over the next century, the bugs could gobble up anywhere from five to 30 times the amount of methane they eat today. The study appears in The ISME Journal. [MCY Lau et al, An active atmospheric methane sink in high Arctic mineral cryosols] Most Arctic permafrost—87 percent—is actually carbon-poor, minerally stuff like the soil on Axel Heiberg Island. Meaning much of the Arctic could soon be sucking up methane. It's still too early to say whether the region could actually become a carbon sink. But the researchers say that at the very least climate models need to reflect this latest nuance of our warming planet.


Or maybe they just liked an alarmist point of view. Hard to get grant money unless you are contributing to the general fear of the population.

of course the news about the methane eating bacteria was out in April 2012. The scientists at the climate talks who set out such an alarming scenarios are either incompetent and lack the knowledge of their field that they ought to have.

sciencenordic.com...

Or maybe they are out and out liars.

Yes - lets us ask AGW climate scientists for their opinion. Scientists would never mislead us, now would they.

Tired of Control Freaks
edit on 19-7-2016 by TiredofControlFreaks because: to add a link



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

June Bugs and Mayflies are two different species of insect.

www.northernexpress.com...




And now on to junebugs - and we’re not referring to the 1908 experimental aircraft, the comedy-drama film, or the new-wave song by The B-52s. Nope - you’ll recognize the junebug by its constant search for light, which can often result in them zipping their way into your house, or banging their hard-wing shells against your screen door for hours on end. A cousin of the scarab beetle - most popularly seen in Egyptian artworks - the junebug, also referred to as a June beetle, is oval shaped and a black or reddish-brown in color; it’s nocturnal, and can both fly and waddle along the ground. They’re fairly harmless as adults - although most human adults don’t like having them around. “The adults don’t really eat very much - their jaws are tiny, so they might just chew on a leaf now and then,” Elsner says, “but most people dislike them because they happen to have gangly legs and sharp claws, so it can be difficult to get them out of your hair or off of your sweater if they happen to land there. But otherwise, the adults are harmless.” Note that Elsner keeps mentioning that the adults are harmless - that’s because you wouldn’t want your garden to have a run-in with the junebug at its grub stage. “They are definitely pests where agricultural crops are concerned,” Elsner explains, “if there are a large amount of them in the grub stage, they can damage turf grass and chew on the roots of other plants; skunks and raccoons also like to dig up the grubs, so your lawn or garden can sustain environmental damage that way.” So what should you do if you’ve got a junebug overload? Once again, fishing provides the rescue. “Catching bass or bluegills,” Elsner chuckles. “Fishermen really like to use them for that.”


Be thankful you have so many mayflies. Its an environmental indicator of clean water.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Hottest June ever recorded worldwide - NOAA

More facts for climate-changed deniers to deny.


Last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the 14th straight month that global heat records were broken, scientists say.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says global sea temperatures were fractionally higher than for June last year while land temperatures tied. Its global temperature records date back 137 years, to 1880.

Most scientists attribute the increases to greenhouse gas emissions. They also say climate change is at least partially to blame for a number of environmental disasters around the world.

Let’s see what the control freak everyone’s tired of has to say this time.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
Surely you cannot seriously regard these observations as being outlandish? The idea that CO2-changes lag temperature-changes is based on a well-established law of physical chemistry: Henry’s law, which governs the solubility of gases in water. When the water-temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere and when the water-temperature drops, more CO2 is absorbed by the water. Henry’s law has been established in science over a century ago and long before the IPCC was even a gleam in Maurice Strong’s eye.

Well, there are problems with the claim that global acidification is occurring and what is causing it. One such issue is that there is no accepted reference pH-scale, as Wikipedia points out: ‘Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4. However, there is no universally accepted reference pH-scale for seawater and the difference between measurements based on different reference scales may be up to 0.14 units’. Also pH can apparently change due to other factors, such as eutrophication/degradation, land-based effluents and temperature. If we are doing proper science we must endeavour to exhaust all of the possibilities — thoroughly. There is also another possibility, and that is the oceans are absorbing more human CO2 than they are releasing from the temperature-changes.

I suppose it depends on how much you think human CO2 emissions are contributing to the atmospheric CO2 increase.

First off, they're not observations. Screwing around with data is altering the observations. Secondly, while atmospheric CO2 is increasing, dissolved CO2 is increasing at a similar pace. If it's supposed to be responsible for the increase in CO2, please explain how. Remember, the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is dependent upon temperature and partial pressure - and we've been adding a whole lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We have estimates of how much carbon we emit. Note that this is in carbon, not carbon dioxide. Transform that data into CO2 to calculate changes; O=15.9994 C=12.0107; CO2 is 27.2912 % carbon by mass, so (for example) 9 gigatonnes of carbon emissions ~ 33 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions. We can transform that as well:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), June 2016: 406.81 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, June 2015: 402.80 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, June 2015 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,150.1116 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, June 2016 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,181.4719 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 31.3603 Gt

originally posted by: Nathan-D
So, that's where that comment is going with the conservation of mass thing: in order for atmospheric CO2 to be increasing because of rising ocean temperatures, our emissions would have to be made up. The EPA estimates 0.43 metric tons of CO2 emissions per barrel of oil. We consumed more than 36 billion barrels of oil last year, for approximately 15.5 Gt of CO2 emissions from oil alone. Worse, coal is estimated to contribute over 40% of CO2 emissions; oil sits closer to 33%. Cement production is a smaller chunk, adding only 1.5-2 Gt of CO2.

On the other hand, because both CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans is increasing, the measurable change of temperature on solubility is difficult to discern. It really doesn't jive with that detrended plot at all.

There's nothing 'clear' about that chart when you don't know what the isolate function does. Speaking of, give this one a look. I can't take credit for it, either:

What the WfT “ISOLATE” function does is remove any residual signal from local trends within the time span provided.
What is left is any differential change ascribed to seasonal outgassing of the oceans.

So I added the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and compared that to the seasonal temperature fluctuations.


Regarding that bad paper, there are several other comments demolishing chunks of it.

edit on 22Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:03:38 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

ok first of all - temperature records only started since the 1880. And were quite spotty prior to the 1950s. Do you really really think that is "proof of something"

Second - we just finished an El Nino where the ocean gave up a huge amount of heat to the atmosphere. Were you expecting the atmosphere to be cool? Why???

Third - After all the shenangans and lack of credibility on the part of AGW scientists - one example just above that no one wanted to comment on, Micheal Mann "hide the decline", continual and never-ending adjustments to the temperature data sets, why would I believe any of this.

Check out ocean temperatures for July 2016. We are heading into El Nino weather and next year will be considerably cooler.

Climate is changing - it always has and it always will.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Because physics can only explain so much given that not all the forcings have been identified. We have only recently recognised the dominant forcing of ocean currents and the fact that atmospheric temperature is really irrelevant in comparison with ocean temperatures.

Really - we have so much trouble getting really accurate temperature data at all, its a wonder that any conclusion can be drawn.

We keep getting told that the earth is like a green house. But it is not. I have been to many very large greenhouses. I have never seen one with its own oceans, trade winds, polar caps, naturally occuring clouds and a naturally variable heat source.

I am glad we are studying climate. We are learning lots and lots but we still don't know enough to make heads nor tails of it.

You can talk about physics but until you can take in all of the various factors ACCURATELY, you can't really apply it.

Greenhouse effect is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't work the same way as a greenhouse.

It's really pretty simple, and explained by physics:
1) The Earth (and its atmosphere), by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, should be ~255 K.
2) The surface of the Earth is observed to actually be ~288 K.
3) The troposphere cools rapidly with height.
4) Thus, something is (in extremely simplistic terms) keeping heat nearer the surface.

We've observed cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the surface over the past few decades, which is the expected result of more heat remaining near the surface.

Got any other explanations or counters to these simple facts?
You don't have to have perfect information to begin to draw conclusions.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

According to your post, you are seeing much more than "noise" when you detrend data

In this case, y'know... the whole argument is that increasing CO2 will mean increasing temperatures.

Detrending it removes the 'increasing' part, as well as any 'decreasing' part.
It is utterly, completely antithetical to the whole thing.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I believe that it has much more to do with the oceans than with any part of the atmosphere. Remember that the oceans comprise something over 70 % of the earth. A far greater part than land.

I think we need to really understand ocean currents if we want to understand climate.

Particulary, the PDO occurring in the largest ocean and the AMO occurring the atlantic.

For the record - with the ending of El Nino - both are cooling at the same time. What will develop from this cannot be atmospheric warming.

I think we are seeing the last great hurrah for AGW.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MayRenee

We have gone through many climate changes. Of course before me, there were other climate changes. Proof positive that it happens, why be so surprised to be witnessing it? Were you expecting to see something happen in 24 hours? That is not how it will happen.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

We have estimates of how much carbon we emit. Note that this is in carbon, not carbon dioxide. Transform that data into CO2 to calculate changes; O=15.9994 C=12.0107; CO2 is 27.2912 % carbon by mass, so (for example) 9 gigatonnes of carbon emissions ~ 33 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions. We can transform that as well:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), June 2016: 406.81 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, June 2015: 402.80 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, June 2015 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,150.1116 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, June 2016 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,181.4719 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 31.3603 Gt

Your figure of 31Gts is merely the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 2015 to 2016. That does not mean that the human contribution of 33Gts is the cause of the increase. You have to understand Henry’s law in order to understand why. In order to explain how human CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere the IPCC apply the Revelle Factor which contradicts Henry’s law. Henry’s law determines a specific fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of ~15°C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be ~1:50. This implies that if humans added 33Gts of CO2 to the atmosphere/year the amount remaining in the atmosphere upon equilibrium would be 33/50 = 0.66Gts/year. This is equivalent to about 0.085ppmv/year. Now the partitioning ratio is temperature-dependent. So if the oceans were to warm to say ~20°C (a 5°C temperature increase), the partitioning ratio would rise to ~1:40 and CO2 would be released from the oceans to be permanently added to the resident CO2 greenhouse.

Here is a thought-experiment to illustrate the point: Say we had a can of soda-pop with an average temperature of 15°C and added 100 grams of CO2 into the head-space above the water. The CO2 would rapidly equilibrate with the water until 98 grams has been dissolved and 2 grams resided in the head-space in accordance with the 1:50 partitioning ratio at that temperature. Now imagine at the same time we increased the water-temperature by 5°C and thereupon shifted the partitioning ratio to 1:40. Instead of 0.98 grams being dissolved into the water 97.5 grams would be dissolved, leaving 2.5 grams in the head-space. At the same time, some CO2 would be released from the water due to the temperature-change, let’s assume 10 grams. The end result is that the water has simultaneously absorbed 97.5% (essentially all) of the CO2 we added while increasing the CO2 in the head-space due to the temperature-change. This is why the mass-balance argument (as it is being inappropriately applied by warmists) is invalid.
edit on 20-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   


First off, they're not observations. Screwing around with data is altering the observations. Secondly, while atmospheric CO2 is increasing, dissolved CO2 is increasing at a similar pace. If it's supposed to be responsible for the increase in CO2, please explain how.

I should point out that this was data collected from one station in Hawaii in 1973. That was 43 years ago. Anyway, the ocean is a big place and that one station probably represents 0.0001% of the entire ocean. Unless we are willing and able to cover the ocean’s entire surface in a rather fine-meshed network our readings of PCO2 from only one station are liable to be too inaccurate to be useful and to be misleading accordingly. Furthermore the Hawaii ALOHA station is located in relatively shallow coastal waters and it has been shown that biological activity in coastal waters can significantly affect the the concentration of dissolved PCO2 (Evans et al 2011). Has this been considered?
edit on 20-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Why is it that when a climate denier says that there is less hurricanes despite predictions that climate change will cause more intense and greater number of hurricanes, we are told that our question relates to weather and climate change is not weather.

Yet, if you believe in climate change, you point to weather as proof of climate change and we are supposed to buy into it.

Propaganda, mass dissemination of mis dis information on a global scale. For the first time in history as well.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

It is your argument that is invalid.

You keep on making these arguments based on bad science and math that somehow you claim invalidates the tested and supported AGW that we are observing.

Its comical in a way, but sad that some actually believe the BS you come up with.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

You keep on making these arguments based on bad science and math that somehow you claim invalidates the tested and supported AGW that we are observing.

So where are the faults in my math or science? I am still waiting for you to slap me down with any incontestable proofs that human CO2 is the main cause of global warming (or even that humans are the main cause of the CO2 increase). If you would like to show us how honest science proves that humans are the main cause of global warming, please go right ahead. I’m sure that many of us would be gobsmacked to see it.


Its comical in a way, but sad that some actually believe the BS you come up with.

I think only your arguments here could truly be described as ‘BS’, jord. It seems you have projected your disowned self onto me again. Perhaps you are miscast in your role as a fanatical green crusader on this forum and really need to become a stage performer in order to fulfil yourself. I’m just guessing of course, but I think you might find it worthwhile considering. After all, you couldn’t do any worse than you’re already doing here, could you?
edit on 20-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

You already have been 'slapped down' several times in this thread and many other threads that you participate in.

Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that the world's oceans are NOT experiencing a rise in dissolved CO2?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Here's one project on ocean observing. This is where modern measurements of temperature and chemistry come from. Each dot was an instrument in may 2011.

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-DYou already have been 'slapped down' several times in this thread and many other threads that you participate in.

Only in your whimsical subjective dream-world jord.


Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that the world's oceans are NOT experiencing a rise in dissolved CO2?

I am not saying that using one Station in Hawaii of PCO2(aq) concentrations and extrapolating that to the entire ocean is somewhat questionable. Measurements have not been done comprehensively enough for anyone to infer if the world’s dissolved CO2 concentrations are increasing or decreasing. Nothing can make up for basic missing lack of data. However, even if the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans were increasing, it is still compatible with the idea that a large portion of the atmospheric CO2 could be natural. Humans have emitted about 2,000Gts of CO2 since 1850 (IPCC AR5) and the total increase in atmospheric CO2 has been just over 900Gts. So we should expect CO2 in the oceans to be increasing, even if the ocean was contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.
edit on 20-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join