Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Yes, global warming to prevent an impending (read inevitable) ice age would seem to be a good thing, would it not?
I'm still kind of disappointed that I don't have a banana tree growing in my backyard in Pennsylvania yet. I wouldn't mind the shorter trip to the beach when ocean levels rise.

When the ice age arrives the levels of the oceans will fall.

It won't be for another 1,500 years.

In the meantime go take a break.

Worry about the $16 Trillion National Debt instead.

We need to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere in order that I get my wishes before I retire, dangit.
At least I can count on the Chinese to keep the coal fires burning. Obama has tried to kill it off here, even India has been cutting their emissions.

Like I alluded to before, give our government the job of warming the globe and it will sure as hell get colder.

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by mbkennel


WTF does that have to do with climate? It is pretty interesting and probably some kind of weak force interaction with solar neutrinos. Effect on climate? As much as an effect on my beer. None.

Estimate quantitatively the magnitude of this effect in radioactive decay and the change in geothermal heating, compared to change in solar forcing from greenhouse effect.

WTF it has to do with climate I dont know. The point was we dont know everything that is going on with the sun. But apparently you know everything.

OK, so you bring up something that you have no idea how it relates to climate is somehow evidence that the work of thousands of physical scientists over 50 years is somehow wrong. This is reveling in snide ignorance.

Physics is a quantitative, mechanistic subject of science with extremely good predictive power. You are reading words transmitted electronically because of people who understand physics.

Let me break down that radioactivity thing. The results show that there could be some weak effect which slightly alters radioactive decay rates, one presumes from interactions with solar neutrinos. (Weak force controls many radioactive decays and neutrinos interact by weak nuclear force as well). Note that the pattern is apparently seasonal. Two reasonable possibilities---the modulation is due to change of radius from Sun, or it is hemispherically seasonal due to the fact that the experimental sites have more "rock" between them and the Sun at night.

In either case, there is no evidence that there is any secular change beyond one year, so that any modulation would have been going on probably at the same rate for the last few millions of years without change. So that part of the year being higher would be counteracted with the other part of the year being lower, or if it is hemispherically modulated then as some is higher, others is lower.

And furthermore, any modulation of the radioactive decay would change only the heat flux from the decay, there is then the total heat capacity of all the center of the earth, which has a cooling timescale of many millions of years, so that even if there was some mechanistic modulation, it would be totally averaged out when the heat enters the surface area which governs climate.

So, the heat from radioactive decay that we already measure would not be altered and it hasn't been changing.

And in any case, the radioactive decay contributes a very small fraction of the heat flux to the Earth's surface, compared to that from the visible emission from the Sun, and the secondary infrared emission from the atmosphere.

In sum, that effect may be interesting for a few circumstances in nuclear physics. Climate, not a thing.

AGW is bullpuckey. First co2 led warming then it didnt and you people still say its because of a positive feedback. You cant make up your minds. Your science is weak and alarmist. Not only is the science weak but the "climategate" emails among otgher things prove its pretty much made up.

Everything in this is factually wrong.

Because some people are apparently too stubborn and ignorant to learn how a dynamical system works doesn't meant that scientists are making it up.

And every analysis of the "climategate emails' and the work referenced there has shown no scientific conspiracy or malfeasance. And there are many data sets other than those, and they show the same thing.

You think of yourself as some sort of pseudoscientist but you arent looking at things objectively. You just swallow them up and regurgitate them like a nauseous hooker.

Apparently many decades of quantitative experimentation and study using laws of physics isn't "looking at things objectively".

Why would all these scientist decide to "make something up"? The conspiracy must have started a long time ago. Roger Revelle, in an environmental report to President Lyndon Johnson, described the potential problem of noticable change in climate from human CO2 emissions. This was before there was any clear global experimental trend known of warming.

reply to post by winnar


Pretty pathetic response that is translated too: I feel like an ignoramous because I can't answer that.

reply to post by inverslyproportional



*laughs* Nature drives natural cycles.

Thanks Genius!

I am still waiting for the skeptics to answer this. They can't, so all they can come up with is little insults.

reply to post by mbkennel


Here is your homework assignment: - Heliopyhysics -

Click on Heliophysics Textbook.

- Seek The Truth - Our Sun

reply to post by TSZodiac


That is why there is data from tree rings, ice core samples, the big one is geology, sediment cores, pollen counts, paleontology, archeology, and microbial proxy.

It is called paleoclimatology. Look it up.

P.s. Bringing up a movie maker from 6 years ago is a pretty silly looking straw man.

reply to post by TSZodiac


Worked pretty well for acid rain.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Here is your homework assignment: - Heliopyhysics -

Click on Heliophysics Textbook.

- Seek The Truth - Our Sun

That's great, there is heliophysics. Go physics! I'm 100% pro physics. There's also planetary geophysics and radiative transfer in the Earth's atmosphere. You know, climatologists have been looking at the Sun's influence for decades now.

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

reply to post by TSZodiac


The whole money argument is bunk too.

Climate change means diseasters. 2011 and 2012 have already been a pretty good indication of that. Disaster relief is paid for by the government, both state and Federal.

On the current path we are going, no tax could ever generate the revenue it would take to offset the cost of disaster.

Mind you, it is not just cleanup. It is loss of life, it is loss of economy through missed work, injuries, people going on medicaid, or just the general cost of business having to shut down.

it means having to pay to rebuild infrastructure. Not only was there the cleanup of NO after Katrina, but then the Civil Corp of Engineers had to be sent out to upgrade the levee system.

Now add that up for every disaster prone area and you have a staggering amount of money.

The Joplin tornado cost 3 billion dollars alone.

P.S. I am going to keep diseasters in there. That is my new word. We need to prevent diseasters: disaster, disease, and easter.

reply to post by mbkennel


Just ignore that one. Arguing with him is like watching a parakeet attack it's own reflection.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Here is your homework assignment: - Heliopyhysics -

Click on Heliophysics Textbook.

- Seek The Truth - Our Sun

That's great, there is heliophysics. Go physics! I'm 100% pro physics. There's also planetary geophysics and radiative transfer in the Earth's atmosphere. You know, climatologists have been looking at the Sun's influence for decades now.

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

Read the 3 Heliophysics Textbooks and stop pontificating on the ATS forums.

reply to post by nixie_nox

That is why there is data from tree rings, ice core samples, the big one is geology, sediment cores, pollen counts, paleontology, archeology, and microbial proxy.

Here's what happens when you actually "look it up":

The real holes in climate science

The tree-ring controversy

Many of the e-mails leaked from the CRU computers came from a particular group of climate researchers who work on reconstructing temperature variations over time. The e-mails revealed them discussing some of the uncertainties in centuries worth of climate information gleaned from tree rings and other sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists are worried in particular about tree-ring data from a few northern sites. By examining temperature measurements from nearby, researchers know that tree growth at these locations tracked atmospheric temperatures for much of the twentieth century and then diverged from the actual temperatures during recent decades. It may be that when temperatures exceed a certain threshold, tree growth responds differently.

Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does this all mean? The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers.

Mann-made Warming Confirmed

1: In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98. The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

The Graph

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years,” which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the “Hockey Stick” and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous “elevator scene.”

2: Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

There is not enough character space to quote the entirety of this story, but just looking at your "tree ring" claim alone, what is revealed is that the member you were replying to has a valid point when declaring we just don't know, and clearly you don't know any more than the rest of us.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

That is why there is data from tree rings, ice core samples, the big one is geology, sediment cores, pollen counts, paleontology, archeology, and microbial proxy.

Here's what happens when you actually "look it up":

The real holes in climate science

The tree-ring controversy

Many of the e-mails leaked from the CRU computers came from a particular group of climate researchers who work on reconstructing temperature variations over time. The e-mails revealed them discussing some of the uncertainties in centuries worth of climate information gleaned from tree rings and other sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists are worried in particular about tree-ring data from a few northern sites. By examining temperature measurements from nearby, researchers know that tree growth at these locations tracked atmospheric temperatures for much of the twentieth century and then diverged from the actual temperatures during recent decades. It may be that when temperatures exceed a certain threshold, tree growth responds differently.

Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

I read somewhere that the data trees in question from the CRU emails were omitted because they were diseeased.I will see if I can find it again.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

The data extracted from tree rings is for past data. They know what the current data is for the past few decades to 100 years. That is why it is paleoclimatology.

Though interesting point on current effects on trees.

I refer to this study in numerous threads.

good stuff

reply to post by nixie_nox

The data extracted from tree rings is for past data. They know what the current data is for the past few decades to 100 years. That is why it is paleoclimatology.

Though interesting point on current effects on trees.

This divergence they are finding in recent tree rings casts doubt on much, and likely forces a reconsideration of the interpretation of older trees. The two first articles I cited are clearly defending the IPCC position and the last one undeniably questioning the IPCC position in regards to anthropogenic climate change, but all three reveal a conundrum when it comes to understanding tree rings.

I myself remain ambivalent on "human contribution" to climate change. I live in Los Angeles and the human contribution to poor air quality is undeniable so it is not such a difficult leap to postulate humans are affecting climate. However, there is much more to this issue than meets the eye.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


None of this information is used by itself, and it is all used to reconstruct climate data. yes, on tree rings alone, I would question the data. As the blog points out, trees don't always react to climate stress like you think they would. Tree types, locations, and local phenomenon would all have to be collected to be considered, and since I am not a climatoligist, I do not know if this has been done or not.

But it doesn't mean that the information is so innaccurate that it can't contribute to the overall picture, especially if there is a significant climate event. Or how much it weighs in the actual information.

reply to post by nixie_nox


This article I linked addresses far more than just the tree ring controversy, and spends quite a bit of time addressing the aerosol uncertainties. It is pompous and disingenuous for any scientist to declare they "know" for certain and then turn around and demure on the methods they used saying "look you have to understand there are countless uncertainties that have led us to our great certainty."

There is much, much more than meets the eye.

Originally posted by mbkennel

OK, so you bring up something that you have no idea how it relates to climate is somehow evidence that the work of thousands of physical scientists over 50 years is somehow wrong. This is reveling in snide ignorance.

Um I didnt mention anything about climate when I brought it up. You made a statement saying the sun had already been taken into account. Myh reply was to show you that we dont know everything about the sun. You tried to make my reply something its not and here you go again.

Physics is a quantitative, mechanistic subject of science with extremely good predictive power. You are reading words transmitted electronically because of people who understand physics.

Which physics? Newtonian? Quantum?

Let me break down that radioactivity thing. The results show that there could be some weak effect which slightly alters radioactive decay rates, one presumes from interactions with solar neutrinos. (Weak force controls many radioactive decays and neutrinos interact by weak nuclear force as well). Note that the pattern is apparently seasonal. Two reasonable possibilities---the modulation is due to change of radius from Sun, or it is hemispherically seasonal due to the fact that the experimental sites have more "rock" between them and the Sun at night.

In either case, there is no evidence that there is any secular change beyond one year, so that any modulation would have been going on probably at the same rate for the last few millions of years without change. So that part of the year being higher would be counteracted with the other part of the year being lower, or if it is hemispherically modulated then as some is higher, others is lower.

And furthermore, any modulation of the radioactive decay would change only the heat flux from the decay, there is then the total heat capacity of all the center of the earth, which has a cooling timescale of many millions of years, so that even if there was some mechanistic modulation, it would be totally averaged out when the heat enters the surface area which governs climate.

So, the heat from radioactive decay that we already measure would not be altered and it hasn't been changing.

And in any case, the radioactive decay contributes a very small fraction of the heat flux to the Earth's surface, compared to that from the visible emission from the Sun, and the secondary infrared emission from the atmosphere.

In sum, that effect may be interesting for a few circumstances in nuclear physics. Climate, not a thing.

AGW is bullpuckey. First co2 led warming then it didnt and you people still say its because of a positive feedback. You cant make up your minds. Your science is weak and alarmist. Not only is the science weak but the "climategate" emails among otgher things prove its pretty much made up.

Everything in this is factually wrong.

Because some people are apparently too stubborn and ignorant to learn how a dynamical system works doesn't meant that scientists are making it up.

And every analysis of the "climategate emails' and the work referenced there has shown no scientific conspiracy or malfeasance. And there are many data sets other than those, and they show the same thing.

You think of yourself as some sort of pseudoscientist but you arent looking at things objectively. You just swallow them up and regurgitate them like a nauseous hooker.

Apparently many decades of quantitative experimentation and study using laws of physics isn't "looking at things objectively".

Why would all these scientist decide to "make something up"? The conspiracy must have started a long time ago. Roger Revelle, in an environmental report to President Lyndon Johnson, described the potential problem of noticable change in climate from human CO2 emissions. This was before there was any clear global experimental trend known of warming.

Why would scientists make up that radioactive decay is at a constant rate? Why would you miss the whole point I was trying to make about the sun? And did you just say nuclear PHYSICS after saying "Physics is a quantitative, mechanistic subject of science with extremely good predictive power. You are reading words transmitted electronically because of people who understand physics." So who predicted the sun would have an effect on the so called "constant decay rate of radiation?" Where did physics say the decay rate wouldnt be constant?

You might be reading the words but you clearly arent understanding them.

Showed no malfeasance in the emails? Not what it looked like to me.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


Do you have a link for that CERN study?

Would like to see that.

reply to post by mc_squared


Ok, so the OP bailed on this thread days ago. Maybe he found out the papers this thread was based on have now been officially rejected?

BERKELEY EARTH STUDY REFEREE REPORTS: On September 8 2011 I was asked by Journal of Geophysical Research to be a reviewer for a paper by Charlotte Wickham et al. presenting the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") analysis of the effect of urbanization on land surface temperatures. This work is mainly associated with Richard Muller and his various coauthors. I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.

On July 29 2012 Richard Muller launched another publicity blitz (e.g. here and here) claiming, among other things, that "In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects [including those related to urbanization and land surface changes] unduly biased our conclusions." Their failure to provide a proper demonstration of this point had led me to recommend against publishing their paper. This places me in an awkward position since I made an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, but I have reason to believe Muller et al.'s analysis does not support the conclusions he is now asserting in the press.

[Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]

I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the "BEST" team's decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here.

www.rossmckitrick.com...

Yes, now officially rejected. Go to the site, and you can see all the reasons for the rejection. There are links to his referee reports. Essentially, it has been rejected for the ridiculous claims made by Muller, which are not supported by his own work!
Clearly, in my view, this was purely designed to be a MEDIA event, as most of the major MSM's had him on pushing his garbage. They're trying to take advantage of the ignorant during the drought (weather pattern) to push the AGW "causes" everything meme. He also apparently has a book(s) to sell.

www.amazon.com...