Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

reply to post by Phage


Who is "we" and why do you think contrails (chemical trails) created by planes are not anything at all to be concerned about.

Secondly why is it not warmer at all anywhere on earth.

Thirdly why did the news report the DAY BEFORE this that scientists are worried there fear-mongering that EVERYDAY NORMAL PEOPLE are all that there is to blame, no link is found to "us" in this.

Fourthly,hehe.. Just when is the sea level going to rise even one inch. We have been waiting, watching with bated breath for it to go up and it has not, in fact it seems to have gone down a tad.

And yet we are sold that it is going to happen.

Well, all this ice supposedly melted, and yet this has had ZERO effect on ocean levels, why would further melting have anymore than that ZERO effect ?

I do believe, that science is held hostage by many players in all of this, but first and foremost they want to punish humans who have NO SAY in anything for something that they did not do.

Too bad you live near the equator or something, you have no real access to the "Climate" as others do.

Right now is the coldest BY FAR end to September here in B.C. Canada and it is going to continue.

Day after day of near record cold, influenced by the largest bank of cold air building over the arctic in 37 years it was reported.

This will be the most insane snow filled cold winter I have ever seen, and since I work outside I will remember just how HOT it is , while reminding myself that it is colder because it is warmer, errr no that it is climate change, caused by my existence.

reply to post by ParasuvO

"We" is humans and who said contrails are not anything to be concerned about?

It is not warmer everywhere on Earth because of weather. Weather is not the same as climate. Weather is local variation in climate. But as the warming trend continues everywhere will become warmer. This does not mean that there will still not be cold weather. We will see more high temperature records set, and fewer low temperature records set.

I don't know what news report you are talking about so I can't answer your question but news reports are often not very reliable when it comes to anything having to do with science.

Sea level changes are not uniform. For one thing, the Earth's rotation will cause sea levels to rise more in equatorial regions that at higher latitudes. Winds patterns, currents, and tidal characteristics also affect sea level changes. Some places are seeing more increase than others. Some places are seeing decreases. Sea levels are rising on average. tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

The melting of sea ice will does not affect sea levels. The melting of glacial ice does.

I believe that you have a weak understanding of the science. Reading the report might help with that. At least it would give you a little firmer ground to argue about.

reply to post by Phage


phage this is typical.

You know damn well he meant climate since it is climate that is being argued and our impact on it.

You also know damn well that climate alarmist have and do say that sea levels will rise...yet they don't in a UNNATURAL way. listing the natural tendencies of tides is just being obtuse on your part.

You also know that climate alarmist have and do keep saying that the earths climate and overall temperature will get hotter...yet it hasn't in a meaningful and unnatural way...in fact the average temperature for the planet has been colder for over a decade....no rising temperature ..

You keep referring to this report....

What EVIDENCE does it provide which leads you to conclude that its over all hypothesis leads to PROOF?

Is it proven in what it says? or....is it a theory .....That is our main concern...not like you care though
Anyone who disagrees " didn't read it" or anything short of proof is nothing to you. If we were to offer evidence of anything contrary to the THEORIES presented in your dumb little report you will just say it is not conclusive as if the amounting evidence is shy of any logical pattern .....

It is obvious that you don't want to challenge your ideas....but why must you contest every contrary one to your own with such disregard to the possibility of your own error?

reply to post by tadaman

You know damn well he meant climate since it is climate that is being argued and our impact on it.

No. He said:

Secondly why is it not warmer at all anywhere on earth.

The fact is, the summer of 2012 was the the hottest summer on record in the United States. The fact is that there are more record high temperatures being recorded. Not daily records...not "the hottest September 9th"...all time records.

You also know damn well that climate alarmist have and do say that sea levels will rise...yet they don't in a UNNATURAL way. listing the natural tendencies of tife is just being obtuse on your part.

On average, mean sea levels are rising. Tidal influences are one factor which contributes to differing rates of sea level change. These are historical sea level data:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

If we were to offer evidence of anything contrary to the THEORIES presented in your dumb little report you will just say it is not conclusive as if the amounting evidence is shy of any logical pattern .....

If you would actually read the report you might understand that it uses actual observations. That's what theory is.

It is obvious that you don't want to challenge your ideas....but why must you contest every contrary one to your own with such disregard to the possibility of your own error?

Because the "ideas" you are talking about are "ideas" about what the IPCC report says and what it is based upon. Wrong ideas.
Because the "ideas" don't reflect any of the actual science.

reply to post by Phage


so explain to us dumb folk how these observations lead one to conclude that they are the product of man made causes...

Its not like these factors are constant .....they have changed dramatically as far as we can tell before.

There is nothing that merits assuming that this one time around its all because of anything we are doing

reply to post by tadaman


thank you for the link you presented. any information on the the plausibility of what I presented about freshwater diluting the ocean causing the warm conveyors to stop and cause the earth to cool. they say this could happen rapidly as they have found mammoths with undigested buttercups flash frozen in the animals mouth still. that would have to have happened in an instant. that's why I still believe this warming period is a earth cycle which melts ice, causes the freshwater of the ice to dilute the oceans which causes the earth to cool. rinse and repeat, over and over and over and ...

reply to post by tadaman

so explain to us dumb folk how these observations lead one to conclude that they are the product of man made causes...

Ignorant is not the same as dumb. But willfull ignorance comes close.
As I explaned before:

We are experiencing an anomalous change in climate with a correlated rise in CO2 levels. That rise in CO2 levels is attributable to the combustion of materials which in which CO2 was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. The increase increase in CO2 levels "should" show a higher temperature increase than that which has been observed this implies that there are mitigating factors (which indeed there are) and also implies causation. We know we are releasing a lot of CO2 and there is evidence provided by the ratios of various isotopes of CO2 that the rise is the result of human activity. The isotopes found indicate that source of the increased levels of CO2 is fossil fuels. Burning of vegetation would not produce these ratios, decomposition of vegetation would not produce these ratios, volcanic activity would not produce these ratios. That doesn't leave a lot of options for the source of the increase in CO2.

So what else might cause it? Solar activity is a popular option among deniers. But the numbers just don't add up. There is no indication that the energy output of the Sun has increased a significant amount in the past century. And if at all, not enough to account for the temperature increase.

What else? Cosmic rays. Despite your claim about what the CLOUDS experiment showed, the theory lacks evidence. The theory is that more cosmic rays cause a greater rate of cloud formation and those clouds have a cooling effect. Conversely, fewer cosmic rays have a warming effect. The theory is, as stated by Kirkby, that decreased solar activity allows a higher level of cosmic rays to enter the Solar System, thus fewer clouds, thus higher temperatures.

So what does the cosmic ray data show us? There was been no clear trend in cosmic ray flux between 1950 and 2005 (unlike the clear trend in CO2 levels), yet global temperatures rose. That does not seem to indicate a connection.



This chart show recent cosmic ray measurements. The influence of the Solar cycle is clear.


What else? Any ideas?
CO2 seems to be the main culprit and we are they ones producing it.

reply to post by Phage


It is the temp rise that leads to an ice age. It has been shown time and time again from ice core samples that CO2 follows and does not cause temp increases. It is temp increases that cause CO2 rises.

I don't seem to be able to add the graph, where oh where have my pics gone. Will add it if I find it.



P

reply to post by pheonix358

It has been shown time and time again from ice core samples that CO2 follows and does not cause temp increases.

That isn't what a more refined analysis of the cores seems to indicate.

We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

sciences.blogs.liberation.fr...

But even if it did happen that way in the past, where is the temperature rise which preceded the current rise in CO2 levels? How does it apply to what we are currently seeing; a rise in CO2 levels along with a rise in temperatures? What's causing the rise in temperatures? Why is it warmer now than it has been in 4,000 years?
www.nytimes.com...

Condensation Trails ?

It would appear the science is clearing pointing to the rise in contrails occurring at the exact same time as this rise in CO2.

Of course that will be overlooked... or blended into everything else.

reply to post by ParasuvO

Of course that will be overlooked... or blended into everything else.

No. It is specifically covered in the report. There may be a very slight overall warming effect from contrails but the evidence shows it is not of much significance.
It's covered in section 7.2.7.1

Phage


But even if it did happen that way in the past, where is the temperature rise which preceded the current rise in CO2 levels? How does it apply to what we are currently seeing; a rise in CO2 levels along with a rise in temperatures? What's causing the rise in temperatures? Why is it warmer now than it has been in 4,000 years?

I found this fascinating actually.

I dont think we have scratched the surface on if our Earth could be the culprit all along. I wish we had some clear cut data for this.

Effects of Subsea Volcanic Heat

reply to post by sonnny1

Chapter 3 of the report concerns ocean observations.
The findings are that upper ocean temperatures rose between 1971 and 2010.

For deep ocean observations it's somewhat different:

Deeper in the ocean, it is likely that the waters from 700–
2000 m have warmed on average between 1957 and 2009 and likely that no significant trend was observed
between 2000–3000 m from 1992–2005. It is very likely that the deep (2000 m–bottom) North Atlantic
Ocean north of 20°N warmed from 1955–1975, and then cooled from 1975–2005, with an overall cooling
trend. It is likely that most of the water column south of the Subantarctic Front warmed at a rate of about
0.03°C per decade from 1992–2005, and waters of Antarctic origin warmed below 3000 m at a global
average rate approaching 0.01°C per decade at 4500 m over the same time period. For the deep ocean, sparse
sampling, currently below 2000 m, is the greatest source of uncertainty.

www.climatechange2013.org...

I'm not sure that underwater (or surface) volcanoes make a significant contribution to the heat budget or if there has been a significant increase in such activity in the past hundred years. It is an interesting idea though.

The IPCC's equations for CO2's radiative forcing actually explains Mars' temperature adequately enough it would seem. It all breaks down when you apply their equations to Venus however which only predicts a temperature increase of 38C from the planet's 965,000ppmv of CO2. The actual temperature on Venus is 460C. That's a rather large disparity.

reply to post by Nathan-D


But then Venus is about 75 million miles closer to the Sun than Mars (which is about 26 million miles closer than we are).

That's got to make a difference.

You would think, but not really. Venus is closer to the Sun but it has a very high albedo of 0.9 which gives it an effective temperature (i.e. the temperature of the planet without a greenhouse) of about 184K. Earth has a higher effective temperature of 255K. Venus' effective temperature used to be about 230K until NASA changed its albedo a few years ago.

reply to post by Nathan-D

The actual temperature on Venus is 460C. That's a rather large disparity.

Can you source those equations? Are they based the density of Earth's atmosphere or do they take into account the greatly enhanced heat capacity of a surface pressure that is 90 times higher than that of Earth? Surely density is important in those calculations.

But if not very high level of positive forcing, what do you think accounts for the very high temperatures within the atmosphere of Venus? If it is not positive forcing, why is Venus not radiating high levels of infrared? Its infrared signature is in fact very similar to that of Mars. Something must be keeping that heat in there. See figure 3 here:
geosci.uchicago.edu...

I'm not sure what your point is. We're talking about Earth, aren't we? It isn't expected that Earth will ever get as hot as Venus as a result of positive forcing. That doesn't mean that it won't get hotter.

The equations are the IPCC's logarithmic equation, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and the traditional equation used to calculate Venus' effective temperature. When applying the IPCC's logarithmic equation to the atmospheric CO2 level on Venus you only get 38C of warming. To see the calculation in full Google my blog-article 'Digging into the core: Is Venus hot because of CO2?' The reason the warming seems so small is because of its logarthmic nature. I think a more likely explanation for Venus' high temperature is pressure. However I am not using the 38C from CO2 on Venus as an argument against any potential warming from CO2 on Earth. That's a different matter. I do think that increasing CO2 on Earth will having *some* warming, but of course, it's a question of degree and whether that warming will be negated by any negative feedbacks in the climate-system.

reply to post by Nathan-D

Yes. The mitigating effects to radiative forcing are very important and are discussed in the report.

Re Venus:

I don' really see how pressure fits. I had seen your blog previously. I noticed that you used the dry adiabat for Earth's atmosphere and extrapolated it downward linearly. I'm not sure that's a valid approach.

I'm not sure where you got that 9.76K/Km value but I'm sure you are aware that the lapse rate varies so that must be an average. The manner in which lapse rates vary with altitude is interesting. Below the tropopause it's -6.5K/km. In the stratosphere it reverses and becomes positive, getting up to 2.8K/km.



Now, according to you, if the lapse rate is due to decreasing pressure, why do temperatures increase with altitude in the stratosphere? Shouldn't it just get colder and colder with less and less pressure? Is it possible that you may have oversimplified the situation?

And it still doesn't explain the lack of radiated infrared from Venus.