15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19762
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:12 pm

Artificially cooling planet 'risky strategy'
Date:
November 14, 2017
Source:
University of Exeter
Summary:
Proposals to reduce the effects of global warming by imitating volcanic eruptions could have a devastating effect on global regions prone to either tumultuous storms or prolonged drought, new research has shown.

Proposals to reduce the effects of global warming by imitating volcanic eruptions could have a devastating effect on global regions prone to either tumultuous storms or prolonged drought, new research has shown.

Geoengineering -- the intentional manipulation of the climate to counter the effect of global warming by injecting aerosols artificially into the atmosphere -- has been mooted as a potential way to deal with climate change.

However new research led by climate experts from the University of Exeter suggests that targeting geoengineering in one hemisphere could have a severely detrimental impact for the other.

They suggest that while injections of aerosols in the northern hemisphere would reduce tropical cyclone activity -- responsible for such recent phenomena including Hurricane Katrina -- it would at the same time lead to increased likelihood for drought in the Sahel, the area of sub-Saharan Africa just south of the Sahara desert.

In response, the team of researchers have called on policymakers worldwide to strictly regulate any large scale unilateral geoengineering programmes in the future to prevent inducing natural disasters in different parts of the world.

The study is published in leading scientific journal Nature Communications on Tuesday, November 14 2017.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:18 pm

On cost.

Xouper would be correct about high costs in a static economy. But our economy is not static. It is growing, and equally importantly, the technologies underlying the economy are changing rapidly. So, adapting to climate change is just a matter of prioritising. Instead of developing the latest and greatest internal combustion engine, we develop amazing electric vehicles. Instead of a bigger and better coal burning power station, we make new nuclear and renewable plants. We plant more trees than we cut down.

None of these things actually cost very much compared to the alternatives.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:37 pm

Typical bobbo, always putting his ignorant words in my mouth.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Steeles position that he denies when questioned directly upon it is as he just stated above:

1. co2 is a green house gas but it doesn't warm the air


You need to first show the quotes and links proving your baseless accusations that I have ever said CO2 does not warm the air, otherwise you are proving once again you are just an ugly liar who repeats the same bogus crap ad nauseum!

However I have pointed out that CO2 can warm but also cool the air. And also as stated by the IPCC in the tropics where there is so much water vapor and convection, adding CO2 has little significant impact on the region's greenhouse effect.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. The red herring so effectively used by JS: "However that the end of the Little Ice was caused by CO2 is very, very debatable and highly unlikely." ///// Its NOT debateable at all because no climate scientist makes this claim. Its a false claim made by Jim Steele so he can show it is false and urge the conclusion that AGW is therefore False.


The end of preindustrial times and the end of the Little Ice Age coincide. When climate alarmists argue warming since the pre-industrial/little ice is due to CO2, they are absolutely implying rising CO2 ended the Little Ice Age. Little Ice Age temperatures are used as the benchmark to compare climate change.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. Asked and Answered 126 times: "So what is your evidence that CO2 has caused any of the observed changes in climate? " //// Its the only known variable that has changed enough to raise the temps we have ON RECORD.


You keep giving the wrong answer at least 126 time! Your answer is bogus nonsense and not evidence. Scientist do detection and attribution studies to blame CO2. Basically they run a model forced by all natural known forcings and compare it to models that then add CO2. The correct answer to my question is ... the only so-called unequivocal evidence of CO2 driven climate change is their models. However their conclusions are totally dependent upon the assumption their model of natural climate change is correct. However those same models totally fail to simulate past climate change.

Many things cause temperatures to change. Landscape changes heat the land without added energy. In bare feet, step on asphalt and then grass. Only a fool would suggest the higher asphalt temperature was due to CO2 warming.

Changes in cloud cover can increase solar insolation several time greater than CO2. Recent research show Greenland's recent melting was due to a trend in less cloud cover.

Our best oceanographers warn the oceans have not yet come into equilibrium with todays climate and deep oceans are still cooling. i.e. releasing heat. Freezing winds removed insulating ice from the Arctic allowing heat to ventilate raising Arctic temperatures to rise several times higher than global average and thus skewing the average.

Temperatures change because of changes in heat transport from the tropics towards the poles. Many causes for temperature change that paranoid alarmists simply deny!

When an honest person examines all the variable and not just CO2, it is clear they can all add up to explain recent climate change.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Proposals to reduce the effects of global warming by imitating volcanic eruptions could have a devastating effect on global regions prone to either tumultuous storms or prolonged drought, new research has shown.



It just goes to show global warming alarmism makes people seek stupid dangerous things.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:53 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:. The impact of CO2 is measured and quantified. The original experiments were done by Arrhenius passing infra red down tubes full of various gases and measuring temperature increase. His work has been repeated many times with far greater precision, and we now know EXACTLY how much the atmosphere warms for incremental increases in CO2 levels. The temperature increase since the industrial revolution is EXACTLY what was expected for the measured increase in CO2, and matches experiment with high accuracy.


Arrhenius' work only shows that CO2 traps and emits infrared. That is very very different from arguing we know exactly how CO2 will change the climate. Did you know Arrhenius also believed life on earth started due to panspermia from outer space.


Periodic spikes of warming that punctuates the cooling trend of the neoglacial is EXACTLY what the historical trend in Holocene temperatures predict for climate oscillations since the industrial revolution/little ice age

To believe it is exactly as predicted is delusional cherry picking from a wide range of models results that failed to simulate observed temperatures.

Image

CO2 models have failed to simulate warming in the Arctic in the 1930s as seen below

Image

Or growing sea ice in Antarctica

Your beliefs of predictions being exactly fulfilled are cherry picked illusions
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:53 pm

Epic Fail the loons cry as loud as they can while offering up unlinked charts and data.

Its on par with saying: If a Doctor can't tell you the day you will die without treatment: then you don't have cancer.

Its on par with saying: If the weather man can't tell you how many drops of water will fall on your roof, then its not going to rain tomorrow.

aka: calling for details beyond the technology we have today as somehow invalidating the entire body of knowledge that is known.

This is NOT stupidity or ignorance in action........... its Science Denial. The intentional placing of turds into punchbowls. Enjoy your drinks.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10684
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Epic Fail the loons cry as loud as they can while offering up unlinked charts and data.

Its on par with saying: If a Doctor can't tell you the day you will die without treatment: then you don't have cancer.

Its on par with saying: If the weather man can't tell you how many drops of water will fall on your roof, then its not going to rain tomorrow.

aka: calling for details beyond the technology we have today as somehow invalidating the entire body of knowledge that is known.

This is NOT stupidity or ignorance in action........... its Science Denial. The intentional placing of turds into punchbowls. Enjoy your drinks.


Image

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Its on par with saying: If a Doctor can't tell you the day you will die without treatment: then you don't have cancer.. blah blah blah...


ROTFLMAO. Bobbo offer more stupid analogies that totally fail to address the real science presented.

As the Greeks warned about in their story of Pygmalion, bobbo falls in love with his bogus fabricate analogies sculpted from his limited science. He falls in love with his own imagination to such a degree, he is no longer attracted to the reality presented in scientific papers.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:00 am

How do the two analogies not PEG your bogus analysis?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How do the two analogies not PEG your bogus analysis?


ROTFLMAO.

Why arent your ridiculous analogies the mark of a mad man?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:11 am

Jim

The evidence for the warming effect of greenhouse gases includes thorough and detailed laboratory tests in which this effect is clearly seen and measured. It includes astronomical measures and calculations as I previously described.

Global warming is a long term trend, and a slowing over one decade is irrelevant. The long term warming trend continues. The last couple years are the warmest since measurements began. In addition, we have continued sea level rise, now at 3.2 millimetres per year. These are clear cut empirical measurements.

I suspect that you are correct in that human activity ended the little ice age. Warming since then is proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented, and no future little ice age has a chance. Even the warming at the end of the last glaciation period was much slower. As I pointed out before, this long term trend is proceeding exactly as predicted by greenhouse gas theory. Unless we mitigate the release of greenhouse gases, the warming will continue and cause serious difficulties in the future, which makes it vital that humanity take appropriate measures go minimize the warming.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:26 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The evidence for the warming effect of greenhouse gases includes thorough and detailed laboratory tests in which this effect is clearly seen and measured. It includes astronomical measures and calculations as I previously described.


Lance I suspect you have no scientific background whatsoever. To persistently argue that because CO2 was tested in a lab as a greenhouse gas, that it proves CO2 has caused climate change is just nuts and no climate scientists will make your claim.

To repeat, what the scientists do claim is that CO2 is to blame because their models can only simulate recent warming when they add CO2. To argue differently only reveals you are totally out of touch with the state of climate science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10684
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:55 am

Jim Steele wrote:Lance I suspect you have no scientific background whatsoever.


Lance has stated several times on this forum that he has "spent most of my adult life as an industrial chemist".

This link should list his posts where he said that:
http://www.skepticforum.com/search.php?keywords=chemist&terms=all&author=Lance+Kennedy&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

I am willing to accept his word for it.

Nonetheless, as you observed, demonstrating in a lab that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not the same thing as knowing how the Earth's climate is affected by increasing atmospheric CO2.

Climate scientists do not even know whether the effect is linear or not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:31 am

xouper wrote: Climate scientists do not even know whether the effect is linear or not.

Its not linear.----basics. Depending on the more specific issue you don't have in mind.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:40 am

Jim Steele wrote: When an honest person examines all the variable and not just CO2, it is clear they can all add up to explain recent climate change.

"They can..." //// DO THEY? What model are they running???

What happens if they run that model with just the co2 increases that we have had????

............now..............go find that honest person.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:02 pm

Jim is ignoring the encyclopedic quantities of evidence showing that global warming is real and caused by human release of greenhouse gases.

I was pointing out the laboratory studies that have demonstrated the basis for this process. They are real and valid. But there is a lot more than just a few lab studies. We have oodles of real world data also. This even goes back to preglaciation studies, in which indirect measures are used for global temperatures and such things as bubbles trapped in glaciers to provide a reading of how much greenhouse gas was present in the atmosphere. During the last glaciation period, for example, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were very low. When the world became warm again, CO2 levels were shown to be much higher. This relationship has been demonstrated by literally dozens of scientific studies. We even have a whole new scientific discipline, calls paleoclimatology.

Denying global warming is as idiotic as religious nutters denying evolution.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:07 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What happens if they run that model with just the co2 increases that we have had????.


Of course it would warm, but that is just circular reasoning. If I add heat that is assumed to be added by CO2 then the models shows warming. Well big duh! It would be a meaningless result that does not tell us how CO2 in conjunction with natural dynamics affects climate change.

What is needed is better models of natural climate change. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was not named until 1995, so in essence without incorporating the PDO, their models were being driven by only CO2. New analyses of the PDO argue the PDO can explain all the 20th century climate change along the northeastern sector of the Pacific while the CO2 contribution was insignificant!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210011/
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I was pointing out the laboratory studies that have demonstrated the basis for this process. They are real and valid. But there is a lot more than just a few lab studies. We have oodles of real world data also. This even goes back to preglaciation studies, in which indirect measures are used for global temperatures and such things as bubbles trapped in glaciers to provide a reading of how much greenhouse gas was present in the atmosphere. During the last glaciation period, for example, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were very low. When the world became warm again, CO2 levels were shown to be much higher. This relationship has been demonstrated by literally dozens of scientific studies. We even have a whole new scientific discipline, calls paleoclimatology.

Denying global warming is as idiotic as religious nutters denying evolution.


Lance you keep pushing meaningless results, without understanding the critical dynamics of climate.

Yes CO2 oscillated with the ice ages. What does that tell us?? It has been proven in countless lab experiments that as the earth warms, the oceans will release CO2, EXACTLY as natural climate change predicts! So does the CO2 data reveal if CO2 changes are a cause or a result of climate change?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim is ignoring the encyclopedic quantities of evidence showing that global warming is real and caused by human release of greenhouse gases.


Lance you don't know what you are talking about!

There is an "encyclopedia" of papers that you and many alarmists ignore that show CO2 rose after the temperatures warmed, that correlation suggests CO2 is result of climate change. As temperatures cooled during the Neoglacial, CO2 increased. Lance you are the only one ignoring an encyclopedia of scientific data. Based on your empty assertions, I guarantee I have read 100 times more climate papers than you.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:04 pm

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Jim

Read the reference above from NASA. Those guys are not idiots and they have compiled a heap of evidence on anthropogenic global warming.

Your statement about warming after the last glaciation is partly correct, but only partly. The correct part is in the observation that initial warming after glaciation releases CO2. Quite right. But where you go wrong is the belief that the continuing trend is just the result of initial warming. The graph of warming versus CO2 is actually two trends. The initial trend is as you stated. But after a while, the graph changes, and the warming then follows after CO2 increase. Initially co2 is driven by warming. But then the increase in CO2 drives the warming.

The main theme of this thread was the incredible support for the basic concept of AGW by the vast majority of scientists. They do this because the preponderance of evidence shows it to be correct. The fact that Big Oil and Big Coal are spending money on misdirection should not drive any intelligent skeptic into error.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:08 pm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

And here is another reference for Jim.

Take a look at the spectrum shown. Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red energy at a specific wavelength, as shown. We have satellites which measure the infra red being sent off Earth into space, to cool the Earth. Those satellites show that, as CO2 levels rise, the amount of infra red at those wavelengths going into space is falling. Less cooling, due to the larger amounts of CO2.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But where you go wrong is the belief that the continuing trend is just the result of initial warming. The graph of warming versus CO2 is actually two trends. The initial trend is as you stated. But after a while, the graph changes, and the warming then follows after CO2 increase. Initially co2 is driven by warming. But then the increase in CO2 drives the warming.

The fact that Big Oil and Big Coal are spending money on misdirection should not drive any intelligent skeptic into error.


Well Lance, I see the source of your denial is the Big Oil conspiracy theory.

And where "YOU go wrong" is assuming that although warming was from other factors initially, then those factors stopped and now it is all CO2. That is just speculation.

Again the evidence that CO2 is now the drivers is based on faulty models that have yet to simulate natural climate change.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:34 pm

[quote="Lance Kennedy"
Take a look at the spectrum shown. Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red energy at a specific wavelength, as shown. [/quote]


I suggest you study the Madden Julian Oscillation to get a more complete understanding of the interaction of greenhouse gases and temperatures.

Tropical convection removes latent heat via evaporation and cools the ocean. The convection forms thick clouds that satellites see as reduced infrared exiting the region. When the air cools water vapor condenses, heat is released warming the upper atmosphere. The rising air currents then subside 100s of kilometer's away reducing cloud cover. There with fewer clouds (the major greenhouse gas) so infrared rays readily escape to space and the air can cool. There satellites see greater flows of exiting infrared. Still there the ocean heats to extremes because now more solar heating happens adding energy 4 to ten times greater than what CO2 back radiation provides.

Lab experiments sow infrared does not penetrate the ocean deeper than a micron of the surface. While solar irradiance penetrates 100 feet or more. A decrease in cloud cover such as caused by La NInas can heat the earth much faster than CO2

Your myopic focus on lab experiments showing CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, makes you blind to the big climate picture and thus argue with irrelevant details
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:21 am

Actually, it is El Nino, not La Niña that causes warming. The world grew a lot warmer in 1998 due to a strong El Nino.

But these events are short term. They come and go. Anthropogenic global warming is long term. It has been operating for several centuries and is accelerating. The same applies to oscillation events. Short term.

But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. There are none so arrogant as those who insist they know more than 95% of the world's scientists.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:39 am

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What is needed is better models of natural climate change.

Sound like you are invalidating studies/models that are run by assuming the outcome of studies/models that are not run?

Tell me I got that wrong.....................aka: what model did you run?...... On what computer...........where and when?????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:42 am

Jim Steele wrote:So does the CO2 data reveal if CO2 changes are a cause or a result of climate change?


HOLY CRAP. Its called a feed back mechanism.

Basics.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:47 am

Jim Steele wrote:Again the evidence that CO2 is now the drivers is based on faulty models that have yet to simulate natural climate change.

..............and there is the Analogy again: "The models can't tell us xyz, therefore there is no such thing as cancer."

You have no models, no predictions, no theory of your own but a fully integrated Scientific Theory accepted as a given across multiple disciplines is false by your identification of claimed errors and failures? That chimeric average again that includes the outlier events on both ends?

Basics.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:55 am

I don't know....please confirm either way but aren't the Nino/a events WEATHER events? Caused by heat, not the creator of heat as both of you post? The Nino/a events are not whole earth events but rather localized.

Earth Temp is a simple equation: Energy received = energy retained - energy radiated. What happens beneath the clouds (sic) is all effect, not cause.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, it is El Nino, not La Niña that causes warming. The world grew a lot warmer in 1998 due to a strong El Nino.



ROTFLMAO. Actually you just revealed the shallowness of your scientific understanding and why you keep misinterpreting so much scientific evidence.

Indeed El Nino causes global temperatures to rise when it releases heat stored at depth in the western Pacific.

However excess heat is stored in the western Pacific mostly during La Nina, when fewer clouds in the eastern Pacific increase solar heating. Regards that ocean heat, Trenberth refers to La Nina periods as periods of recharge and El Nino periods of discharge. Try reading scientific papers on ENSO.

And there are none so foolish who think psycho babble replaces a discussion of scientific evidence.

The consensus crap is political theater, stop hiding behind it and think for yourself if that is not too difficult. I have colleagues who teach climate change and are part of the so-called "consensus". I asked them what scientific papers and what evidence convinced them the current changes in climate were driven by CO2 and not natural. They honestly replied they were just taking their word for it. Your answers betray you do likewise.

The motto of the oldest scientific society that Newton once presided over is "Nullius en Verba" - Take No One's word. Good scientists critically examine the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions no matter how many people mindlessly nod in agreement with a different interpretation. Blind alarmists as yourself, are anti-science, forgoing critical examination and blindly accept the present day biases, mistakenly thinking they must be right if there are enough people who similarly accept the dogma.

Please show me the evidence to support your ridiculous claim that anthropogenic warming has been operating for several centuries. You don't even have CO2 concentrations on your side.

You spewed blips about the radiation spectrum as if it proved anything. I bet you can't even describe - in terms of that radiation spectrum - why the earth experiences inversions. Please strut your science!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Sound like you are invalidating studies/models that are run by assuming the outcome of studies/models that are not run?


Dam bobbo, you can butcher every scientific discussion t fit your paranoid beliefs, once again revealing your admitted lack of scientific understanding. Go back and read and study the graphs from climate scientists.

The models that climate scientists did run failed to accurately simulate natural changes prior to the 1950. Their models have failed to simulate past climate change with or without CO2.

Would you trust a doctor who gets the wrong diagnosis, even when he already knows the answers???

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:So does the CO2 data reveal if CO2 changes are a cause or a result of climate change?


HOLY CRAP. Its called a feed back mechanism.

Basics.



A totally irrelevant answer! Indeed CRAP. as you once again reveal your lack of scientific understanding.

You can't claim a feedback until you prove CO2 caused the warming.

The correlations do not settle the issue of whether or not CO2 variations are causes or results.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:18 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I Caused by heat, not the creator of heat as both of you post?


There you go again.

Quote me exactly and provide the link showing where I said El Nino was the creator of heat.

Once again you fabricate your crap and lies to create straw men arguments making up stuff.

You just reveal how despicable you are.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:21 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Earth Temp is a simple equation: Energy received = energy retained - energy radiated.


You conflated simplicity only reveals you do not understand the myriad of ways temperature changes differ from energy changes.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:21 am

Jim

On inversions, specify what kind of inversion. Temperature or magnetic.

On CO2, we know from trapped bubbles that have been analysed that CO2 has been rising at a statistically significant level since the industrial revolution. I call that long term, for the purposes of comparison with simple weather events.

Your comments on La Niña and El Nino confirm that you realise they are short term events that do not overall change the average temperature of the planet. But CO2 does.

And yes, I tend to accept what I learn from the experts. That is why we have experts. Duh !

No person can fully understand all the sciences. I readily admit that I am not a climate scientist. My degree was in biology, and I worked for over 30 years as an industrial chemist. Not a clash, because I specialised in the application of industrial microbicides for controlling troublesome bacteria and fungi.

There are many things I do not understand. I could not describe the mathematics of quantum entanglement. But I am happy to read of the work done by those who do understand it. I do not fully understand climatology, but I am very aware that a professional climatologist who did not accept AGW would be a rare bird indeed. Only a total idiot applies the Nullius in Verba principle to deny the work of literally thousands of experts, who all agree. Your stupidity quote applies beautifully to AGW deniers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:52 am

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Sound like you are invalidating studies/models that are run by assuming the outcome of studies/models that are not run?


Dam bobbo, you can butcher every scientific discussion t fit your paranoid beliefs, once again revealing your admitted lack of scientific understanding. Go back and read and study the graphs from climate scientists.

The models that climate scientists did run failed to accurately simulate natural changes prior to the 1950. Their models have failed to simulate past climate change with or without CO2.

Ok.....thats fair I think...... to use the models/graphs/results of the real scientists. But .... we are back to "The Analogy"==>just what exactly was not "accurately simulated?" The number of raindrops on your roof...... or what????? But this sounds like a talking point that might have risen to the level of a Snope Report or some such....... so, I will google it...............................5-43........5-49 I googled (global warming models failure to predict past ) and the first hit was: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm that discusses the issue of "hindcasting" and how it was used to validate the models from 1900 forward. Not as direct a statement as appropriate to refute JS's unstated allegation of "failed to accurately simulate".....but its Jimbo....so I'll take the link as refutation until JS is specific enough to offer something falsifiable. Note: Link is a good discussion and a quick read. Video there re Science Denial Rebuttals I'll look at soon.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:58 am

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I Caused by heat, not the creator of heat as both of you post?


There you go again.

Quote me exactly and provide the link showing where I said El Nino was the creator of heat.

Once again you fabricate your crap and lies to create straw men arguments making up stuff.

You just reveal how despicable you are.

I asked for confirmation as it was not clear to me. I know.......saying I don't know and requesting confirmation is quite despicable. While I mostly keyed off of Lance, I did check JS's own post to find: "Indeed El Nino causes global temperatures to rise when it releases heat stored at depth in the western Pacific." Which seemed close enough. yes...I know "Global Temperature" is defined several different ways most often as surface air temp? And that heat is different from temp. It is subject to lots of miscommunication. Its a good thing the experts are not so confused.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim

On inversions, specify what kind of inversion. Temperature or magnetic.


Sorry, since we were talking about temperature, I assumed that would be obvious.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:27 am

Not obvious.
We are talking of global climate and temperature inversions are not global, while magnetic inversions are.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:27 am

The SkepticalScience website is propaganda website run by a psychologist. Their psycho babble does not refute the failure of the science models depicted by the climate scientists published research. But alarmists only believe what they want. Again bobbo only reveals his total lack of understanding. But prove me wrong--

Show how the models correctly simulated the observed Arctic warming (OBS black line) when their model run with CO2 (all red line) and runs with their assumptions of natural change (NAT blue line) fail to match observations??

By cherrypicking just the time since 1970, these "experts" argued since the red and black lines show similar trends, it must be CO2. ROTFLMAO

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not obvious.
We are talking of global climate and temperature inversions are not global, while magnetic inversions are.


OK so you think magnetic inversions cause climate change. And why would you explain a magnetic inversion in terms of the radiative spectrum? I call BS and it looks like you are dancing to avoid revealing your lack of understanding.

So whatever,just describe in terms of the radiative spectrum, why do temperature inversions happen at night.

FYI temperature inversions happen all across the globe, some places much more than others, but still, a correct understanding of inversions reveals whether or not you understand how the radiative spectrum affects regional temperatures and thus the global average.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:36 am

Please, Jim. No straw men. I did not say magnetic inversions caused global warming.

On Arctic warming. This goes faster than other warnings, because of a change in albedo as snow and ice melts.


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest