myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 333, 334, 335 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe tries to make too much of my characterizations of his relentless attacks on the integrity and motivations of global warming scientists. He conflates my general commentary about postings like Isobars posting from Heritage with what he did or didn't say precisely. He is in that respect true to form--he spins and leaves out material far more often than he directly lies. You can tell when he is caught in a lie--he will write "prove it."

In that continuing vein, he conflates the general consensus that humans have affected the planet, and that emissions of CO2 are one of the causes, to his more particular interpretation of "settled science." True to form, he does not establish his own metric as what "settled science" means, but simply attacks those he disagrees with. So if there is any aspect about climate change where we are still learning, he can claim there is no "settled science", and he can make fun and dispute the integrity of all scientists who are not funded with oil money. Particularly if they are rigorous enough to publish peer reviewed work. Where, of course, mistakes are found--and corrected. The debating trick that mrgybe resorts to, again and again, is to claim that any mistake anywhere in our development of understanding upsets the whole apple cart. This could only be claimed by someone with only a passing understanding of--or narcissistic contempt for--scientific research.

If we lift our vision from the minutia where mrgybe is so determined to find mistakes, , the global warming question is pretty simple. From a 10 mile high view, we have an input and output model. The earth is warm enough to support life because the presence of an atmosphere allows it to absorb heat. If the amount of heat absorbed is greater than the amount radiated back into space, the planet warms. If the amount of heat absorbed is less than the amount radiated, the planet cools.

That much is simple, and is the basis for starting to model the process, and begin to try to figure out what the second, third, and fourth order factors in this process are.

CO2 is one, but not the only, anthropogenic contaminant that affects this process. A cogent description is given by NASA as follows:

Quote:
Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not. Although water vapor is a powerful absorber of many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy, it is almost transparent to others. The transparency at those wavelengths is like a window the atmosphere leaves open for radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface. The most important of these “water vapor windows” is for thermal infrared with wavelengths centered around 10 micrometers. (The maximum transparency occurs at 10 micrometers, but partial transparency occurs for wavelengths between about 8 and about 14 micrometers.)

Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13 micrometers, which means that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide partially “close” the atmospheric window. In other words, wavelengths of outgoing thermal infrared energy that our atmosphere’s most abundant greenhouse gas—water vapor—would have let escape to space are instead absorbed by carbon dioxide.

Graph of energy absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor.
All atmospheric gases have a unique pattern of energy absorption: they absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the “window” through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration adapted from Robert Rohde.)

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.


Contrary to mrgybe's insinuations, this aspect of climate is well settled--even Fred Singer, Isobars go-to guy, acknowledges this. Note the part that I highlighted--the exact amount of energy imbalance is hard to measure. This is the purpose of modeling and monitoring--in all areas of scientific inquiry. This is the process that big carbon is fighting, paying Republican politicians to kill research into the ongoing process.

The news article that mrgybe posts to then attack climate scientists with comments like these:

Quote:
The utter failure of predicted disastrous global warming to materialize has now been explained....they got it wrong.....again. the PHDs and PHD wannabees who for years have looked down their noses disdainfully at sensible questions don't know either. They just eat up a lot of grant money pretending they do.


does nothing to upset our understanding of absorption of heat on the planet, or the role of CO2 in that absorption. In fact it is not news, it is just the same story, spun over again, and in mrgybe's case, used to disparage. Heat--a vast amount of heat--is being absorbed in the ocean. How heat is absorbed in the ocean, and what it does to buffer the impacts on climate--is clearly something that is not settled. Nobody has claimed that it is--that's why they do research. More recent research, posted well before mrgybe's little diatribe, has shown that recently heat has been stored in the deeper ocean rather than in the shallower areas of the ocean. There is clearly a signal in the data that indicates that more heat has been stored in the parts of the ocean below 700 m deep than above since 2000. Nothing that I have seen suggests that scientists have a clear understanding of why. Again, that is the purpose of continued research, to identify areas of understanding, knowledge gaps, and how to narrow those knowledge gaps. Nor does anything suggest that this changes, or unsettles, our basic understanding of the role of CO2 in climate change.

We will continue to try to develop models that identify second, third, and fourth order factors in climate change. We will find that some we thought were fourth order are higher, and some we thought were second order were lower. Nothing in that alters the urgency of our plight, despite the attacks of mrgybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How hilarious. Isobars has doubled down with his new expert, Willie Soon.

A credible source, eh? Enough so to get big funding from big carbon, despite his lack of pertinent credentials. http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/exxon-and-koch-funded-scientist-willie-soon-confronted-university-wisconsin-over-discredited-cl

Sometimes the only thing that the deniers teach me is how they wash their brains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
How hilarious. Isobars has doubled down with his new expert, Willie Soon.

A credible source, eh? Enough so to get big funding from big carbon, despite his lack of pertinent credentials. http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/exxon-and-koch-funded-scientist-willie-soon-confronted-university-wisconsin-over-discredited-cl

Sometimes the only thing that the deniers teach me is how they wash their brains.

This from Wikipedia (I know, I know, not a trustworthy source):

"Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also a receiving editor for the journal New Astronomy. Soon has testified before Congress on the issue of climate change, and is known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation."

This is a classic case of, "If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail." Soon's expertise is in astrophysics...

OF COURSE he'll look to the stars for the answer.

If Willie was an oceanographer, he'd look down instead of up.

(Will Willie Soon soon change?)

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked back at Poinster's post--which I challenge any denier to do. Learned a very interesting thing that I hadn't known. Most of the material that I have read have treated clouds, which increase with temperature increase due to increased evaporation from the oceans, as a buffering factor. The posting makes it clear that "clouds have both positive and negative feedback effects,", and goes on to note that modeling clouds in climate models is difficult, as follows:

Quote:
even the fastest computers, running general circulation models (GCM) of the climate require so much computer capacity that the models cannot incorporate the further complexity of cloud formation. Thus, the GCMs incorporate algorithms that relate cloud formation to other parameters, such as relative humidity, to estimate their formation and effects. These lead to great variation in the model predictions


Of course, if you are determined to defend fossil fuels, you can see these variations as ways to attack the whole idea of climate change--or at least the integrity of scientists.

In my experience, people who are poorly acquainted with the truth assume that everybody is like them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still don't see that publicly funded research on global warming is more flawed than other types of research. There are flaws, as in any human endeavor, but that is not what is claimed here, I think.

mrgybe wrote:
LHDR wrote:
From all I know about scientific research, it is inherent to the process that previous findings and models are adjusted, expanded, corrected as new insights and data emerge. Why wouldn't you assume that that is what is going on here?

[..]We have been told repeatedly that global warming is "settled science". Anyone who questioned the wild claims of the extent and impact of global warming was sneeringly dismissed as a denier, a flack of the carbon industry, or an uninformed fool.
"Settled science". I understand this as an argument against claims that global warming is a hoax or junk science, a cult, a conspiracy among scientist voiced by members of Congress and seen in the title to isobars' recent hit piece. In that context, I find it acceptable. It is my understanding that even isobars accepts that man-made CO2 does increase temperatures, all else being equal. Assuming that I am reading isobars correctly, we should really call that aspect of global warming "settled science". Of course, it does not mean that we have a complete understanding of global warming (that would be incorrect to say about most scientific inquiry), every reasonable person, every scientist understands that.

mrgybe wrote:
Both the President and John Kerry have referred to skeptics as "the flat earth society".
It is pointless to hold what politicians say about global warming against the science or the scientists.

mrgybe wrote:
This has morphed from well intentioned scientific inquiry into an advocacy movement with any dissenting opinion pushed aside. That is the very antithesis of scientific research and is deserving of strong push back when so clearly proven to be flawed.
It is impossible to argue against broad statements like this other than claiming the opposite. Let's be specific and simply look at the piece of research you brought up initially and that you so sneeringly dismissed. Do you really think that the two authors are part of an "advocacy movement with any dissenting opinion pushed aside"? I very much doubt that that is what you think and even more that there would be any evidence to support such a claim. But these are the people that you sneeringly dismiss.

Perhaps the time to agree on this will only come when we all meet twenty years from now and everybody drives their solar-powered pickup truck to the beach, when we can look at the latest temperature data and computer models and wonder how there could have been disagreement twenty years earlier.


Last edited by LHDR on Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
LHDR wrote:
isobars wrote:
LHDR wrote:
in contrast to isobars' claims in his post ..

I made no claims.

So you post misleading nonsense, get called out for it, and then bow out? Disappointing.

Show us any claims I made in that post.
I understand that you are hiding behind something that you copied and pasted from the internet. I still think it is fair to assume that, unless you make some effort to the contrary, what you post here reflects your view, especially, if it fits prior contributions.

isobars wrote:
And while you're at it, prove those scientists' claims misleading. (Hint: criticizing, even disproving, one of the 50 proves nothing.)
Sorry about the confusion. I'll try again. Misleading is the hit piece, not necessarily the scientists' claims. From my earlier post, it is clear that the one scientist's claim I looked up (Georg Kaser) is correct, not misleading. I pointed out two things that led me to conclude that he would not support the headlines under which his name is listed in your hit piece, including breaks "ranks to defy global warming cult" and "IPCC contributors now turning against global warming junk science". First, he chose to work on the 2013 IPCC report after he pointed out a mistake in the previous IPCC report. Second, the letter to the journal Science where he pointed out the mistake also states that "The IPCC Fourth Assessment [2007 report], particularly of the physical science basis for the changes, is mostly accurate, ...".

He is just one of the fifty. He also happened to be the only one I tried to figure out since his statement caught my eye. That is sufficient for me to consider the article misleading.

isobars wrote:
And what about the 32,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition?
If we're deniers, you guys are [b]SUCK-KERS! [/b]
Well, I hear there is a person with a PhD in geology from Harvard who as a creationist supports the view that earth is like 10k years old. What I am trying to say is that a large number of PhDs alone does not make an argument.
Not sure about the deniers and [b]SUCK-KERS! [/b].
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR wrote:
"Settled science". I understand this as an argument against claims that global warming is a hoax or junk science, a cult, a conspiracy among scientist voiced by members of Congress and seen in the title to isobars' recent hit piece. In that context, I find it acceptable.

"Settled science" is the left's -- most notably Al Gore's -- deliberate dodge when publicly challenged to debate or prove their AGW claims. I find it disgusting, dishonest, arrogant, cowardly, and every bit as bogus as their "97% consensus" fabrication.

LHDR wrote:
It is my understanding that even isobars accepts that man-made CO2 does increase temperatures, all else being equal. Assuming that I am reading isobars correctly, we should really call that aspect of global warming "settled science".

Starting from zero or low CO2, yes, increasing CO2 increases temperatures. However, the left ignores the well- and long-documented plateauing of that effect. That plateauing effect relegates further increases in CO2 to a minor and quickly diminishing role. As an AGW contributor, it's a red herring at current levels.

LHDR wrote:
mrgybe wrote:
Both the President and John Kerry have referred to skeptics as "the flat earth society".
It is pointless to hold what politicians say about global warming against the science or the scientists.

Sure, but now that the vast bulk of AGWA (as in Alarmism) IS the politics, it's fair game.

LHDR wrote:
isobars wrote:
Show us any claims I made in that post.
I understand that you are hiding behind something that you copied and pasted from the internet.

Hiding? I posted its URL so people can see the whole article and its sources and judge for themselves. What could be more transparent?

LHDR wrote:
I still think it is fair to assume that, unless you make some effort to the contrary, what you post here reflects your view

That’s not a fair assumption, especially since I’ve posted interesting and credible published rebuttals to my own such posts. I seek facts, not “victory”.

LHDR wrote:
isobars wrote:
And while you're at it, prove those scientists' claims misleading. (Hint: criticizing, even disproving, one of the 50 proves nothing.)
Misleading is the hit piece, not necessarily the scientists' claims. From my earlier post, it is clear that the one scientist's claim I looked up … He is just one of the fifty. He also happened to be the only one I tried to figure out ... sufficient for me to consider the article misleading.

“Hit piece”? You looked at only one claim, purport to have discredited it, and that’s “sufficient for [you] to consider the article misleading”? Your foregone conclusion is tattooed on your forehead.

LHDR wrote:
a large number of PhDs alone does not make an argument.

Unless, apparently, their argument is FOR AGWA.

BTW ... don't expect a lengthy debate from me. This took way too much time.


Last edited by isobars on Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note the lack of any source for this made-up fact:

Quote:
However, the left ignores the well- and long-documented plateauing of that effect. That plateauing effect relegates further increases in CO2 to a minor and quickly diminishing role


So much happy horseshit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some interesting thoughts about the Atlantic Ocean being a heatsink helping to create a plateau in more recent global warming models.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ng/News/News_Main+
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
Some interesting thoughts about the Atlantic Ocean being a heatsink helping to create a plateau in more recent global warming models.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ng/News/News_Main+


That proves the models were wrong in the 1st place. Who's model is right? Without the sun, we'd be at absolute zero temperature. The left makes fun of the Harvard Astrophysicist, but the sun is 100% responsible for this warm blue planet. How do you accurately model such a complicated system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 333, 334, 335 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 334 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group