Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Warming Then And Now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poor Debater nailed it with that chart in post #132

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      This published paper says that as much as 45 - 50% of the 0.4c degree rise from 1900 to 2000 could be directly contributed to increased Solar Activity:

      Source: [FONT=AdvTT5843c571

      GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539, 2006, Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surfacewarming, N. Scafetta and B. J. WestReceived 19 December 2005; revised 18 January 2006; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

      According to the findings summarized in Table 1 the increase of solar activity during the last century, according to the original Lean et al.’s [1995] TSI proxy reconstruction, could have, on average, contributed approximately 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming: the low and high estimates depend on whether PMOD or ACRIM satellite composite TSI is used for the period 1980–2000, respectively. This contribution is not constant during the century because the increase of solar activity could have, on average, contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. By considering a 20 –30% uncertainty of the sensitivity parameters, the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively. These findings would confirm that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades. The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest [Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Eddy, 1976;
      Crowley and Kim, 1996; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995], and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades.

      © Copyright Original Source



      ETA link: http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Fil...%20warming.pdf

      The problem here is that Scafetta and West used the Lean 1995 dataset for TSI, which has been totally superceded by the work of Krivova 2007 (and later).

      Comment


      • External costs are a much harder sell to the public than internal costs. 1) They don't understand why they are needed. 2) And most importantly, they're difficult to nigh impossible to justify any particular monetary value.

        Everyone knows that the price of a car includes the nuts and bolts, engine, transmission, factory wages, transport, and sales commission. Those can be put on a balance sheet. The same can't be (easily) done for externalities.

        Not arguing against accounting for external costs, just that are mostly unpopular and difficult to assign a monetary value.

        K54

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post

          In 1848, more than forty nations in Europe underwent simultaneous revolutions because of crop failure. In 2010 it happened again: the Russian heat wave caused Putin to stop wheat exports, which caused global food prices to spike, which was a major cause of the so-called "Arab Spring" in 2011: a wave of simultaneous revolutions. So what happens next time? What if the next time the countries involved are India, or Pakistan, or China, all of which have nuclear weapons? Hungry people are desperate people, and a desperate man with a nuclear bomb is a very bad idea.
          So the crop failures of 1848 wasn't cause by AGW but the Russian heat wave was?


          It's no wonder that the Pentagon (that bastion of liberal thinking) considers climate change to be a bigger threat to our national security than terrorism. And they're right. Civilization depends on stability, and we're destabilizing the climate at a record pace.
          The Pentagon is not nearly as conservative as you think especially under the command of Obama and Hagel.

          Will life survive human stupidity? Of course. And human life will survive too. The REAL question is, will civilization survive, and if so in what form. And that's a much more difficult question to answer. For a basic overview of what it takes to support human civilization on Earth, see this paper:
          Garrett, Timothy J. "Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?." Climatic change 104.3-4 (2011): 437-455.
          This is no chicken-little alarmism, this is just basic thermodynamics. And the outlook is very, very grim. If your grandkids are living in the world of Mad Max, who cares if there are alligators at the north pole.
          Well I don't know enough to understand the link, but I do know that others like Dr. Richard Lindzen do not think that warming will have such negative effects.

          And you have points made by Dr. Patrick Moore

          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...CO2-Good/page4

          In 1980, global temperatures began a 20-year rise, according to the now questionable records used by the IPCC for its predictions of climate disaster. This is the only period in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth in which the IPCC attributes climate change to human activity. Since 1998 there has been no further increase in global temperature, even according to the IPCC sources. How does one 20-year period of rising temperatures out of the past 150 years prove we are the main cause of global warming?

          The alarmists declare that the present warming trend is “unprecedented” because it is happening on a scale of centuries whereas past warming trends have been much slower, giving species time to adapt. This is shown to be false even during the past century. The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend. But the warming from 1910 to 1940 was just as large (0.4 degrees Celsius or 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and just as rapid over time as the supposed human-caused warming from 1975 to 2000. How can scientists who claim to be on the cutting edge of human knowledge miss this point?
          Last edited by seer; 07-11-2014, 07:15 AM.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Well I don't know enough to understand the link, but I do know that others like Dr. Richard Lindzen do not think that warming will have such negative effects.
            What you're doing there is arguing by authority. The problem with that when it comes to climate change is that the vast majority of the people with actual expertise in the area - over 95% by several measures - disagree with Lindzen.

            Another way to view this: you can find someone with a PhD that will say almost anything - HIV doesn't cause AIDS, vaccines are unsafe, etc. etc. Don't ever get too excited by finding a PhD that tells you what you want to hear.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              What you're doing there is arguing by authority. The problem with that when it comes to climate change is that the vast majority of the people with actual expertise in the area - over 95% by several measures - disagree with Lindzen.
              From what I read that 95% number is bogus. Second, are you not also arguing by authority by pointing to the 95%? Third, so now science is done by consensus?

              Another way to view this: you can find someone with a PhD that will say almost anything - HIV doesn't cause AIDS, vaccines are unsafe, etc. etc. Don't ever get too excited by finding a PhD that tells you what you want to hear.
              Dr. Richard Lindzen is not just anybody, and neither is Dr. Patrick Moore. And I do wonder what in the quote by Dr. Moore do you disagree with?

              In 1980, global temperatures began a 20-year rise, according to the now questionable records used by the IPCC for its predictions of climate disaster. This is the only period in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth in which the IPCC attributes climate change to human activity. Since 1998 there has been no further increase in global temperature, even according to the IPCC sources. How does one 20-year period of rising temperatures out of the past 150 years prove we are the main cause of global warming?

              The alarmists declare that the present warming trend is “unprecedented” because it is happening on a scale of centuries whereas past warming trends have been much slower, giving species time to adapt. This is shown to be false even during the past century. The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend. But the warming from 1910 to 1940 was just as large (0.4 degrees Celsius or 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and just as rapid over time as the supposed human-caused warming from 1975 to 2000. How can scientists who claim to be on the cutting edge of human knowledge miss this point?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                From what I read that 95% number is bogus. Second, are you not also arguing by authority by pointing to the 95%? Third, so now science is done by consensus?
                One: it's not bogus; it's been arrived at by several different methods. If you have a specific complaint about it, i'd be happy to address that.

                Two: no, i'm pointing out that if one were to simply argue from authority, the only such argument that's possibly valid about climate change is that it's real and it's a high risk.

                Three: science has always been done via consensus. Evidence matters, but you have to evaluate the evidence in a way that's acceptable to other people in your field. That's why, in biology, the field as a whole accepts 95% certainty (two sigma), while particle physics demands five sigma. There is no objective standard that says these levels of certainty are appropriate. It's just that the practitioners in these fields have arrived at a consensus as to what's appropriate.

                To give you a concrete example: there are some people (including a nobel laureate) who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, the consensus in the field is that those arguments are bogus, and the data we've obtained is sufficient to consider this a fact.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Dr. Richard Lindzen is not just anybody, and neither is Dr. Patrick Moore. And I do wonder what in the quote by Dr. Moore do you disagree with?
                Yes, Lindzen is not "just anybody". He's someone who's been arguing that the link between smoking and cancer is weak for years. You might want to find someone who knows how to evaluate scientific evidence a bit better.

                In any case, they're not "just anybody", but neither are people like Richard Alley, Kerry Emmanuel, Gavin Schmidt, etc. etc. The weight of expertise is against you, and you have to stop relying on arguments from a few fringe figures.

                As for the quote, it's silly. Of course the IPCC doesn't attribute any of the warming before humanity arrived on the scene to us. But it does attribute earlier climate change events to carbon dioxide. Unless you think that the CO2 humanity puts in the atmosphere is magically different from the stuff that goes there naturally, then this is one of the dumber things that could be said. He's also completely wrong to say that the IPCC says that humans did not influence the warming in the early part of last century. So, it's silly and wrong.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

                  As for the quote, it's silly. Of course the IPCC doesn't attribute any of the warming before humanity arrived on the scene to us. But it does attribute earlier climate change events to carbon dioxide. Unless you think that the CO2 humanity puts in the atmosphere is magically different from the stuff that goes there naturally, then this is one of the dumber things that could be said. He's also completely wrong to say that the IPCC says that humans did not influence the warming in the early part of last century. So, it's silly and wrong.
                  So the IPCC does attribute the warming between 1910 and 1940 to man?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    So the IPCC does attribute the warming between 1910 and 1940 to man?
                    I'm not sure about the latest IPCC reports - i'd have to check - but i'm pretty sure it was in earlier reports, and i've been to talks by scientists where something like half of the pre-1940 warming was attributed to CO2, the majority of the rest being increased solar activity.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      I'm not sure about the latest IPCC reports - i'd have to check - but i'm pretty sure it was in earlier reports, and i've been to talks by scientists where something like half of the pre-1940 warming was attributed to CO2, the majority of the rest being increased solar activity.
                      So you don't really know but you know that Dr. Moore's claim was wrong?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So you don't really know but you know that Dr. Moore's claim was wrong?
                        Since when is "i'll have to check the latest version of the report" == "you don't know"?

                        EDITED TO ADD: in any case, even if it's not there, it's a rhetorical trick on Moore's part. If the IPCC makes no mention of it, then that's not the same as "therefore it must have been natural warming" - it's a complete logical failure on his part. So yes, unless the IPCC explicitly says "it's natural" (which i am certain they don't), then he's wrong.
                        Last edited by TheLurch; 07-11-2014, 10:28 AM.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So the crop failures of 1848 wasn't cause by AGW but the Russian heat wave was?
                          Essentially correct. There is an 80% probability that the heat wave would not have occurred without human-caused global warming (Rahmstrof & Coumou 2011). Just like you can't *positively* attribute any one particular of Sammy Sosa's home runs to steriods, you can certainly say that steroids put their finger on the scale of all of them.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          The Pentagon is not nearly as conservative as you think especially under the command of Obama and Hagel.
                          Hagel is a Republican. Try again.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Well I don't know enough to understand the link, but I do know that others like Dr. Richard Lindzen do not think that warming will have such negative effects.
                          Among scientists, Lindzen has a track record of being wrong. His most recent important paper, Lindzen & Choi 2009, has been debunked no fewer than four times in the peer-reviewed literature, for a whole host of reasons (Trenberth et al. 2010, Murphy 2010, Chung et al. 2010, Dessler 2011).

                          This is important, because Lindzen bases his political opinion on the belief that climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is extremely low. And that is exactly what has been debunked by other scientists.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And you have points made by Dr. Patrick Moore
                          If you can't find four false or illogical statements in those four paragraphs, you're not reading critically.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Since when is "i'll have to check the latest version of the report" == "you don't know"?

                            EDITED TO ADD: in any case, even if it's not there, it's a rhetorical trick on Moore's part. If the IPCC makes no mention of it, then that's not the same as "therefore it must have been natural warming" - it's a complete logical failure on his part. So yes, unless the IPCC explicitly says "it's natural" (which i am certain they don't), then he's wrong.
                            If the IPCC doesn't attribute that warming period to man then it is not a rhetorical trick.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              If the IPCC doesn't attribute that warming period to man then it is not a rhetorical trick.
                              The full quote from Moore is this: "The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend." The rhetorical trick starts at "therefore".
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post
                                Essentially correct. There is an 80% probability that the heat wave would not have occurred without human-caused global warming (Rahmstrof & Coumou 2011). Just like you can't *positively* attribute any one particular of Sammy Sosa's home runs to steriods, you can certainly say that steroids put their finger on the scale of all of them.
                                Then who am I to believe?

                                http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...nheatwave.html

                                Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

                                March 9, 2011

                                Daily Moscow temperature record from November 1 2009 to October 31 2010.

                                Daily Moscow temperature record from November 1 2009 to October 31 2010. Red and blue shaded areas represent departures from the long-term average (smooth curve) in Moscow. Temperatures significantly above the long-term average scorched Moscow for much of July and August. NOAA credit.

                                The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.

                                Hagel is a Republican. Try again.
                                Really, so all Republicans are conservative? And he is a tool of Obama.



                                Among scientists, Lindzen has a track record of being wrong. His most recent important paper, Lindzen & Choi 2009, has been debunked no fewer than four times in the peer-reviewed literature, for a whole host of reasons (Trenberth et al. 2010, Murphy 2010, Chung et al. 2010, Dessler 2011).

                                This is important, because Lindzen bases his political opinion on the belief that climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is extremely low. And that is exactly what has been debunked by other scientists.
                                Of course he is attacked, that is what happens to free thinkers.

                                If you can't find four false or illogical statements in those four paragraphs, you're not reading critically.
                                Really?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X