CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:30 pm
 


eureka eureka:
scarecrowe scarecrowe:
eureka eureka:
Pinatubo exerted a slight cooling effect for two years. The CO2 from a volcano is insignificant in effect. A major volcanic eruption can cool as in 1816: the year without a summer.


A larger one can perhaps start an ice according to an old mentor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory


It certainly can! And a larger one still like the Grand Canyon area can mean that ther would be no human race surviving to worry about the temperature outside.


Curious; a larger one what?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:33 pm
 


eureka eureka:
The Sun has very little to do with warming the Earth above the fairly constant level that Greenhouse gases maintain when unchanged. It has very little to with cooling, either, for the same reason.


So if there was no sun then the earth would be just fine, right?

eureka eureka:
The Sun comes slightly into play with solar activity. It is estimated that , of the heating from 1880 to the present, the Sun may have been responsible for about .01C. More than that in the first half or so of the twentieth century and for a slight cooling in the last forty years.

While GHGs are constant, the temperature remains fairly constant. Orbital shifts are another matter.


Then since you're of the opinion that solar activity is inconsequential to terrestrial temperatures then you're probably also of a mind that solar studies and research would be an utter waste of money, am I right?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:53 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
The Sun has very little to do with warming the Earth above the fairly constant level that Greenhouse gases maintain when unchanged. It has very little to with cooling, either, for the same reason.


So if there was no sun then the earth would be just fine, right?

eureka eureka:
The Sun comes slightly into play with solar activity. It is estimated that , of the heating from 1880 to the present, the Sun may have been responsible for about .01C. More than that in the first half or so of the twentieth century and for a slight cooling in the last forty years.

While GHGs are constant, the temperature remains fairly constant. Orbital shifts are another matter.


Then since you're of the opinion that solar activity is inconsequential to terrestrial temperatures then you're probably also of a mind that solar studies and research would be an utter waste of money, am I right?


Venus and Mars. Might wanna look into what drives their Climate.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:14 pm
 


No Bart, we need to keep on top of what the Sun is doing. After all, hundreds of millions of years ago the Sun was much weaker and less active than it is now and CO2 was not high enough to compensate. It was pretty cold.

Who knows the Man in the Moon might put out a few of the Sin's fires and return us to that state. Then we can burn all the fossils we can find to warm things up. Including the fossils who cannot accept new information.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:17 pm
 


If nothing else impresses some about the calamities awaiting such as coffee on its way to becoming a luxury item, this may. It could cause a cooling of male/female relationships with Malthusian consequences.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick ... ate-straw/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21310
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:47 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Lindzen did a study that purported to show that the Sun was driving the change. Dozens of studies show that he is wrong. Since the only possible solar effect over the past half century would be a slight cooling given the level of solar activitity, how can it be argued that Lindzen has not been proved wrong.


According to the New York Times:
$1:
But Dr. Lindzen also criticized widely publicized assertions by other skeptics that variations in the sun were driving temperature changes in recent decades. To attribute short-term variation in temperatures to a single cause, whether human-generated gases or something else, is erroneous, he said.

Speaking of the sun’s slight variability, he said, "Acting as though this is the alternative" to blaming greenhouse gases "is asking for trouble."


So, not sure what you're talking about with the solar activity thing. Lindzen's arguments--as far as I've seen--seem more based on feedback.

But that's an aside--the real issue is this nasty habit the AGW zealots have of lumping in any dissident opinion, and slight swaying from the IPCC orthodoxy, in wiht the crackpots or stooges. That's the issue I started out with here. Lindzen doesn't belong in that category, and by trying to relegate him to crackpot status you weaken your own argument.

When you do that, you shut down the people who poke holes in theories, and the very essence of effective science is to poke holes in the theories of others. Whe that's missing, you get groupthink. You get ineffective peer review--something that we've seen lately.


$1:
Lindzen continues to press the same foolish claim and has adduced no further evidence,then he clearly has joined the denial camp to salve his ego.


And I once again point out that you to harping on Lindzen's alleged personal chortcomings--in this case, his ego--rather than address the issue. What foolish climm does he continue to press, specifcially? That climate models have large uncertainty? That approximations of the climate sensitivity are based on data with significant uncetainty?


$1:
Here is a brief commentary on the debate. The video is embedded. Dessler handles him quite gently and with the respect that one scientist owes to another. The conclusions are clear and Lindzen does not come out very well.


We have limitd bandwidth out here, so I can't access youtube, and, to tell you the truth, I don't ascribe much to filmed debates anyways. This is what the so-called skeptics like to do--get some scientist up against a professional mouthpiece to get torn apart. I know a lot more about climate change than Glenn Beck does, but I guarantee you he would absolutely slice me apart in a debate. It's what he does.


$1:
With Dyson, it is a similar case. What folk agree. Lindzen and a couple of others of his equals. None of whom has any scientific basis for it.

There are 50 million climate refugees already with hundreds of millions more to come in this century. Would you not expect Dyson to weigh that in his balnce if he is not actually senile


What folks agree? Me, for one. And lots of others, judging by the fact that in most democracies people are not voting for radical change with respect to climate change.

There are millions of refugees already--refugees from war, hunger, poverty, environmental degradation and climate. Migration is sure to be one of the primmary challenges of climate change. But climate change doesn't exist in a vacuum and policy remedies have to take the interrelationship of these into account. For instance, we have a number of environmental refugees in Afghanistan, due to deforestation, poor irrigation practices, contamination of surface water and groundwater and a years-long drought. And we have economic refugees, as well ass those fleeing conflict.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:58 am
 


I was referring only to Lindzen's pathological support of GCR and hic conforming to the discredited Svensmark theories. However, if you would like to read the whole of Lindzen, look at this link.

Tobacco.cancer denial: climate sensitivity denial. It is a pirt that you could not get that video. Dessler is an equally prominent scientist and he destroys Lindzen in a respectful way. Lindzen is gone; lost. He is a denier of actual scientific research.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/tag/richard-lindzen/

I am not shutting down those who poke holes in theories. I would like to shut down those who deny the theories without logical support. Lindzen has become one of those. His scepticism is nothing that the rest of the scientific world does not express. He does only that and presents it as doubt of reality.

One of the problems that you have with this is evident in your "IPCC orthodoxy." There is no such orthodoxy. The IPCC does nothing but draw the conclusions of thousands of scientists in to a report. And there are no AGW zealots. There are those who follow the science: science that is incontrovertible wrt AGW. Scienbtists will always incorporate their caveats but, when it is said that there is a 95% plus degree of confidence, in lay terms that means certainty. Only something unknown to physics could change that.

Your belief in the agreement of people with Dyson I find hard to credit that you really accept that. No one with the scientific credentials to analyse the research agrees. The only place that agreement can be found is on denial blogs and in the writings of certain well known journalist deniers. There is none in the world of climate scientists.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:22 am
 


Image


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:55 am
 


This will give you some information in the Anthropogenic CO2 vs Volcanic CO2.

Note that even a Super volcano might not equal the Anthropogenic output.

http://wwwcarbonfix.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... c-co2.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21310
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:59 am
 


eureka eureka:
I was referring only to Lindzen's pathological support of GCR and hic conforming to the discredited Svensmark theories. However, if you would like to read the whole of Lindzen, look at this link.


I don't know much about GCR really, so I can't coment intelligently on it. But when you say they are discredted, again I have to ask: who is doing the discrediting? Mann has been thoroughly discredited by many other scientists and endless right-wing political blogs. Does that therefore make his science necessarily unsound? Not at all.

I have read a bit on climate sensitivity though, and I do not share the confidence of many AGW propnents that it will be higher than two. I agree wiht Lindzen on that. And I think there is evidence to support that belief.

$1:
I am not shutting down those who poke holes in theories. I would like to shut down those who deny the theories without logical support. Lindzen has become one of those. His scepticism is nothing that the rest of the scientific world does not express. He does only that and presents it as doubt of reality.


Oh, but I disagree, sir. Lindzen is a significant scientist in his field, and Dyson is well-respected as a brilliant mind well outside of his physics speciality, indeed even outside of science. Yet you write one off as an egotist and the other as senile.

You have done this for several posts now. You simply refuse to even let them cross into the realm of credibility. And, as long as they are not even considered credible, it's quite an easy feat to dismiss them.

$1:
One of the problems that you have with this is evident in your "IPCC orthodoxy." There is no such orthodoxy. The IPCC does nothing but draw the conclusions of thousands of scientists in to a report. And there are no AGW zealots. There are those who follow the science: science that is incontrovertible wrt AGW. Scienbtists will always incorporate their caveats but, when it is said that there is a 95% plus degree of confidence, in lay terms that means certainty. Only something unknown to physics could change that.

Your belief in the agreement of people with Dyson I find hard to credit that you really accept that. No one with the scientific credentials to analyse the research agrees. The only place that agreement can be found is on denial blogs and in the writings of certain well known journalist deniers. There is none in the world of climate scientists.[/quote]

I agree that the IPCC itself has no orthodoxy. It is some of the more devoted AGW proponents that do. Many of the denialists that the more zelaous denounce are not, in fact, denialists at all. A lot of them just allow for other possibilities, or send up little warning balloons to the effect that uncertainties are large. This whole thing started when you lumped in Lindzen with some real (in my opinion) frauds like Soon and Baliunas. That's it. Had you merely admitted that, yes, Lindzen was a important atmospheric scientist whose thoughts should be considered, we could have moved on. But no, you had to double-down, Sarah Palin style. :lol:

I have scientific credentials, and I've analyzed the research and I don't really disagree with some of what Dyson is saying. Go figure. :)

But maybe it's just because I'm more worried about the fish.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:36 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
But maybe it's just because I'm more worried about the fish.


42


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:56 am
 


The discrediting of the role of GCR can be found in any paper examining that role. Lindzen was out to lunch. The discrediting of almost everything else he now proclaims is proceeding apace. Here is one where the contradictions in his stance on Internal variability are shown.

I am not sure what your position on climate sensitivity is. However, Lindzen is again wrong and, I suspect, deliberately so. I am not aware of any disagreement with the calculation that a doubling of CO2 leads to a sensitivity of 1.? but, with the feedbacks, it is three. I can link many studies on that, or explanations, if you wish. Only Lindzen and Spencer and a couple of others try to dispute that but they have no peer reviewed support.

As for Dyson, all he writes now is from the top of his head. Ignoring all research.

I do indeed do not credit them with any credibility and I can, if you wish, post pieces that rip Dyson's claims to shreds. But that is as unproductive as posting about Lindzen. Neither has any credibility with other scientists over their positions on climate.

How can they when every study of the thousands done in recent years says that they are wrong?

Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers. The warning balloons are what actual researchers send. Those who send the balloons and nothing else - with the exaggerated importance of those balloons (balloons that, with the present state of knowledge, are just a child's birthday size) are deniers. What else can they be called? They pretend large uncertainties.

By the way, and it is important to note, there is nothing anywhere that discredits Mann. All his work has been duplicated, replicated, or what have you.

I respect your science credentials. I have none. I think that some of your confusion is due to your remoteness and inability to access things like that video.

I can give you supports for everything I write if you want them.

You should be concerned for the fish. Global Warming is devastating fish stocks everywhere. The dying coral reefs - about 40% gone already according to some calculations (although there are different calculations) are destroying the stocks on which some one billion people are dependent.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:35 pm
 


eureaka eureaka:
Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers.


No. In the scientific world, those who question are called scientists. In the dark, limited world in which you exist, they are called heretics and unbelievers.


Last edited by ShepherdsDog on Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:47 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
eureaka eureaka:
Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers.


No. In the scientific world, those who question are called scientists. In the dark, liumited world in which you exist, they are called heretics and unbelievers.


+1


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:54 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Incredible claims need incredible evidence. The ramifications of this, if it turns out to be accurate are almost unthinkable.

The evidence is pretty scanty yet.


I thought this quote of yours deserved a more appropriate context. :P


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.