Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:47 PM
22 online now:
edge, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Tangle (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 106 of 164 (671944)
08-31-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Lithodid-Man
08-31-2012 10:52 AM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
So which part of my post do you disagree with and why? Anybody can fill a post packed full of snark like you just did.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-31-2012 10:52 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-31-2012 9:24 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18310
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 107 of 164 (671946)
08-31-2012 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by foreveryoung
08-31-2012 9:03 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
foreveryoung writes:

So which part of my post do you disagree with and why? Anybody can fill a post packed full of snark like you just did.

You're just using a couple sentences of snark to avoid addressing the factual content. Here's Lithodid-Man's post with the snark edited.

Lithodid-Man writes:

Just a few comments to make here....

foreveryoung writes:

The ARGO network of 3200 floating robot sensors that have been in full deployment since 2003 show a decrease in oceanic heat content since then

This is incorrect. From http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's

They are only the people actually looking at ocean temps. I did notice that a good amount of your post is from:http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/...s-wont-heat-oceans.html (I assume your writing?)

Now on the Robertson & Watson (1992) paper from Nature. You might have a point if research on the subject ended there. I am sure in your exhaustive research on sea surface temperatures you must have seen the paper by McGillis and Wanninkhof (2006) suggesting that local increases in CO2 solubility due to wind driven evaporative cooling (not sure why you thought that infrared radiation caused this, but okay) and decreases in CO2 solubility when there is no wind and infrared radiation is warming the skin-layer have both been overestimated and the overall effect is negligible. Takahashi et al (2009) showed that because of evaporation the micro-increase in salinity at this skin-layer cancelled out the increased solubility effect of lowered temperatures.

I cannot access the 2012 Humlum paper from where I am at, but I will take a look when I return from the field. If it is anything like his Humlum et al (2011) paper I do not expect to be impressed. That was the one where the authors suggest that the moon is an important cause of global warming.

Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.

McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.

Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.

So there's all the facts without the snark. How about an answer?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 9:03 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 10:33 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 108 of 164 (671949)
08-31-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
08-31-2012 9:24 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
lithodid man writes:

This is incorrect. From http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's

You did not show that my claim was incorrect. All you did was show that ocean heat content increased since 1961. I showed that ocean heat content decreased since 2003. Both are true, and so all you did was smoke and mirrors.

lithology man writes:

They are only the people actually looking at ocean temps. I did notice that a good amount of your post is from:http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/...s-wont-heat-oceans.html (I assume your writing?)

I just showed you that the people that sampled data from the ARGO network since it was in full deployment. If they are the same people that you referred to then you have no argument. All you are doing is selectively choosing their comments on the data from 1961 when the network was NOT fully operational. The data since 2003 is more much meaningful since it had more collection equipment that was up to date instead of the incomplete collection equipment in place prior to 2003. I did not write the article in the hockeyshtick; I gathered quite a bit of information from it however.

lithodid man writes:

Now on the Robertson & Watson (1992) paper from Nature. You might have a point if research on the subject ended there. I am sure in your exhaustive research on sea surface temperatures you must have seen the paper by McGillis and Wanninkhof (2006) suggesting that local increases in CO2 solubility due to wind driven evaporative cooling (not sure why you thought that infrared radiation caused this, but okay) and decreases in CO2 solubility when there is no wind and infrared radiation is warming the skin-layer have both been overestimated and the overall effect is negligible. Takahashi et al (2009) showed that because of evaporation the micro-increase in salinity at this skin-layer cancelled out the increased solubility effect of lowered temperatures.

My point still stands despite further research on the subject. Why would you say otherwise?

lithodid man writes:

I cannot access the 2012 Humlum paper from where I am at, but I will take a look when I return from the field. If it is anything like his Humlum et al (2011) paper I do not expect to be impressed. That was the one where the authors suggest that the moon is an important cause of global warming.

Pure snark and sarcasm.

lithodid man writes:

Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.

McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.

Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.

I suppose these three papers somehow refute I point I have made? If so, why don't you elaborate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-31-2012 9:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Jon, posted 09-01-2012 12:37 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2012 1:06 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-01-2012 10:30 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 164 (671962)
09-01-2012 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
08-31-2012 10:33 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
Lithodid-Man writes:

Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.

McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.

Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.

I suppose these three papers somehow refute I point I have made? If so, why don't you elaborate?

It's called a 'Bibliography'. You need to read the post to see where the content of the cited sources is elaborated on.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 164 (671964)
09-01-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
08-31-2012 10:33 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
You did not show that my claim was incorrect. All you did was show that ocean heat content increased since 1961. I showed that ocean heat content decreased since 2003. Both are true, and so all you did was smoke and mirrors.

Have you forgotten that your argument is that such heating of the ocean is impossible?

My point still stands despite further research on the subject. Why would you say otherwise?

No, your point doesn't still in the face of factors not accounted for in the earlier research.

Note that a few sentences earlier you attempt to argue that more recent data is more relevant in addressing another issue. Surely you see the inconsistency. But let's say that your reasoning is sound. You did not raise the argument until L-Man cited the recent research, which indicates that his citation was substantive and not snark.

That was the one where the authors suggest that the moon is an important cause of global warming.

Pure snark and sarcasm.

Is it snark if the authors really did suggest the moon was an important cause of global warming?

http://www.realclimate.org/...d-natural-cycles-the-best-part

quote:

Humlum et al. also suggest, on the basis of a coincidence between one of their cycles (8.7 years) and a periodicity in the Earth-Moon orbital distance (8.85 years), that the Moon plays a role for climate change (seriously!):

"We hypothesise that this may bring about the emergence of relatively warm or cold water masses from time to time in certain parts of oceans, in concert with these cyclic orbit variations of the Moon, or that these variations may cause small changes in ocean currents transporting heat towards high latitudes, e.g. in the North Atlantic."


The arguments you raise here, including the CO2 lagging temperature arguments are far from new. Here is a link to a five year old article discussing this point.

http://www.realclimate.org/...4/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2

You are not raising points that prove there is no AGW. You are simply repeating skeptic arguments refuted many, er, moons ago.

With the possible exception of information in Humlum's 2012 paper released very recently, you are posting stuff that has been discussed endlessly with only a few skeptics like Roy Clark being convinced. I reserve comment on Humlum's new paper because I haven't seen it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(2)
Message 111 of 164 (671983)
09-01-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
08-31-2012 10:33 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
Alright, I will do my best to leave the snark out. No promises, but I will try...

lithodid man writes:

This is incorrect. From http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's

You did not show that my claim was incorrect. All you did was show that ocean heat content increased since 1961. I showed that ocean heat content decreased since 2003. Both are true, and so all you did was smoke and mirrors.

According to the ARGO data from the link above, in 2003 the OHC (oceanic heat content) was 9 x 10^22 J. In 2004 it was 12 x 10^22 J. In 2005 it was 14 x 10^22 J. In 2006 it was 13 x 10^22 J (decreased!). In 2007 14 x 10^22 J, 2008 13 x 10^22 J, then back up to 14.5 x 10^22 J in 2009. I really do not understand how the ARGO data can be interpreted as an OHC decrease since 2003. Is it possible that you are referring to the Lyman et al (2006) article I see cited by several climate change skeptics? That paper did use ARGO data (in part) to show a OHC decrease. However, I have yet to see a single 'skeptic' source that includes the correction by Willis et al. (2007)

Willis et al. writes:

Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data.

IOW, the oceanic cooling trend reported was an error and one corrected by the scientists who published the original research.
foreveryoung writes:

I did not write the article in the hockeyshtick; I gathered quite a bit of information from it however

Okay, I do see that. This is not intended to be accusatory, but is important for this discussion: Did you read the sources you referenced (Robertson & Watson 1992, Clark 2010, Humlum 2012) or did you cull the refs from the Hockeyshtick post (and others similar)? The difference is pretty important for a number of reasons. Again, I am not asking for some kind of 'gotcha' thing, I just do not want to spend time discussing how Robertson & Watson (for example) do not support your point if all you know about that paper is a few quote mines from anti-AGW blogs and do not actually have it in hand (or at least have read it thoroughly).

You made the claim that "your point still stands" (regarding research since Robertson & Watson). I find this to be a pretty unusual claim as your point didn't even stand using the original paper. Let me clarify:

foreveryoung writes:

This paper shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean skin from increased downwelling infrared radiation allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures

Are you claiming that Robertson & Watson are claiming infrared radiation actually cools the ocean? Not only do they not make this claim, the research since then has shown that any thermal skin effects are likely to be unimportant in the global oceanic carbon budget. It is exactly this kind of statement that makes me question whether or not you read the source you claim to be using or are just taking hockeyschtick's word on what it says.

Finally, on the Humlum 2012 paper. I am sorry for the snark and sarcasm. My confidence level in the new paper was not bolstered by the fact that the specific claims you presented were exactly the same claims he had made in the 2011 paper. Since I haven't read the paper, and you have, please explain to me what new evidence or research Humlum is presenting that is not a rehashing of his 2011 work. I should have a copy in under a week, and would be more than happy to discuss it then

Note: The references below are included as I made reference to them in the post above. These are not intended as an unspecified refutation of your points but as support for mine. I apologize if that was unclear in my previous post.

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006) Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L18604

Robertson, J. E., and A. J. Watson (1992) Thermal skin effect of the surface ocean and its implications for CO2 uptake. Nature 358: 738-740

Willis, J. K., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, and J. Gilson (2007) Correction to "Recent cooling of the upper ocean". Geophysical Research Letters 34: L16601


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 112 of 164 (672432)
09-08-2012 12:36 AM


Here is a paper that confirms what I have said previously. Less lower level cloud cover is the cause of warmer temperatures. Global cloud cover as decreased by an average of 1.56% from 1971 to 2009. Letting in 1.56% more sunlight is more than enough to cause the temperature increase seen during that period of time.

The paper can be found here:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/Full_Text_D1.pdf

After reading this I can just hear the AGW crowd already saying but that paper just confirms what we have said! ...."Global warming is causing the decrease in cloud cover". Actually, it doesn't. All it says is "it may cause" or "our models predict", "warming should cause". They never prove their case. They have the wagon pushing the horse when in reality, it is the horse pulling the wagon. The point is that this is strong evidence for low level cloud cover amount being a strong force in temperature increases.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2012 8:49 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 113 of 164 (672434)
09-08-2012 2:20 AM


Here is another example of how it is the Sun that is responsible for changes in climate. On mars, the changes in ice and dust accumulation is driven by changes in solar insolation according to the following article in icarus:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.08.009


Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2012 8:55 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2012 8:29 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 114 of 164 (672441)
09-08-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
09-08-2012 2:20 AM


The point is...
If Global Warming is caused by primarily Natural Processes like the sun, then we need to not just reduce the human contributions, we need to totally eliminate them while at the same time figuring out methods to counteract the effects caused by the sun as well as investing in the infrastructure needed to mitigate the negative effects on human civilization.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 09-08-2012 2:20 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 164 (672506)
09-08-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
09-08-2012 2:20 AM


Mars?
The atmosphere on Mars is 100 times more rarified than is the atmosphere on Earth. Mars has no oceans, and there is essentially no magnetic field and little, if any, present volcanic activity. Surely the weather and climate models for the Mars would be a wee bit different than those for Earth.

How about a comparing earth with a more similarly sized planet?

Is it really a surprise that Mars seasonal temperatures are dominated by the Sun?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 09-08-2012 2:20 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 164 (672508)
09-08-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by foreveryoung
09-08-2012 12:36 AM


Nature of evidence.
foreveryoung writes:

this is strong evidence

Well, it is evidence in the same sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is evidence. By your own admission both AGW and your cloud cover only hypothesis predict a correlation between cloud cover and temperature. So even assuming your facts does not advance your position over AGW.

What do you think causes the increased cloud cover, and what do we do if it continues for another 50 years?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by foreveryoung, posted 09-08-2012 12:36 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 117 of 164 (677616)
10-31-2012 3:43 AM


Would someone with either a background in physics or chemistry please analyze the following paper; It makes the case that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect on the atmosphere.

http://climateclash.com/...ols-not-warms-the-earth/#more-994


Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 6:42 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 4:41 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 118 of 164 (677618)
10-31-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by foreveryoung
10-31-2012 3:43 AM


FEY writes:

http://climateclash.com/...ols-not-warms-the-earth/#more-994

quote:
Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico
He is a biologist - mainly medical, it seems. http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html
He is not a professor and he owns Biology Cabinet - so being a director is not entirely an achievement.
And google doesn't seem to be able to find the original document.
{abe: here it is: http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf)

I've barely started the article and it already smells bad...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : fixed link

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 3:43 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 119 of 164 (677687)
10-31-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by foreveryoung
10-31-2012 3:43 AM


Would someone with either a background in physics or chemistry please analyze the following paper; It makes the case that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect on the atmosphere.

The first problem is that the paper is not published in a peer reviewed journal. That is a big warning right away.

From what I can tell what he is really showing is that the magnitude of heat absorption is not as high as it would be with the gases by themselves, but there is still heat absorption. It's a bit like saying that shooting a gun saves lives because if you shoot someone who is wearing a thick coat the bullet actually goes a little bit slower when it hits the coat.

CO2 is still absorbing heat. There is no way around it. It is simple physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 3:43 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 8:22 PM Taq has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 120 of 164 (677692)
10-31-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taq
10-31-2012 4:41 PM


Not being reviewed in a professional journal nor being a climate scientist doesn't bother me at all when it comes to climate science. These people are so convinced that carbon dioxide is the culprit for recent warming and for all past warming that it is impossible for them to consider otherwise. Right now, the total greenhouse effect accounts for 57 degrees F of the earths temperature. The other sources of heat come from within the earth and from the sun. If you were to pull enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to where it was just 270 ppm, what would the temperature of the earth be. Once you give me that figure, can you tell me how you arrived at it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 4:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 9:10 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 11:11 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 160 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 12:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019