|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Bibliography: Discovery of Global Warming
Lots of information on global warming is out there. I hope that our younger generations take it upon themselves to really get out there and do something about these problems vexing us like global warming. The Discovery of Global Warming - A History Basic information and links |
|
Quote:
But till it does, I support you. And I decry those who kick the can down the road, for whatever reason. |
Now this is a step in the right direction. California regulates cow farts
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
What amazes me, is the ignorance of some with the attitude of... "until some kind of single magic bullet comes along, why bother?" Refusing to recognize that the answer lies in taking and embracing...lots of small, constant, interim steps. Which is how most major changes take place, whether it be civil rights/air & water pollution/....? Speaking of which, the incredible increase in air/water quality experienced due to laws that has occurred in the last number of decades in our cities...is the perfect example. I can't help but wonder, if some folks think this all happened because of magic...or voluntary industry actions taken? :oops: All this improvement in spite of the same voices screeching back then, about how meeting those laws would..."cost too much, destroy industries and it's too late anyway." And yet of late, ignoring the success of those laws, we've been relaxing a lot of them...simply so corporations/industries can increase their profits in the short term. :ohdear: |
If they want to change the climate maybe they should stop all the burning in Florida.
|
Here's the best thing that I'v ever seen on climate change.
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube |
Quote:
They look like gunfighters, so to speak, for the fossil fuel industry. It is good that people are looking at things critically though. Scientists rarely agree on much of anything that is not already very settled as being pretty much scientific facts. And that can change if there is a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. There is a lot of money invested in keeping the thinking uncritical on both sides. Scientific Advances & Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theories | Study.com |
First off, the climate has always changed. The biggest question is how much of the change is anthropogenic. This is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. From radiative transfer theory, we know that increasing the levels of CO2 will result in some warming. However, this effect is not large enough to be of concern. There needs to be other effects from the slight warming caused by CO2 increases. One thought is that some warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and since water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse impact than CO2 the net result will be greater warming. Of course, this will lead to more clouds which will reflect more incoming solar radiation and lead to cooling. However, the clouds also act to trap long wave radiation which can lead to warming. Needless to say, it is complicated, non-linear, hard to quantify, and difficult to numerically model with fidelity. This was the area I primarily worked in.
There is no actual proof that the increase in CO2 from man's activities is increasing the global temperature. There are short term temperature records but there has been some homogenization of the data. There are longer term data from ice cores. Interestingly, some of the data suggests the CO2 increases follow temperature increases. The "evidence" that man's activities will catastrophically increase global temperatures comes from numerical modeling. This is an area of ongoing research and I don't believe the results are usable, yet, for developing public policy. It is difficult to numerically model important processes such as clouds. There continues to be a lot of money (relatively) spent on numerical modeling worldwide for investigating anthropogenic warming. Again, we don't know the quantitive impact or the time scale. As a scientist, I cringe every time I hear somebody say the "science is settled". Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you want to be the first to volunteer? |
Quote:
What is a 'PragerU'...you might ask? PragerU (click here) What it's not... Quote:
What it is... Quote:
Any questions? :ho: |
Quote:
TWO different worlds.....ONE sees the world as it really is.....the SECOND was they are instructed to see the world. Hard to be informed in this environment...... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yep. :ohdear: |
And each knew how the other saw things. And there would be little change in their views.
|
Quote:
Thanks. Seems to me that any American should know who tells the truth, honor them for that and dispute liars. Difference of opinion is different....that is people with the same facts, and disagreeing on how to proceed. Facts and truth, in most cases, is easy to find. Lies as well. Suddenly we are besieged with lies and non facts, and no American should tolerate that. But, again, not sure what your post means. I am speaking of the truth...you are are also, I think. The point made earlier and I maintain is we are not dealing with facts very much, thus it is NOT related to how we see things. If someone lies to you and I, we should see it as a lie, and that's it. An untruth CANNOT be seen differently by different people....it is a lie. |
"There is none so blind as those who will not see".
|
Quote:
Quote:
Bucco, my friend, I have tried and tried to figure out this behavior, too. These would be interesting times if they were not so terrifyingly Orwellian. (Remember, "The Ministry of Truth" was the name of the propaganda machine in Orwell's 1984.) A few months ago, I asked a relative what he thought of children being taken from their parents at the border. I really did want to know what he thought. I was looking for discussion. His answer to me was, "I have not heard anything about it." "Change the channel," said I. That was when I learned that he believed he was getting the real news because he had given up on F and found a new channel that "told the truth." Turned out, he was watching a channel that I had to look up because I had never heard of it. :eek: I asked him if he would watch PBS news, just for that evening. His reaction had a touch of the irate. You would have thought I had asked him to drink poison. I had not tried to get him to watch CNN. I just wanted him to have a look at PBS. But he is so completely immersed in his new "news" channel that I know I have to give up. He lives across the country from us so, now, I guess weddings and funerals will be it. Another part of believing, or wanting to believe, lies has a lot to do with personality types. Then there are those who, whether consciously or subconsciously, subscribe to the philosophy that if they do not acknowledge a reality, they do not have to deal with it. I really think this thread is going to be closed soon. Probably should be. If not, I am going to try to stop beating my head against this wall. Wall? (chortle, snort) Sincerely, Disengaging Boomer, maybe PS: Forgot to say that a young person I know said now that his 401(k) is tanking he could see what his friends are talking about. Goes to show that motivations vary. |
Quote:
Some seem to shrug off substantiated, easily proven facts, and embrace false, never proven (actually totally disproven and proven false statements, most of them laced with false and incredibly mean accusations) statements. I suppose I could care less except for the serious damage done, and being done, to my country. I grew up told that truth and honesty mattered. I was told to never trust a proven liar and crook. I was told to never trust thieves. Now it appears we are told to ignore truth and honesty and embrace "shaking and jivin" as if there were no consequences for these action. These action do and WILL have serious consequences. To this specific topic, now that Syria finally agreed, the United States of America is the single only country in the world to not sign, and my bet is that most have never even read the accord, only judges based on grossly inaccurate statements made by our leaders. PS..your young person, had he listened was warned well in advance the cut was for the rich and companies who have used it to one pockets of their own ilk. Reading what is happening you deficit, and how quickly it is happening, and hearing that our leaders don't care because they are rich and will not be in any office when this collapses makes me sad. |
Boomer & Bucco.....
:bigbow:...:bigbow:...:bigbow: |
Let us know when she stops using fossil fuel cars, gives up central air, and washes her clothes in a local river.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
My assumption is that the individual does not have the expertise to analysis the problem and this is more a stunt put on at the UN. What we need is options to switch too and not talk and taxes.
|
What Is Global Warming?
Always liked and respected National Geographic and their stories on issues that matter. |
Quote:
I am glad I was me then, and I am glad I am me now. |
One need not look any further than the "yellow vest" protests going on in France, over a big jump in fuel taxes, to observe the practical difficulties (economic impact) of making significant change.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise | NASA Unlike the 2015 report, which NASA itself said was not consistent with the findings of other investigators, this 2018 report agrees that ice loss is greatly exceeding new ice formation and contributing to the observed rise in yearly ocean levels. Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Science is never "settled" and any argument using the lack of finality as a justification for inaction should be seen for what it is, denialism. Faith is settled. Science is always open to revision and exploration, testing, and retesting. That goes on in biology, in medicine, and in physics, and of course in climate science. Scientists reach a consensus when the evidence strongly points in one direction. Tobacco causes cancer, DDT is not good for the environment, clean air and clean water are better than dirty water, wash your hands and get some exercise, and the activities of humans are a significant factor in the rise of temperatures over the last 50 years. There never was a consensus or even serious consideration about global cooling. The potential impact of solar variation, and of volcanoes have been included in climate models and are not significant drivers of the rise which has been observed.
Claims that predictions have failed to be met by reality are the result of cherry-picking the most dire models. Even Dr. Hansen, one of the most vigorous and outspoken scientists in the climate science field would be proud of the accuracy of the predictions he made in 1981. |
Your two statements highlighted in RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It should extent to all sides especially anything put out by a certain "news" channel which whenever I see it is mostly talking heads giving their opinions and expounding with extremely faulty logic. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.
Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing. So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada. Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years. As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate. UNFCC, ScienceNordic, American Geophysical Union Harvard, Guardian , The US government, Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration.. Quote:
This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been. |
Quote:
Yep! |
You are wrong about the fidelity of the models - they have repeated demonstrated that they are overly sensitive and over predict temperatures by about 2x. This has been demonstrated by Christy and Spencer and Curry and other independent sources. As I already stated, the contribution from anthropogenic sources and climatic trends to the recent temperature increases can not be determined. Catastrophic temperature increases require positive feedbacks from the slight amount of warming from additional CO2 and it has not been shown that this is fully understood or can be modeled with fidelity. I will state this again, increases in CO2 alone are incapable of increasing the temperatures significantly and the feedbacks are not fully understood. You can continue to believe what you want and seek out sources to support your theories but there is ample, independent evidence to support the fact that we don't know whether there is a problem or not. Part of the problem is the recent surface temperature record and homogenization. Fortunately we also have satellite temperatures. This is the position of numerous, independent, well regarded researchers. Those of us who have actually developed models, as opposed to those who get their information from biased sources, understand this. You can prattle on about deniers and tabloid topics all you want. I only care about the science. Ultimately we may find that numerically modeling the climate is an intractable problem just like usable, deterministic weather simulations past 15 days may also prove to be an intractable problem. I prefer to have discussions with people who actually worked in this discipline so don't feel the need to respond.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.