Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

[Robert]

Peer reviewed! LOL! Come on Robert, I hope you don't really believe that. So everyone in the AGW pseudoscience echo chamber agreed. That's like saying "9 out of 10 Flat Earthers agree".

If you don't think the peer review process is useful you probably need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

 

[Robert]

I have a feeling that what you and metalman are objecting to is the use of the term "human-caused" and "human-induced" sprinkled throughout. I suspect that if those terms hadn't been there you could go along with the extra heat in the ocean driving the weather - you'd just be saying that there is no evidence that humans are to blame.

Indeed, I was actually expecting that to be the bone of contention and would have been happy to concede that it's liberal usage (no pun intended) throughout is probably a bit reachy as it even jarred with me a little when I read it.

 

[redrumloa]

If you don't think the peer review process is useful you probably need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

Considering it is a known fact that scientists who do not walk lockstep with the AGW narrative are blackballed from the industry, no tinfoil hat needed.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Considering it is a known fact that scientists who do not walk lockstep with the AGW narrative are blackballed from the industry, no tinfoil hat needed.

In the same way that creationists tend not to gain much purchase in evolutionary biology.

The problems for the creationists, and the anti-AGW people is that the facts are against them. Anyone who continues to argue against the facts is a kook and eventually gets left behind. High school physics is enough to understand what's going on.

Among the facts are these:

The sun pumps out a lot of energy.
Carbon dioxide cannot not absorb and re-radiate heat energy thus effectively trapping it and increasing the heat energy in the atmosphere.
Increasing carbon dioxide cannot not trap increasing heat.
We can track where carbon dioxide comes from (partly isotopically and also through the records of our energy industry) and we can therefore see that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
We can measure tat ocean surface temperatures are increasing. We can measure the ice mass of the various parts of the earth. We have understood thermodynamics and latent and specific heats of various materials for well over a century and the general direction of the shift to the equilibrium is just simple physics. We are really only arguing about the details of where the heat is going.

 

[Robert]

Considering it is a known fact that scientists who do not walk lockstep with the AGW narrative are blackballed from the industry, no tinfoil hat needed.

So, how do you propose we regulate science without peer review?

 

[metalman]

Perhaps you could point to exactly what part of the paper you disagree with?

"human‐caused climate change is supercharging hurricanes"

 

[metalman]

So, how do you propose we regulate science without peer review?

you don't regulate science, either a model can be demonstrated to match the real world data, or its controversial because it diverges from real world data, the controversies often last for decades, or longer

example: is light a wave or a particle?

 

[metalman]

Among the facts are these:

The sun pumps out a lot of energy.
Carbon dioxide cannot not absorb and re-radiate heat energy thus effectively trapping it and increasing the heat energy in the atmosphere.
Increasing carbon dioxide cannot not trap increasing heat.
We can track where carbon dioxide comes from (partly isotopically and also through the records of our energy industry) and we can therefore see that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
We can measure tat ocean surface temperatures are increasing. We can measure the ice mass of the various parts of the earth. We have understood thermodynamics and latent and specific heats of various materials for well over a century and the general direction of the shift to the equilibrium is just simple physics. We are really only arguing about the details of where the heat is going.

"Global Warming" is models, back fitted models, that have no predictive value

 

[Robert]

"human‐caused climate change is supercharging hurricanes"

Fair enough. I'll concede that the paper does not demonstrate that the climate change is human caused. On the other hand it does, to a degree that I'm so far satisfied with, demonstrate that climate change is an important contributor.

 

[metalman]

Fair enough. I'll concede that the paper does not demonstrate that the climate change is human caused. On the other hand it does, to a degree that I'm so far satisfied with, demonstrate that climate change is an important contributor.

The gulf coast of Texas is very sparsely settled, for example Kenedy County is the county south of Corpus Christi, 2000 sq mi, pop 450. the only cities along the coast are those on bays, the big coastal cities are Corpus Christ, Houston, Galveston, all the other cities are 20 to 40 miles inland. Houston became the major port city in Texas, after Galveston was totally destroyed in 1906 by a Hurricane, because Houston was further inland, and they dredged a ship channel. When Galveston was rebuilt, they brought in trainloads of rock, built a seawall, and raised the elevation of the city 15 ft.

Hurricanes have been occurring on the Texas coast as long as the Gulf has been here

 

[metalman]

Cute.
And, of course, you may be correct but nothing you say hereafter demonstrates that.

"Hurricane Harvey made landfall north of Corpus Christi, looped north east very slowly, then moved east and back over the gulf where it recharged and gained strength again, because two high-pressure atmospheric masses blocked it from moving north. Then moving at only 3mph, Harvey crept east along the coast until it stalled over Houston, where the Hurricane was both recharging on the gulf side and dumping the water on the land side over Houston, and the storm did not weaken for a unusually long time."

So, as far as I can tell, the paper agrees with the general gist of this. Here what it says regarding the above (Corpus Christi & Rockport are pretty close to one another):

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

"Global Warming" is models, back fitted models, that have no predictive value

Global Warming is a measurable (measured) phenomenon. Models of global warming are models. Models that don't "back fit" existing data are not considered sufficiently good and so the models have to be adjusted to fit the data - else they don't get to be models. Famous models that don't "back fit" are things like "God made everything by speaking it into existence 8000 years ago". Has no predictive value, but worse, has no postdictive value. If your model can be run to match the past, it has a much better chance of predicting the future - not a guarantee, but one that doesn't "back fit" has almost no chance. And a model that doesn't exist at all (the model that the anti-global warming crowd unanimously prefer) has no hope of being right - or wrong. That's why they like it. The anti-global warming crowd have NO model that shows their result just as the flat earthers have NO map that works - and they like it that way.

Before the models are checked against the historical record (or "back fit" as you like to say) they start from accepted physical principles. The fundamental processes are known, the land absorbs sunlight and heats up, warm air rises, cold air falls, the Coriolis effect shapes those convective patterns (and similar processes work in the oceans). Albedo reflects sunlight, atmospheric particulates can reflect sunlight or absorb it. Lots of moving parts makes the details tricky requiring further measurement, but a lot of that measurement can't actually be reasonably and affordably done so some of it has to be assumed. the models with the better assumptions work better. That's normal physics.

Some models are better than others, obviously, and it's been known for over a hundred years that carbon dioxide traps heat and we now have a CO2 load bigger than anything in the last half million years and it isn't natural. Here is a graph from NASA, who are admittedly lying about space existing and the earth being a globe but lets put that aside for a minute.

And you disagree with the mountains of science because, what? You want a bigger or less efficient truck? You want to heat your home in summer? You don't want to find alternative energy sources?

 

[metalman]

Global Warming is a measurable (measured) phenomenon. Models of global warming are models. Models that don't "back fit" existing data are not considered sufficiently good and so the models have to be adjusted to fit the data - else they don't get to be models. Famous models that don't "back fit" are things like "God made everything by speaking it into existence 8000 years ago". Has no predictive value, but worse, has no postdictive value. If your model can be run to match the past, it has a much better chance of predicting the future - not a guarantee, but one that doesn't "back fit" has almost no chance. And a model that doesn't exist at all (the model that the anti-global warming crowd unanimously prefer) has no hope of being right - or wrong. That's why they like it. The anti-global warming crowd have NO model that shows their result just as the flat earthers have NO map that works - and they like it that way.

Some models are better than others, obviously, and it's been known for over a hundred years that carbon dioxide traps heat and we now have a CO2 load bigger than anything in the last half million years and it isn't natural. Here is a graph from NASA, who are admittedly lying about space existing and the earth being a globe but lets put that aside for a minute.

We are coming out of a glacial period, we are now in the Holocene, there is a natural warming cycle occurring, but it is currently not as warm as the Medieval Warm period or the Roman Warm period,

So why not only use the correct model and discard the other 100 models the IPCC tracks? ( they are not the same 101 models being tracked every year, models are constantly being dropped and "refined" because they are so inaccurate)

The models are all curve fitted to historical data, "Hindcasting". Most of the worlds data sets only start in the 1870's, In Europe in the 1800's, any thing before that is a proxy estimated temperature. Accurate GISS satellite measurements only start in the 1980's

The data set is too short and the understanding of climate variables, and feedback loops is too limited for any predictive use, they are nothing but academic exercises that may have some predictive value after much refinement in the distant future.

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a very complex feed back loop.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic, not linear, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the highest concentrations of CO2 is at ground level, increased CO2 levels are beneficial to plant growth. Plants evolved at 6000 ppm, trees stop growing below 200 ppm and all C3 plants die below 140 ppm. One of the causes of the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions is because CO2 level dropped too low ( 180 ppm ) for C3 plant growth

In geological history, CO2 below 400 ppm is at the bottom of its historical range, CO2 has ranged from a low of 180 ppm to 7000 ppm in earth's history

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The models are all curve fitted to historical data, "Hindcasting".

Hind casting is not curve fitting.

Most of the worlds data sets only start in the 1870's, In Europe in the 1800's, any thing before that is a proxy estimated temperature. Accurate GISS satellite measurements only start in the 1980's

Are you trying to make excuses for bad fits? Or are you trying to complain that even if they do fit then it doesn't count?

The data set is too short and the understanding of climate variables, and feedback loops is too limited for any predictive use, they are nothing but academic exercises that may have some predictive value after much refinement in the distant future.

So if they predict something now it isn't predictive power because in your opinion it can't be. OK. Quite a lot of special pleading there though.

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a very complex feed back loop.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic, not linear, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the highest concentrations of CO2 is at ground level, increased CO2 levels are beneficial to plant growth.

And increasing sea levels are beneficial to fish. But you are acknowledging that CO2 is warming. And increased warming puts more water vapour into the air, right? Which leads to more warming. And do we want that?

Plants evolved at 6000 ppm, trees stop growing below 200 ppm and all plants die below 140 ppm.

Pretty irrelevant collection of numbers to the current debate. We are not even close to 200ppm. We are over 400ppm for the first time in half a million years. And we got there very quickly and we are still pumping the stuff out.

In geological history, CO2 below 400 ppm is at the bottom of its historical range,

In human history it is the top of the range and it came on very suddenly in the last century and a bit.

 

[redrumloa]

When are the aliens coming to wipe us out? None of the tinfoil hat AGW promoters' predictions have come true. AGW believers are in the same camp as Flat Earthers.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

When are the aliens coming to wipe us out? None of the tinfoil hat AGW promoters'" predictions have come true. AGW believers are in the same camp as Flat Earthers.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

"scientists claim"
"This highly speculative scenario"
"a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter"
"The extraterrestrials may "
"They might "
"They could even "
"While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable."

You seem to be putting a lot of stock in a blue sky what-if session.

 

[Robert]

Slightly off topic but related (and from a peer reviewed paper so probably just a pack of lies intended to annoy our resident science-phobics):
It seems someone is producing a banned ozone-depleting chemical again
Decline of CFC-11 has slowed in recent years, pointing to a renewed source.

The latest satellite measurements of ozone from May 14 show the "hole" that still exists over the South Pole.
The Montreal Protocol—a 1987 international agreement to end production of ozone-destroying chemicals like freon—seems miraculous compared to the long struggle to achieve meaningful action on climate change. Even more astonishing is that the agreement has worked. Those chemicals (known as CFCs) take a long time to flush out of the atmosphere, but monitoring has shown that the flushing is proceeding largely according to plan.

That keeps the hole in the ozone layer on track to shrink over the coming decades. However, a new study shows that someone has been cheating in the last few years.

A group of researchers led by Stephen Montzka of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had been tracking the progress of CFCs and noticed something off with CFC-11. This chemical has been used as a refrigerant, solvent, and propellant for aerosol spray cans, as well as in the production of styrofoam. As with the other CFCs, nations agreed to end production of CFC-11 entirely. While there may still be some older machines leaking CFC-11, these sources should gradually disappear over time, allowing the decline of its atmospheric concentration to accelerate.

 

[redrumloa]

Decline of CFC-11 has slowed in recent years, pointing to a renewed source

CFC-11 is R-11 refrigerant. I smell a rat with this article. Only in the beginning of my career back in the mid-90s did I encounter R-12 based A/C systems. As a matter of fact, what came after that was R-134a, which is also now being phased out. R-12 systems were very old at that point. Notice I mentioned R-12, I have never encountered an R-11 based A/C. I have a really hard time believing they exist anywhere out there on a large scale. Former Soviet block country? Don't see it. Cuba? Maybe, but it is a small island.

 

[Robert]

CFC-11 is R-11 refrigerant. I smell a rat with this article.

Well, of course you do; it's based upon a scientific paper which has been peer reviewed and you've made your feelings on that quite clear.

 

[redrumloa]

Well, of course you do; it's based upon a scientific paper which has been peer reviewed and you've made your feelings on that quite clear.

While you seem to be sort-of joking, who or what country do you suggest dug up the corpse of R-11 to mass produce?