Remember me
▼ Content

But the Climate is Always Changing!



Page 3 of 5<12345>
31-01-2016 23:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Growing corals turn water more acidic without suffering damage

Listen to an environmentalist talking about this study among other things. He mentions the study at 22:29 in the video:

Ocean Acidification - The Facts - Dr Patrick Moore



I've just read the supposed "peer-reviewed published paper" Moore claims this presentation at the Heartland/CFACT *cough* 'conference' in Paris in Dec 2015 was based on. (about 30 people turned up to the Hotel California, half of whom were the speakers
")

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-surgey/climate-deniers-paris-eve_b_8739236.html

What a joke! It wasn't a paper, it wasn't 'peer reviewed', and it wasn't published in any science Journal. It was a propaganda piece published by Frontier Centre for Public Policy- where he is the 'director'. It's a right-wing libertarian 'think tank' funded by industry. (you'll find it on their website)

He copied dodgy graphics from Nasif Nahle's blog - a crackpot sky dragon slayer whose field is 'herbal medicine'. He also copied a dodgy graph from the JoNova conspiracy blog. He also copied another dodgy unpublished graph from the Cato Institute, another industry funded libertarian 'think-tank'.

Seriously. And he calls this a 'peer-reviewed published paper"? LOL!!!!!

I didn't bother to waste my time fact-checking it any further as that was more than enough to establish his dishonesty and lack of academic integrity.

This sort of dishonest industry funded propaganda is aimed at ideologically motivated scientifically illiterate 'useful idiots' who will spread it around the internet for them.



Edited on 31-01-2016 23:51
01-02-2016 01:00
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Hank Samler wrote:
In common usage you are correct, but in scientific usage (specifically climatology or oceanography) it means a reduction of pH

... hail, Nero!


Okay. Why is this? Why is it aloud to be used backwards - is it something like meters and yards?

Thanks, Hank


It is like the use of the word theory. In every-day usage it is like an idea often a vague one. So no big deal.

However in science it is a hypothesis but one that has been backed by observational or mathematical evidence and has no significant flaws that have been yet found. I.e. it is a pretty big deal.

The reasons for these types of differences is that science defines the precise meaning of words but they sometimes leak out into common usage but the full definition does not leak with it.
01-02-2016 01:28
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):
Shifts in coral reef biogeochemistry and resulting acidification linked to offshore productivity

From Scripps Institution of Oceanography:
Shifts in coral reef biogeochemistry and resulting acidification linked to offshore productivity

Ceist, you have lost it. Take a break!
01-02-2016 03:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):
Shifts in coral reef biogeochemistry and resulting acidification linked to offshore productivity

From Scripps Institution of Oceanography:
Shifts in coral reef biogeochemistry and resulting acidification linked to offshore productivity

Ceist, you have lost it. Take a break!

John, you never had it. Take a break from mindlessly parroting junk-science blogs.

You don't like being exposed as a dishonest scientifically illiterate turkey?

Too bad.
That's what you get for posting crap and making false claims that are easily checked.

As for the paper you probably found being misrepresented on some junk-science blog - all the researchers were doing is investigating short term regional variability due to short term local factors like exacerbated "lateral advection of offshore blooms as well as nutrient upwelling" against the long term underlying trend. It doesn't support science denier claims at all.

By the way, you seem blissfully unaware that you linked to the same paper twice


Which makes it damned obvious that you hadn't even read it. Pretty stupid thing to do.

From the paper:

"Observations since 1983 at BATS and Hydrostation S (another long-term time series near Bermuda) reveal a rise in surface seawater nDIC by ∼1.20 ± 0.09 μmol kg−1⋅y−1 (2), driven by the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 (Fig. 1). Consequently, surface seawater offshore Bermuda has become less alkaline, with temperature- and salinity-normalized pH and Ωaragonite dropping by −0.05 and −0.25 units, respectively, since 1983"


Fig. 1.
Time series of seawater nTA, nDIC, pH, and Ωaragonite observed at BATS and Hydrostation S from 1983 to 2014. {A} Long-term observations of nTA (blue) and nDIC (orange) reveal relatively stable nTA over time, but increasing nDIC due to uptake of anthropogenic CO2. Change over time in pH {B} and Ω aragonite {C} as driven by time-dependent changes in nTA (blue area) and nDIC (orange area). The thick black line represents total change in both pH and Ωaragonite, with changes relative to initial observations.


From the conclusions:

"Given the experimental evidence linking increased heterotrophy to higher calcification rates in corals (20⇓⇓⇓–24) and the statistical significance of our cross-correlation analysis, we hypothesize that lateral advection of offshore blooms as well as nutrient upwelling, both of which were exacerbated during the winters of 2010 and 2011, possibly due to the NAO state, provided external pulses of nutrition to the reef. These pulses of nutrition enabled short-term shifts in reef NEC and NEP toward increasing calcification and heterotrophy, respectively, and it was these biogeochemical shifts that ultimately caused the observed changes in seawater pH and Ωaragonite"

So would you like to tell us what point you were trying to make by posting a link to that paper? Twice? Please quote from the paper.



Edited on 01-02-2016 03:51
01-02-2016 03:54
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Buildreps wrote:
If the CO2 conmen here would have done their own research, they would see that CO2 is a response to the δD (‰). δD is still the most reliable proxy for temperature.


δD is a potential temperature proxy (and not necessarily the best even then) but only under limited circumstances.
01-02-2016 05:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
DRKTS wrote:In common usage you are correct, but in scientific usage (specifically climatology or oceanography) it means a reduction of pH

I know the science, you do not. In science, pH of 7.0 is neutral. In science, moving towards 7.0 is moving to neutral or is "neutralizing."

You, on the other hand, adhere to your WACKY religious dogma which is steeped in fear-mongering and which you have been duped into believing is science. You don't dare question when your clergy tells you to regurgitate that a base pH has somehow "acidified." It must suck to be a member of your church. I hope they at least offer a decent dental plan.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 05:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
DRKTS wrote:You are playing semantics while the planet burns ... hail, Nero!

I believe I mentioned that your WACKY religious dogma is steeped in fear-mongering.

The planet is not burning.

The planet is not at risk of any Global Warming calamity.

The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).

...but we should panic, you say?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 05:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Hank Samler wrote:
In common usage you are correct, but in scientific usage (specifically climatology or oceanography) it means a reduction of pH

... hail, Nero!


Okay. Why is this? Why is it aloud to be used backwards - is it something like meters and yards?

Thanks, Hank

Hank, it is not permitted. The Church of Global Warming needs to inappropriately use the words "acidifying" and "acidification" in order to frighten people because otherwise no one would even bother listening to their scientifically illiterate ramblings of violations of physics. .. I mean of the miraculous "forcings" and "feedbacks" that will bring about the impending Global Warming rapture.

Science says that anything moving towards pH of 7.0 is neutralizing. If you hear/read the words "ocean acidification" then you immediately know you're dealing with a scientifically illiterate moron who is preaching WACKY religious dogma.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 10:08
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist, I suggest you take a break, because you don't gain any sympathy for your side of the debate, when you are this hostile. You loose sympathy.

Other sides here are wrong too about details, but they are right, the climate hysteria has a lot to do with scientific illiteracy.

I see so very few online here, that I don't bother answering your questions and insults.

Ceist wrote:
You don't like being exposed as a dishonest scientifically illiterate turkey?

If you don't wanna take a break, then please continue the same way! You don't do much harm with so few visitors. I may be listening.

01-02-2016 11:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Ceist, I suggest you take a break, because you don't gain any sympathy for your side of the debate, when you are this hostile. You loose sympathy.

Other sides here are wrong too about details, but they are right, the climate hysteria has a lot to do with scientific illiteracy.

I see so very few online here, that I don't bother answering your questions and insults.

Ceist wrote:
You don't like being exposed as a dishonest scientifically illiterate turkey?

If you don't wanna take a break, then please continue the same way! You don't do much harm with so few visitors. I may be listening.



Oh please, spare me the manipulative fake 'concern' and your silly Gene Wildman pictures.


Your first post on this forum was hostilely accusing a well respected scientist Prof Richard Alley of lying. While proving you had no clue what you are talking about.

What did you expect? If you had asked questions to help clarify what you didn't understand, you would have got a different more respectful response from me.

Your second post was a cheap 'hostile' shot at scientists in general and at Dr David Archer and his lecture series from University of Chicago, that you watched all of 49 seconds of before trashing them.

Then you post science mis-information in the form of an academically dishonest propaganda video from Heartland/CFACT. What did you expect? That I would swallow it mindlessly without question like you did and praise you for posting it?

Then you posted a link to a paper (twice
) that you obviously hadn't even read.

Why would you think I should show respect for wilfully ignorant science mis-informers and scientist bashers like you have shown yourself to be?

What on earth makes you think that I should have to put on kid gloves to protect your self-inflated ego and your fragile feelings with a softly softly approach when you were the one making a 'hostile' accusations in the first place? Get over yourself.


You want me to 'take a break' so you can accuse more scientists of lying and post more industry funded academically dishonest pseudoscience and not have someone challenge you? Classic.


Oh, and I certainly have no desire for your 'sympathy' or the 'sympathy' of wilfully ignorant scientist bashers and science mis-informers. Are you freakin' kidding me?


My "side of the debate" is science. Yours is clearly not.

The science is out there- in hundreds of thousands of published research papers in science Journals, from the websites of science institutions, university websites, textbooks, online lectures from reputable science organisations etc. Or go to University and put years of time and effort in as scientists have had to do.

If you want to inform yourself, the information is not that difficult to find, but it does take time and effort...and a desire to learn and understand the science and all the facts as much as possible. Not reading conspiracy blogs and tabloid press pieces, and unquestioningly accepting pseudoscience and propaganda to confirm a political/religious/ideological bias.

Perhaps next time try asking questions first or learning about the science first, instead of making 'hostile' accusations when you don't know what you are talking about, and you'll get a more respectful response.

Oh, and welcome to the mental health facility called 'debate-climate.com'. A place for delusional scientifically illiterate science deniers. Since it has become overrun by nutters, no science or intelligence is allowed to be posted or discussed without continual hostile attacks by the delusional inmates. Rational people don't tend to stay long. I visit here mostly to observe the bizarre antics of delusional science deniers.
If I want an intelligent well informed conversation about science, I go elsewhere.



Edited on 01-02-2016 12:07
01-02-2016 12:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Ceist wrote:
John Niclasen wrote:
Ceist, I suggest you take a break, because you don't gain any sympathy for your side of the debate, when you are this hostile. You loose sympathy.

Other sides here are wrong too about details, but they are right, the climate hysteria has a lot to do with scientific illiteracy.

I see so very few online here, that I don't bother answering your questions and insults.

Ceist wrote:
You don't like being exposed as a dishonest scientifically illiterate turkey?

If you don't wanna take a break, then please continue the same way! You don't do much harm with so few visitors. I may be listening.



Oh please, spare me the manipulative fake 'concern' and your silly Gene Wildman pictures.


Your first post on this forum was hostilely accusing a well respected scientist Prof Richard Alley of lying. While proving you had no clue what you are talking about.

What did you expect? If you had asked questions to help clarify what you didn't understand, you would have got a different more respectful response from me.

Your second post was a cheap 'hostile' shot at scientists in general and at Dr David Archer and his lecture series from University of Chicago, that you watched all of 49 seconds of before trashing them.

Then you post science mis-information in the form of an academically dishonest propaganda video from Heartland/CFACT. What did you expect? That I would swallow it mindlessly without question like you did and praise you for posting it?

Then you posted a link to a paper (twice
) that you obviously hadn't even read.

Why would you think I should show respect for wilfully ignorant science mis-informers and scientist bashers like you have shown yourself to be?

What on earth makes you think that I should have to put on kid gloves to protect your self-inflated ego and your fragile feelings with a softly softly approach when you were the one making a 'hostile' accusations in the first place? Get over yourself.


You want me to 'take a break' so you can accuse more scientists of lying and post more industry funded academically dishonest pseudoscience and not have someone challenge you? Classic.


Oh, and I certainly have no desire for your 'sympathy' or the 'sympathy' of wilfully ignorant scientist bashers and science mis-informers. Are you freakin' kidding me?


My "side of the debate" is science. Yours is clearly not.

The science is out there- in hundreds of thousands of published research papers in science Journals, from the websites of science institutions, university websites, textbooks, online lectures from reputable science organisations etc. Or go to University and put years of time and effort in as scientists have had to do.

If you want to inform yourself, the information is not that difficult to find, but it does take time and effort...and a desire to learn and understand the science and all the facts as much as possible. Not reading conspiracy blogs and tabloid press pieces, and unquestioningly accepting pseudoscience and propaganda to confirm a political/religious/ideological bias.

Perhaps next time try asking questions first or learning about the science first, instead of making 'hostile' accusations when you don't know what you are talking about, and you'll get a more respectful response.

Oh, and welcome to the mental health facility called 'debate-climate.com'. A place for delusional scientifically illiterate science deniers. Since it has become overrun by nutters, no science or intelligence is allowed to be posted or discussed without continual hostile attacks by the delusional inmates. Rational people don't tend to stay long. I visit here mostly to observe the bizarre antics of delusional science deniers.
If I want an intelligent well informed conversation about science, I go elsewhere.


You have no clue what science is. You also have no clue of where you are or even what site you are on.

The rest of your comment was useless vitriol and not worth addressing even at this level.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 13:01
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
DRKTS wrote:

It is like the use of the word theory. In every-day usage it is like an idea often a vague one. So no big deal.


Okay. Thanks. Main thing is that the definitions are agreed on, right?
Unfortunately, there is no dogma-keeper in science.
Only consensus - which is not always the easiest thing to come by. ..


IBdaMann wrote:
The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).


Funny, the last years have shown temperature increases. Or do you have stats proving that the world has been cooling the past few years?

Yes, I'm talking about THE PAST. I am aware of hopes that cooling Minimums are right around the corner. They have been JUST around the corner for thirty years or so now..
01-02-2016 13:10
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

The planet is not burning.

The planet is not at risk of any Global Warming calamity.

The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).

...but we should panic, you say?


.


"The planet is not burning" - The US Forest Service seems to think differently

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/8-24-12_wildfiresReport_Figure1_1050_869_s_c1_c_c.jpg

and ....

http://www.globalfiredata.org/_plots/updates/fire_season_progression.png

and there are many more examples.

"The planet is not at risk of any Global Warming calamity" do you consider a cost of $1.2T and between 150,000 and 400,000 additional deaths annually due to the effects of AGW not a calamity? Please define "calamity" then.

"The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all)" Yet we have had the two warmest years on record in a row, 10 of the last 12 months have set all-time record highs. Each of the last 6 decades have been warmer than the previous one. Its been 34 years since we had a month that had a global temperature below the 20th century average. This is an interesting new definition of the word "cooling"

In the last 12 months we have set over 132,000 new record high temperatures but only 42,000 record lows. A strange sort of cooling!

P.S. We are not in solar minimum and wont be for another 2-3 years at the soonest. Besides the solar cycle has no effect on climate (its a cycle, not a trend). The maximum effect of solar maximum to solar minimum in terms of global climate is about 0.02C +/- 0.02, so varies between no effect at all to negligible.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNMTSrz8U8

Please point out where I ever used the word "panic"
01-02-2016 13:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Hank Samler wrote:Yes, I'm talking about THE PAST. I am aware of hopes that cooling Minimums are right around the corner. They have been JUST around the corner for thirty years or so now..
Hi Hank,

Well there are people who have been expecting Jesus to come again for the last 2000 years. Did you notice jesus has finally come again on another thread in this very forum!


But seriously, it seems it wouldn't make that much difference even if the sun went into a Grand Minimum. Especially with atmospheric GHG's at the current levels.

Feulner, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2010). On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(5).

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

.....

Jones, G. S., Lockwood, M., & Stott, P. A. (2012). What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D5).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017013/full

.....

Ineson, S., Maycock, A. C., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Dunstone, N. J., Harder, J. W., ... & Wood, R. A. (2015). Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature communications, 6.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150624&spMailingID=48949689&spUserID=ODkwMTM2NjQyNgS2&spJobID=703165793&spReportId=NzAzMTY1NzkzS0

.....

Maycock, A. C., Ineson, S., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Anstey, J. A., Lockwood, M., ... & Osprey, S. M. (2015). Possible impacts of a future Grand Solar Minimum on climate: stratospheric and global circulation changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(18), 9043-9058.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full



Edited on 01-02-2016 13:51
01-02-2016 13:21
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Hank Samler wrote:

Okay. Thanks. Main thing is that the definitions are agreed on, right?
Unfortunately, there is no dogma-keeper in science.
Only consensus - which is not always the easiest thing to come by. ..


Usually in a true scientific discussion you define the terms you are using and reference previous use of the term in that context.

The problem is that scientists love to coin new terms for old problems. Thus for example in solar physics we have "erupting filament", "erupting prominence", and "disparition brusque". They are all the same thing.

I have been guilty of trying to coin useless and superfluous terms too!


Eventually the community adopts the most appropriate term and the others are forgotten.
01-02-2016 13:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Ceist wrote: My "side of the debate" is science. Yours is clearly not.

Look closely. You severely misspelled "ad hominem" as "science."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 13:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:

Okay. Thanks. Main thing is that the definitions are agreed on, right?
Unfortunately, there is no dogma-keeper in science.
Only consensus - which is not always the easiest thing to come by. ..


Usually in a true scientific discussion you define the terms you are using and reference previous use of the term in that context.

The problem is that scientists love to coin new terms for old problems. Thus for example in solar physics we have "erupting filament", "erupting prominence", and "disparition brusque". They are all the same thing.

I have been guilty of trying to coin useless and superfluous terms too!


Eventually the community adopts the most appropriate term and the others are forgotten.


"disparition brusque"? Sounds almost like a rude ghost.

And I imagine "erupting prominence" could have got a few jokes around the observatories and conferences.


As a solar physicist, do you have an opinion on whether or not a grand minimum is likely in the next few decades?



Edited on 01-02-2016 13:35
01-02-2016 13:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Hank Samler wrote:Only consensus - which is not always the easiest thing to come by. ..

Science has nothing to do with either consensus, subjective opinion or democratic vote.

Hank Samler wrote: Funny, the last years have shown temperature increases.

No they haven't. Only the most gullible among us believe that we can accurately measure the earth's "average global temperature". There isn't even a commonly accepted understanding of what would need to be measured to assess the "average global temperature."

Hank Samler wrote: Or do you have stats proving that the world has been cooling the past few years?

Go back and read my posts instead of skipping over the parts that answer your questions.

Hank Samler wrote: Yes, I'm talking about THE PAST. I am aware of hopes that cooling Minimums are right around the corner. They have been JUST around the corner for thirty years or so now..

No, the solar minimum has begun. I'm not responsible for your lack of awareness.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 13:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
DRKTS wrote: The problem is that scientists love to coin new terms for old problems.

It's not an issue in science where all models are falsifiable and formally expressed. Natural language is often used for convenience in explanations/teaching but all science models are natively expressed in math. There's never any ambiguity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 14:47
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Go back and read my posts instead of skipping over the parts that answer your questions.

Sorry, I went through the whole thread and couldn't find your demonstration of the falling global temperatures the past years. Could you help me out there?


IBdaMann wrote:
There isn't even a commonly accepted understanding ...

I thought you wrote that science has nothing to do with a common understanding, i.e. (my words) concensus. In any conversation (scientific or not), it's best to try looking for common ground before nit-picking, don't you think?

By the way, don't any of you sleep? I mean, I'm on the European clock..
01-02-2016 15:08
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Hank Samler wrote:By the way, don't any of you sleep? I mean, I'm on the European clock..


Bedtime in Oz now. G'night.




Edited on 01-02-2016 15:08
01-02-2016 15:34
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Ceist wrote:

As a solar physicist, do you have an opinion on whether or not a grand minimum is likely in the next few decades?


I think the chances of a grand minimum in the next few decades is unlikely and even if it did occur that its effect on our climate would be minimal.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNMTSrz8U8 - the relevant part is between about 03:00 and 05:00 into the video

The thing is that nobody can forecast what solar activity is going to do even a few years in advance let alone several decades. Of 104 published papers forecasting solar cycle 24 (the current cycle), none of them got both the amplitude and timing correct. Not one. Most of them got both badly wrong.

The Maunder Minimum (if it existed at all - not very much data taken back then) started after a relatively high cycle. Same for the Daulton Minimum. We have had several examples of long-term trends over the last few 100 years and none of them have resulted in another Maunder Minimum.

There were some studies of other solar like stars (E.g., Baliunas et al.) that concluded that maunder minima happen on them too but it seems now to have been an error in the identification of the stars spectral type and the analysis.
01-02-2016 16:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
DRKTS wrote:
Ceist wrote:

As a solar physicist, do you have an opinion on whether or not a grand minimum is likely in the next few decades?


I think the chances of a grand minimum in the next few decades is unlikely and even if it did occur that its effect on our climate would be minimal.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNMTSrz8U8 - the relevant part is between about 03:00 and 05:00 into the video

The thing is that nobody can forecast what solar activity is going to do even a few years in advance let alone several decades. Of 104 published papers forecasting solar cycle 24 (the current cycle), none of them got both the amplitude and timing correct. Not one. Most of them got both badly wrong.

The Maunder Minimum (if it existed at all - not very much data taken back then) started after a relatively high cycle. Same for the Daulton Minimum. We have had several examples of long-term trends over the last few 100 years and none of them have resulted in another Maunder Minimum.

There were some studies of other solar like stars (E.g., Baliunas et al.) that concluded that maunder minima happen on them too but it seems now to have been an error in the identification of the stars spectral type and the analysis.

Thanks for the video - you've just gained another subscriber.

My own PhD was also in plasma physics, though concerned with magnetohydrodynamic equilibria in confinement devices rather than natural phenomena. However, my PhD supervisor's specialism was astrophysical plasmas and magnetic reconnection. I don't work in the field any longer, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you've crossed paths with my supervisor at some time during your professional career!
01-02-2016 17:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
People might be surprised all these marine life live in salt water. Uh yeah. Surprise surprise. How acidic or basic the ocean is has no effect on marine life.
01-02-2016 18:53
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
... all these marine life live in salt water.


Hmmm.
Point one: If a fresh water species is put into salt water, what happens?
(analog: if a base is put in an acid or vice versa)

The Problem here is not the environment itself, but the rapid change in the environment. Evolutionary processes are working slower than human processes..

Point two: the change in PH changes also the ability to build skeletons. And coral reefs.

Do you still say no problem?
True: No worries, mate!-)
01-02-2016 19:17
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for the video - you've just gained another subscriber.

My own PhD was also in plasma physics, though concerned with magnetohydrodynamic equilibria in confinement devices rather than natural phenomena. However, my PhD supervisor's specialism was astrophysical plasmas and magnetic reconnection. I don't work in the field any longer, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you've crossed paths with my supervisor at some time during your professional career!


Supervisor's name?

My thesis supervisor was Professor Len Culhane (FRS) at Mullard Space Science Lab (UCL). I started out in high-energy astrophysics but quickly switched to solar physics. I launched a couple of rockets from Woomera (Skylarks) in the 70's and was for a short time an astronaut candidate (Spacelab II). Then went to work for Loren Acton (who eventually did become an astronaut) in California on NASA's SolarMax satellite's XRP instrument.
01-02-2016 19:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
DRKTS wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for the video - you've just gained another subscriber.

My own PhD was also in plasma physics, though concerned with magnetohydrodynamic equilibria in confinement devices rather than natural phenomena. However, my PhD supervisor's specialism was astrophysical plasmas and magnetic reconnection. I don't work in the field any longer, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you've crossed paths with my supervisor at some time during your professional career!


Supervisor's name?

My thesis supervisor was Professor Len Culhane (FRS) at Mullard Space Science Lab (UCL). I started out in high-energy astrophysics but quickly switched to solar physics. I launched a couple of rockets from Woomera (Skylarks) in the 70's and was for a short time an astronaut candidate (Spacelab II). Then went to work for Loren Acton (who eventually did become an astronaut) in California on NASA's SolarMax satellite's XRP instrument.

I PMed you.
01-02-2016 22:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

The planet is not burning.

The planet is not at risk of any Global Warming calamity.

The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).

...but we should panic, you say?


.


"The planet is not burning" - The US Forest Service seems to think differently

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/8-24-12_wildfiresReport_Figure1_1050_869_s_c1_c_c.jpg

and ....

http://www.globalfiredata.org/_plots/updates/fire_season_progression.png

and there are many more examples.

"The planet is not at risk of any Global Warming calamity" do you consider a cost of $1.2T and between 150,000 and 400,000 additional deaths annually due to the effects of AGW not a calamity? Please define "calamity" then.

"The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all)" Yet we have had the two warmest years on record in a row, 10 of the last 12 months have set all-time record highs. Each of the last 6 decades have been warmer than the previous one. Its been 34 years since we had a month that had a global temperature below the 20th century average. This is an interesting new definition of the word "cooling"

In the last 12 months we have set over 132,000 new record high temperatures but only 42,000 record lows. A strange sort of cooling!

P.S. We are not in solar minimum and wont be for another 2-3 years at the soonest. Besides the solar cycle has no effect on climate (its a cycle, not a trend). The maximum effect of solar maximum to solar minimum in terms of global climate is about 0.02C +/- 0.02, so varies between no effect at all to negligible.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNMTSrz8U8

Please point out where I ever used the word "panic"

You didn't use the actual word, but you specified the sort of fear mongering to try to induce people to "panic" right here in your post.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 02:48
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:

You didn't use the actual word, but you specified the sort of fear mongering to try to induce people to "panic" right here in your post.


Then why lie and say I did?

I am stating facts, that can be fact checked by anyone. All you have done is made confident-sounding assertions without an ounce of evidence to support them.
02-02-2016 03:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You didn't use the actual word, but you specified the sort of fear mongering to try to induce people to "panic" right here in your post.


Then why lie and say I did?

I am stating facts, that can be fact checked by anyone. All you have done is made confident-sounding assertions without an ounce of evidence to support them.


I would quote your stupid post again, but it's already there for people to see it. Calling me a liar doesn't make it go away.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 09:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
Ceist wrote:

As a solar physicist, do you have an opinion on whether or not a grand minimum is likely in the next few decades?


I think the chances of a grand minimum in the next few decades is unlikely and even if it did occur that its effect on our climate would be minimal.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNMTSrz8U8 - the relevant part is between about 03:00 and 05:00 into the video

The thing is that nobody can forecast what solar activity is going to do even a few years in advance let alone several decades. Of 104 published papers forecasting solar cycle 24 (the current cycle), none of them got both the amplitude and timing correct. Not one. Most of them got both badly wrong.

The Maunder Minimum (if it existed at all - not very much data taken back then) started after a relatively high cycle. Same for the Daulton Minimum. We have had several examples of long-term trends over the last few 100 years and none of them have resulted in another Maunder Minimum.

There were some studies of other solar like stars (E.g., Baliunas et al.) that concluded that maunder minima happen on them too but it seems now to have been an error in the identification of the stars spectral type and the analysis.

Thanks. Interesting info about forecasting Solar cycle 24.

If you're referring to Sallie Baliunas (who co-authored some very poor papers with Willie Soon), I can't say I'm surprised there were errors.

Do you remember the Soon and Baliunas saga in 2003 about their paper in the journal "Climate Research"?



Edited on 02-02-2016 09:35
02-02-2016 13:38
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Ceist wrote:
Thanks. Interesting info about forecasting Solar cycle 24.

If you're referring to Sallie Baliunas (who co-authored some very poor papers with Willie Soon), I can't say I'm surprised there were errors.

Do you remember the Soon and Baliunas saga in 2003 about their paper in the journal "Climate Research"?


Yes, she was trading on her papers on that subject to sound authoritative about the Sun but she never turned up to a AAS Solar Physics Division meeting, or gave a paper, or a poster nor at the AGU meetings either.

I understand she is an ideologue - very conservative, in fact got her start in the Hoover Institute. That might explain her positions on global warming more than the science.
02-02-2016 14:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Hank Samler wrote: Sorry, I went through the whole thread and couldn't find your demonstration of the falling global temperatures the past years. Could you help me out there?

Absolutely. No one can accurately measure the earth's "average global temperature" (whatever that is). It is absurd for you or anyone else to claim that any year was the "hottest" year or to imply that you or anyone else somehow know the earth's "average global temperature" (whatever that is).

You can, however, conclude temperatures are decreasing when the energy stream decreases. Less energy translates to lower temperature. I recommend reviewing thermodynamics for an idea of how that works. Otherwise you will not find "lower" absolute temperature measurements for the earth's "average global temperature" (whatever that is) because it cannot be accurately computed (see above).

The sun's magnetic field is weakening as its output decreases. Thermodynamics tells us that temperatures must be decreasing, yes?


IBdaMann wrote: I thought you wrote that science has nothing to do with a common understanding, i.e. (my words) concensus.

I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what you are saying that I am saying but it looks like you agree with me, albeit while trying desperately to appear as though you disagree with me.

If you and I were to ask the first 100 people off the street what each believes is to be included in the "average global temperature" we would get 100 different answers. There is no common understanding of this concept. I have created threads titled "What comprises the Average Global Temperature?" in which multiple different warmizombies offer their wildly differing ideas and then attempt to repeatedly modify them each, on the fly, multiple times as they discover how difficult/impossible it would be to calculate.

Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings all want to believe that their religion provides them divine knowledge so they can feel "smart." They want to feel as though they have shed their scientific illiteracy without having to actually do any studying or research (i.e. work). They want to play "pretend scientist" and believe they know things like the "average global temperature" (whatever that is).

Once one is convinced of having said divine knowledge and is riding that "high", it is a short additional step to believe those who announce "It was the hottest year Ev-ah!" while heavily doubting those who claim "temperatures are decreasing as a result of decreased solar output."

Hank Samler wrote: In any conversation (scientific or not), it's best to try looking for common ground before nit-picking, don't you think?

Exactly. So what comprises the "average global temperature"?


Hank Samler wrote: By the way, don't any of you sleep? I mean, I'm on the European clock..

Sleep? What's that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2016 15:00
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote: Sorry, I went through the whole thread and couldn't find your demonstration of the falling global temperatures the past years. Could you help me out there?

Absolutely. No one can accurately measure the earth's "average global temperature" (whatever that is).


So, if there is no average temperature, then there cannot be an increase or decrease.

How convenient!

IBdaMann wrote:
The sun's magnetic field is weakening as its output decreases. Thermodynamics tells us that temperatures must be decreasing, yes?


If the Earth were the Moon, then I would mostly agree.
On the side facing the sun, the Moon it is very hot (in comparison to anywhere on Earth's surface).
On the side facing away, it is not (in comparison to anywhere on Earth's surface).

There are two reasons for that.
1. A lunar day is 14 days long. A night likewise. This makes for more extremes.
2. The Earth has an atmosphere (with clouds btw) which helps regulate the heat. It blocks some of the Radiation from reaching the surface while holding some of the warmth down closer to the ground. Strangely enough, the atmosphere also makes Earth's middle temperature higher than that on the Moon.

Solar Radiation is the same on both objects; mean temperature is different. The Earth turns out to be about 45°C warmer. Funny, that, isn't it?

Can you explain this difference other than with our nice, warm, insulating atmosphere?
02-02-2016 15:01
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
DRKTS wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
If the CO2 conmen here would have done their own research, they would see that CO2 is a response to the δD (‰). δD is still the most reliable proxy for temperature.


δD is a potential temperature proxy (and not necessarily the best even then) but only under limited circumstances.


What do you suggest else? d018 to dO16?
Edited on 02-02-2016 15:01
02-02-2016 16:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
For some fun, I'd like to present a really dodgy graph from one of IBdaMann's very few 'authoritative' sources, Cliff Harris- the guy with no science qualifications, background or publications yet calls himself 'one of the top 10 climatologists in the last 4 decades'. Oh, and he also uses the Bible to 'predict' the climate.


In this graph, Cliff Harris notes the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt at 1100 BC.
If he was going to put dates of mythical Biblical stories, it's a shame he didn't take his graph back to Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden- around 4000BC or something wasn't it? Or predict the climate of the second coming?


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi



Edited on 02-02-2016 16:18
02-02-2016 16:27
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Ceist wrote:
For some fun, I'd like to present a really dodgy graph from one of IBdaMann's very few 'authoritative' sources, Cliff Harris- the guy with no science qualifications, background or publications yet calls himself 'one of the top 10 climatologists in the last 4 decades'. Oh, and he also uses the Bible to 'predict' the climate.


In this graph, Cliff Harris notes the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt at 1100 BC.
If he was going to put dates of mythical Biblical stories, it's a shame he didn't take his graph back to Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden- around 4000BC or something wasn't it? Or predict the climate of the second coming?


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi


Funny to see that you're capable to find such doubtful sources. Most of us can't. That says a lot about you.
02-02-2016 16:33
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Buildreps wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
If the CO2 conmen here would have done their own research, they would see that CO2 is a response to the δD (‰). δD is still the most reliable proxy for temperature.


δD is a potential temperature proxy (and not necessarily the best even then) but only under limited circumstances.


What do you suggest else? d018 to dO16?


CO2 follows δD. How do CO2 fanatics like to explain this? Ceist?
Edited on 02-02-2016 16:34
02-02-2016 16:48
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Ceist wrote:
For some fun, I'd like to present a really dodgy graph from one of IBdaMann's very few 'authoritative' sources, Cliff Harris ...

I don't get it. There is an average global temperature in that graph. IB says that there is no average global temperature. Then Cliff Harris can not be authoritative, right?

Yes, vulcanoes have a lot to do with effecting temperatures. They spew ash (short term very cooling), SO2 (shortterm cooling) and CO2 (longterm warming) in the atmosphere..
02-02-2016 18:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Hank Samler wrote: So, if there is no average temperature, then there cannot be an increase or decrease.

So if there is no average temperature of what? You never answered that question. Is that out of convenience?


IBdaMann wrote:
The sun's magnetic field is weakening as its output decreases. Thermodynamics tells us that temperatures must be decreasing, yes?


Hank Samler wrote: If the Earth were the Moon, then I would mostly agree.

Since the earth is not the moon, you are therefore one of those who thinks that the laws of thermodynamics somehow don't apply?


Hank Samler wrote: The Earth has an atmosphere (with clouds btw) which helps regulate the heat.

Are you under the mistaken impression that the temperature at the top of the earth's atmosphere somehow differs substantially from the temperature at the top of the moon's atmosphere?

Hank Samler wrote: It blocks some of the Radiation from reaching the surface

Sure. I have a feeling we'd be here all day if I were to ask you to define precisely what you mean by "blocks." There are many things that happen to solar energy within the atmosphere, including changing wavelength, changing form, ...lots of things, many of which could be stretched to mean "blocks." I also get the feeling that you are the kind of person who would quip about my "nit-picking" if I were to ask you to be clear.

Hank Samler wrote: while holding some of the warmth down closer to the ground.

Please don't get so technical!

This is pure religious crap that can only clarified through violations of physics. Let's demonstrate: Clarify the above statement.

Hank Samler wrote: Solar Radiation is the same on both objects; mean temperature is different.

I see your desperate need to feel that thy religion bestoweth divine knowledge upon thee, but it is absurd for you to claim to know what the earth's temperature is.

No one can accurately calculate the earth's "average global temperature" (whatever that is).

There is no common understanding of what comprises the "average global temperature" (whatever that is).

It is therefore absurd to claim that the earth is somehow 45°C warmer than the moon. Funny, that, isn't it?

So, you were about to explain what you consider to constitute the "average global temperature" and how you would accurately measure it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate But the Climate is Always Changing!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Changing Climate of Public Opinion325-07-2019 01:59
The Changing Climate of Social Media012-07-2019 00:49
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
This is how our changing climate could increase the risk we face from hurricanes027-03-2019 15:54
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact