Remember me
▼ Content

man made or natural



Page 1 of 8123>>>
man made or natural04-01-2020 20:41
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made? I know this is a very heated discussion subject, so don't try to read between the lines. I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument, but I am no expert and wish to find a sober lead into the conversation.

Are there collection of papers that argue both sides of this argument?

For example I read a commentary in RSOC (sort of consensus) that said that the naive models based in simple thermodynamics cannot explain the rise in temperature based on carbon emissions, BUT (it goes on to say) the climate is much more complicated than those simplistic models. What I found a bit odd is the logical fallacity of this argument. Just because its complicated doesn't make it true (or not true). NB the RSOC article was "silently" in favour of man made climate change. I could try to find it to reference here, but I guess I don't care particularly about that summary comment. I care about data and collective oppinions by good recognised experts.
04-01-2020 21:10
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
jboy751 wrote:
are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made? I know this is a very heated discussion subject, so don't try to read between the lines. I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument, but I am no expert and wish to find a sober lead into the conversation.

Are there collection of papers that argue both sides of this argument?

For example I read a commentary in RSOC (sort of consensus) that said that the naive models based in simple thermodynamics cannot explain the rise in temperature based on carbon emissions, BUT (it goes on to say) the climate is much more complicated than those simplistic models. What I found a bit odd is the logical fallacity of this argument. Just because its complicated doesn't make it true (or not true). NB the RSOC article was "silently" in favour of man made climate change. I could try to find it to reference here, but I guess I don't care particularly about that summary comment. I care about data and collective oppinions by good recognised experts.



From everything I've read, the scientists that might be worth listening to don't say much. In the 1990's they said ozone depletion caused by ODSs. The 1987 Montreal Protocol banned or limited many ODSs.
A German undergraduate student for his PhD thesis studied SO2 and temperatures around Europe and found a relationship. So2 emissions are about 10% of what they were 40 years ago.
Some scientists say that deep faults and hydrothermal vents on the sea floor are releasing heat.
The science behind ozone depletion is very much accepted. With CO2, they can't show it's effects in real time.
This will get some people going https://binged.it/2SZj1G9. What they won't understand, they'll need to learn for themselves what it means.
05-01-2020 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
jboy751 wrote: are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made?

There are plenty. Bajillions!

What you won't find, however, are any papers that unambiguously define "Climate" such that the paper itself is a scientific treatise and not merely religious dogma. Absolutely NONE.

But yes, there are many Global Warming worshipers who preach human-powered change of the Climate goddess.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 05-01-2020 21:52
06-01-2020 01:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
jboy751 wrote:
... I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument,...

The best resource I've found is:
https://skepticalscience.com/

That is a site devoted to debunking deniers so it's not neutral. What's great about it is you'll find the best resources presented in the debunking and they take on all the major counter arguments which you can trace to the source.

Sadly on this forum most people interested as you are have been badgered into leaving. We spend most days with the dictionary and elementary physics being questioned. But please stick around I would love to actually discuss the actual issues.

I agree that complexity isnt an excuse to ignore anything important.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 06-01-2020 02:05
06-01-2020 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
... I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument,...

The best resource I've found is:
https://skepticalscience.com/

That is a site devoted to debunking deniers so it's not neutral. What's great about it is you'll find the best resources presented in the debunking and they take on all the major counter arguments which you can trace to the source.

Religious sites is not science.
tmiddles wrote:
Sadly on this forum most people interested as you are have been badgered into leaving.

Lie. Have you checked the activity logs lately?
tmiddles wrote:
We spend most days with the dictionary

Your problem. You still haven't defined 'climate change' or 'global warming'. Dictionaries don't define words.
tmiddles wrote:
and elementary physics being questioned.

Your problem. You could always learn:
* the 1st law of thermodynamics
* the 2nd law of thermodynamics
* the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
But please stick around I would love to actually discuss the actual issues.

Those ARE the real issues. You deny all three of these laws as well as mathematics, and you are making void argument fallacies by using meaningless buzzwords.
tmiddles wrote:
I agree that complexity isnt an excuse to ignore anything important.

Climate is not complex. A desert climate is a desert climate, a marine climate is a marine climate, etc. It has no quantitative values.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2020 22:05
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
thank you all for the comments so far.

My summary position is that I did not wish (yet) to enter into a point by point conversation as this is meaningless for me. This is such a multifactorial problem that discussing point by point is almost certain to lead no-where.

As I said in my original post, I wanted a virtual debate from a list of publications by well reputed experts discussing either side of this argument. James made an effort (thank you) and timiddles too, allthoug a link to another heated blog goes against my principle as stated above.

If you take the top 10 scientists in the field, what is their position on this subject?? I know a "top 10" chart is not a panacea, but it's a start.

Sorry I am asking someone else to do the job for me, but I was hoping that those who have spent a lot of time on the issue would easily know the answer and give me a head start.
08-01-2020 00:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
jboy751 wrote:...timiddles too, all though a link to another heated blog goes against my principle as stated above.
As I mentioned they take on all the major arguments so I'd use them as a framework to tackle researching some of the topics on your own.

I'd say as a general comment that there are three conclusions one could draw on something being true when it's been stated it's an issue:
1- It's not true at all, nothing too it or it's virtually non-existent (the Moon having an atmosphere for example)
2- It is true but does not have the impact or effect being claimed. It's a deal but not a big deal
3- Yes it's as big a deal and as significant as what was claimed.

Most of the debate on the major issues surrounding climate change are between 2 and 3 and very rarely 1 unless you're dealing with crackpots.

So for example asking the question how many scientists believe in AGW is the wrong question. You should ask how many think AGW is a serious threat.

But again the link I provided is a good one for the structure alone. They go through the major topics pretty methodically. I have not found a skeptic/denier site I would recommend yet but let me know if you find one you like. Here's an example I don't recommend: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/ because it's all over the place, disorganized and citations that are credible and real flimsy stuff are presented as equals.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 08-01-2020 00:27
08-01-2020 18:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
thank you all for the comments so far.

My summary position is that I did not wish (yet) to enter into a point by point conversation as this is meaningless for me. This is such a multifactorial problem that discussing point by point is almost certain to lead no-where.

As I said in my original post, I wanted a virtual debate from a list of publications by well reputed experts discussing either side of this argument. James made an effort (thank you) and timiddles too, allthoug a link to another heated blog goes against my principle as stated above.

If you take the top 10 scientists in the field, what is their position on this subject?? I know a "top 10" chart is not a panacea, but it's a start.

Sorry I am asking someone else to do the job for me, but I was hoping that those who have spent a lot of time on the issue would easily know the answer and give me a head start.


It isn't about the top 10 scientists. It's about the laws of physics, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of mathematics, particularly statistical and probability mathematics. The Church of Global Warming denies all of it.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2020 18:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
jboy751 wrote:...timiddles too, all though a link to another heated blog goes against my principle as stated above.
As I mentioned they take on all the major arguments so I'd use them as a framework to tackle researching some of the topics on your own.

I'd say as a general comment that there are three conclusions one could draw on something being true when it's been stated it's an issue:
1- It's not true at all, nothing too it or it's virtually non-existent (the Moon having an atmosphere for example)

The Moon has an atmosphere, thin as it is.
tmiddles wrote:
2- It is true but does not have the impact or effect being claimed. It's a deal but not a big deal

Void argument. Describe what 'it' is.
tmiddles wrote:
3- Yes it's as big a deal and as significant as what was claimed.

Void argument. Describe what 'it' is.
tmiddles wrote:
Most of the debate on the major issues surrounding climate change are between 2 and 3 and very rarely 1 unless you're dealing with crackpots.

Void arguments. You never describe what 'it' is. Insult fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
So for example asking the question how many scientists believe in AGW is the wrong question. You should ask how many think AGW is a serious threat.

Science doesn't use consensus. False authority fallacy. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny, stand on their own.
tmiddles wrote:
But again the link I provided is a good one for the structure alone. They go through the major topics pretty methodically. I have not found a skeptic/denier site I would recommend yet but let me know if you find one you like.

It is YOU that is the denier. You deny mathematics. You deny physics.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 00:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Most of the debate on the major issues surrounding climate change are between 2 and 3 and very rarely 1 unless you're dealing with crackpots.

tmiddles firmly believes that he speaks for reality.

The truth is that all of the crackpots are in categories 2 and 3, falling victims to Marxist indoctrination.

tmiddles is one of the crackiest pots available.

tmiddles wrote:So for example asking the question how many scientists believe in AGW is the wrong question.

Correct. You might as well ask how so many scientists are Catholic. Nothing precludes any scientist from having strong religious convictions.


tmiddles wrote:[quote]You should ask how many think AGW is a serious threat.

Nope. Absolutely the wrong question for the same reason above.

The correct question to ask is why so many people firmly believe that there is somehow SCIENCE supporting the Global Warming religion when nobody has ever seen any such science.

The next question is why hasn't any of the devout believers ever DEMANDED to be shown this science, or why they mindlessly dismiss any and all science that falsifies the Global Warming dogma?

The next question, which SHOULD be the first question, is why aren't any warmizombies ever able to unambiguously define the global climate? None, ever. No science can possibly apply to that which remains undefined despite warmizombies insisting it is "settled science."



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
09-01-2020 10:43
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
jboy751 wrote:
are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made? I know this is a very heated discussion subject, so don't try to read between the lines. I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument, but I am no expert and wish to find a sober lead into the conversation.

Are there collection of papers that argue both sides of this argument?

For example I read a commentary in RSOC (sort of consensus) that said that the naive models based in simple thermodynamics cannot explain the rise in temperature based on carbon emissions, BUT (it goes on to say) the climate is much more complicated than those simplistic models. What I found a bit odd is the logical fallacity of this argument. Just because its complicated doesn't make it true (or not true). NB the RSOC article was "silently" in favour of man made climate change. I could try to find it to reference here, but I guess I don't care particularly about that summary comment. I care about data and collective oppinions by good recognised experts.


The basic physics have been known for quite some time. One of the latter published papers on the matter can be found here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
The increased levels of CO2 represents an increase of the Free house effect with 1.95 W/m2, CH4 is at 0.62 W/m2 and N2O is at 0.18 W/m2. Theese three alone = 2.75 W/m2

If you want to know how the solar irradiation (TSI) has been look here:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
Never mind the layout, Gregg kopp knows his way around TSI and has a few published papers..

So what about heat from our own planet ? Earth surface heat flux is about 47 TW, and while thag sounds like an awful amount ut only adds up to ~0.09 W/m2
https://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/se-1-5-2010.pdf

I also enchorage you to look up milankowitch. This was a smart guy back in the early 1900's.
https://www.livescience.com/64813-milankovitch-cycles.html
Not the best source, but it gives a Good idea of what he found out. Read that with Greg's page in mind


There are probably other sources as well, but theese are a few rather Good ones to start with.
09-01-2020 14:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
MarcusR wrote:
(TSI) .
This is really interesting stuff but I don't understand most of it yet. Definitely seems well above basic. If there are any videos you can recommend, maybe laying the groundwork, please share them.
09-01-2020 14:18
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
Into the Night wrote:

It isn't about the top 10 scientists. It's about the laws of physics, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of mathematics, particularly statistical and probability mathematics. The Church of Global Warming denies all of it.


Well it's a good start that you mentioned Stefan&Blotzman. I'd like the other 8 please
Of course it is about the 10 (or 20 or X) top experts. After I know what they have to say, I can draw my own conclusions. And yes it is about thermodynamics, but a thermos flask behaves differently to a water mellon. And that's where the complexity starts.
Thanks
09-01-2020 14:34
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
tmiddles wrote:
So for example asking the question how many scientists believe in AGW is the wrong question. You should ask how many think AGW is a serious threat.



thank you, I still need to do my home work, but gere is the general rationale behind my inquiry, which is related to the above phrase:

IF global warming is natural, then yes it is a huge threat but no matter how many resources you throw at it, it may not make a difference. Yes a commet crashing on earth is a huge threat to the ecosystem, but we ignore this threat because we cannot deal with it. We would stop history waiting for the inevitable.

IF global warming is man made, then this is a whole different story, because we can take measures such as reducing carbon emissions or plant trees and regulate the negative effects.

Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY. I would agree with that, but the question is where does one draw the line and that's where the above dilemma makes a difference imho.
09-01-2020 14:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
jboy751 wrote:
Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY.

Few points I see on that:

Burning fossil fuels producing higher levels of CO2 isn't a problem at all and isn't pollution if the AGW theory is all wrong.

We know that the global climate has warmed and cooled through history so demontrating natural warming doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.

Sort of reminds me of "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you." And the flip side "Just because they really were after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid".

One thing I'm very interested in is finding historical social phenomenons that parrallel this one so hind sight can serve us.
09-01-2020 15:15
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
MarcusR wrote:
....


Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?
09-01-2020 15:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
09-01-2020 16:03
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]jboy751 wrote:
Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY.


Few points I see on that:

Burning fossil fuels producing higher levels of CO2 isn't a problem at all and isn't pollution if the AGW theory is all wrong.


pollution doesn't only cause global warming. It also casuses asthma, cancer, and environmental ugliness.


We know that the global climate has warmed and cooled through history so demontrating natural warming doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.

Sort of reminds me of "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you." And the flip side "Just because they really were after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid".


Well, if the natural contribution is big enough, we might as well knock ourselves out. A bit like, if you know you are dying from liver chirosis in a week, there is no point cutting down on alcohol, is there?


One thing I'm very interested in is finding historical social phenomenons that parrallel this one so hind sight can serve us.


the problem you might find is that it is difficult to find historical records of inactivity
09-01-2020 16:25
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous. And then argue on that. For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.
09-01-2020 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
MarcusR wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
are there any papers by well reputed experts that state that the climate chage is man made? I know this is a very heated discussion subject, so don't try to read between the lines. I am a scientist who would understand a scientific argument, but I am no expert and wish to find a sober lead into the conversation.

Are there collection of papers that argue both sides of this argument?

For example I read a commentary in RSOC (sort of consensus) that said that the naive models based in simple thermodynamics cannot explain the rise in temperature based on carbon emissions, BUT (it goes on to say) the climate is much more complicated than those simplistic models. What I found a bit odd is the logical fallacity of this argument. Just because its complicated doesn't make it true (or not true). NB the RSOC article was "silently" in favour of man made climate change. I could try to find it to reference here, but I guess I don't care particularly about that summary comment. I care about data and collective oppinions by good recognised experts.


The basic physics have been known for quite some time.

There are no physics relating to 'climate change'. No one has DEFINED 'climate change'. Climate has no quantity. There is nothing to change.
MarcusR wrote:
One of the latter published papers on the matter can be found here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
The increased levels of CO2 represents an increase of the Free house effect with 1.95 W/m2, CH4 is at 0.62 W/m2 and N2O is at 0.18 W/m2. Theese three alone = 2.75 W/m2

There is no such thing as a 'free house effect'. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.
MarcusR wrote:
If you want to know how the solar irradiation (TSI) has been look here:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

The radiance from the Sun is not all absorbed. Much is simply reflected away. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
MarcusR wrote:
Never mind the layout, Gregg kopp knows his way around TSI and has a few published papers..

So what?
MarcusR wrote:
So what about heat from our own planet ? Earth surface heat flux is about 47 TW, and while thag sounds like an awful amount ut only adds up to ~0.09 W/m2
https://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/se-1-5-2010.pdf

The term 'heat flux' is repetitious. Heat IS flow. The heat by the interior of the Earth to the surface is unknown.
MarcusR wrote:
I also enchorage you to look up milankowitch. This was a smart guy back in the early 1900's.
https://www.livescience.com/64813-milankovitch-cycles.html

Not a discovery. A theory. Like any theory, it might be wrong. No theory is a proof. This particular theory is not even a theory of science. It describes past unobserved events and tries to relate them together.
MarcusR wrote:
Not the best source, but it gives a Good idea of what he found out. Read that with Greg's page in mind

There are probably other sources as well, but theese are a few rather Good ones to start with.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It isn't about the top 10 scientists. It's about the laws of physics, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of mathematics, particularly statistical and probability mathematics. The Church of Global Warming denies all of it.


Well it's a good start that you mentioned Stefan&Blotzman. I'd like the other 8 please

Not needed. Science doesn't use consensus.
jboy751 wrote:
Of course it is about the 10 (or 20 or X) top experts.

Nope. Science doesn't use consensus.
jboy751 wrote:
After I know what they have to say, I can draw my own conclusions.

R = C * e * t^4. E(t+1) = E(t) + U. e(t+1) >= e(t). You have everything you need to draw your own conclusions.
jboy751 wrote:
And yes it is about thermodynamics, but a thermos flask behaves differently to a water mellon.

Nope. As far as the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law is concerned they behave exactly the same.
jboy751 wrote:
And that's where the complexity starts.
Thanks

No complexity. They behave the same.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So for example asking the question how many scientists believe in AGW is the wrong question. You should ask how many think AGW is a serious threat.



thank you, I still need to do my home work, but gere is the general rationale behind my inquiry, which is related to the above phrase:

IF global warming is natural, then yes it is a huge threat but no matter how many resources you throw at it, it may not make a difference. Yes a commet crashing on earth is a huge threat to the ecosystem, but we ignore this threat because we cannot deal with it. We would stop history waiting for the inevitable.

IF global warming is man made, then this is a whole different story, because we can take measures such as reducing carbon emissions or plant trees and regulate the negative effects.

Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY. I would agree with that, but the question is where does one draw the line and that's where the above dilemma makes a difference imho.


IF you can define 'global warming' or 'climate change', then you have something to talk about. Until then, you are making a void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY.

Few points I see on that:

Burning fossil fuels producing higher levels of CO2 isn't a problem at all and isn't pollution if the AGW theory is all wrong.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. What AGW theory? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
We know that the global climate has warmed and cooled through history so demontrating natural warming doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. Earth has many climates. Climate is not temperature. It has not quantitative value.
tmiddles wrote:
One thing I'm very interested in is finding historical social phenomenons that parrallel this one so hind sight can serve us.

Easy. Look at examples of Stalinist Russia, Hitler, Mussolini, or any other dictator or oligarchy to come along since. All are caused by the same thing the Church of Global Warming is trying to justify: socialism.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
....


Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?


You must first define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]jboy751 wrote:
Of course one could say, that's all very good, but it's good practice to protect the planet and not polute it ANYWAY.


Few points I see on that:

Burning fossil fuels producing higher levels of CO2 isn't a problem at all and isn't pollution if the AGW theory is all wrong.


pollution doesn't only cause global warming. It also casuses asthma, cancer, and environmental ugliness.

Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'environmental ugliness'.
jboy751 wrote:

We know that the global climate has warmed and cooled through history so demontrating natural warming doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.

Sort of reminds me of "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you." And the flip side "Just because they really were after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid".


Well, if the natural contribution is big enough, we might as well knock ourselves out. A bit like, if you know you are dying from liver chirosis in a week, there is no point cutting down on alcohol, is there?

What 'contribution'? Of what?
jboy751 wrote:

One thing I'm very interested in is finding historical social phenomenons that parrallel this one so hind sight can serve us.


the problem you might find is that it is difficult to find historical records of inactivity


Why would there be? If there is nothing to write about, why would anyone write about it? If there is was no one to write about it, How could anyone write about it?


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous.

There is no definition.
jboy751 wrote:
And then argue on that.

On what? Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'.
jboy751 wrote:
For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

Neither phrase as any meaning. Define them.
jboy751 wrote:
For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming.

NASA hasn't defined 'global warming' either.
jboy751 wrote:
Of course there are assumptions in their analysis,

What analysis?
jboy751 wrote:
since their records only go back to the late 70s.

What records? It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.
jboy751 wrote:
So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.

Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2020 21:31
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'global warming'.


Let's see where you are going with this
(I will define smilie later)

Let us assume a set of temperature measuring devices placed in many positions in the earth atmosphere, in a homogenous distribution, in all directions (height, angular).

Let us call T(t) the average temperature measured by these devices at any one point in time t.

Let us call To(t) the averaging of T(t) over an arbitrary long period of time (for example a century).

Global warming dT(t) is defined as the statistically significant trend of the running average To(t) over any chosen time period (for example 1000 years).

BTW you are wrong that NASA is not talking about global warming. Look in https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

with title Is Current Warming Natural?
09-01-2020 22:09
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
Into the Night wrote:
Not needed. Science doesn't use consensus.


That's precisely why I want to start with the most significant experts and not with an averaging of all opinions in a blog.



R = C * e * t^4. E(t+1) = E(t) + U. e(t+1) >= e(t). You have everything you need to draw your own conclusions.


Ok, let us take a water mellon and a thermos flask and place them against the sun (choose your prefered orientation and shape of the thermos. You can even assume a spherical thermos).

Then, since you state that you don't need to know anything other than the formula you presented above, can you please calculate the temperature as a function of radius from the center of each body (that would include the temperature inside and outside of the reflective thermos sphere)?
09-01-2020 22:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
jboy751 wrote: Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous.

Not good enough. Is Climate Change supported by science or is it just WACKY religious dogma?

There needs to be an unambiguous definition of the global climate for science to be applicable. Without any such unambiguous definition, Climage Change remains mere WACKY religious dogma.

It's that simple.

There is no unambiguous definition of the global climate. That's a huge problem. In fact, it is insurmountable.

jboy751 wrote: For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

Whatever NASA, or anyone else for that matter, has to say on the matter is utterly meaningless without an unambiguous defintion of the global climate. There is no such thing as science of the undefined. It is pointless to try to hold a meaningful conversation about concepts that are meaningless or where differing parties utilize their own separate meanings.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
10-01-2020 00:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
jboy751 wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
....


Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?


What do you mean? Someone who is well qualified?

Check out Pat Franks argument: Link

Not exactly what you asked for. He presents a case that the conclusions being drawn are unfounded because the minute temperature changes used aren't supportable by the available data.
10-01-2020 01:00
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote: Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous.

Not good enough. Is Climate Change supported by science or is it just WACKY religious dogma?



There needs to be an unambiguous definition of the global climate for science to be applicable. Without any such unambiguous definition, Climage Change remains mere WACKY religious dogma.

It's that simple.

There is no unambiguous definition of the global climate. That's a huge problem. In fact, it is insurmountable.



Firstly don't treat me as if I am in favour of any definition, as I begun this thread with a question about the top experts in the field related to the "subject" you don't want to name. So I am an agnostic so far.

However since you keep bringing this up, I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.

Assuming this is the case, then this rise in average temperature almost certainly will cause a change in the global chaotic climate patterns. This change of pattern can be a very significant threat to life. I would agree that it is very difficult to define metrics, but that is not an incentive to ignore it, but rather to be even more concerned. I think we should distinguish between pointless science and science that has not been invented yet. In this subject we see both in random mixes.


jboy751 wrote: For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

Whatever NASA, or anyone else for that matter, has to say on the matter is utterly meaningless without an unambiguous defintion of the global climate. There is no such thing as science of the undefined.


define time



It is pointless to try to hold a meaningful conversation about concepts that are meaningless or where differing parties utilize their own separate meanings.
.


The particular NASA article I read was not talking about 'climate change' but about 'warming' of the planet, which is a very specific effect that can easily be defined.
10-01-2020 01:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
jboy751 wrote:...I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.
Well said but be warned:
"Define climate" is posted 215 times here
Define global warming, 121 times

It's just a BS tactic to try to derail discussion. I wouldn't waste any more time on it.
10-01-2020 03:50
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
jboy751 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous. And then argue on that. For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.



This guy is an ice core researcher. His credentials are
Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
He is an expert in his field. Since we don't understand natural climate variation, we can't say how much if any warming is attributed to CO2. After all, O2 plays a role in removing heat from the atmosphere but we're not talking about it's diminished levels, are we? If you read what he has to say, there were climate ripples in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age when it warmed significantly without CO2. And today, the Arctic is the place where warming is most pronounced. I think something might be getting ready to happen but that could take a century and be quite significant. Why bread crumbs are good to follow.

He states that;
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
Edited on 10-01-2020 04:00
10-01-2020 03:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
James___ wrote:
...one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
Nice find James!
10-01-2020 11:09
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
jboy751 wrote:...I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.
Well said but be warned:
"Define climate" is posted 215 times here
Define global warming, 121 times

It's just a BS tactic to try to derail discussion. I wouldn't waste any more time on it.


Unfortunally, You are quite correct..
Edited on 10-01-2020 11:10
10-01-2020 11:31
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
(TSI) .
This is really interesting stuff but I don't understand most of it yet. Definitely seems well above basic. If there are any videos you can recommend, maybe laying the groundwork, please share them.


TSI means Total Solar Iradiance and is a nothing more tham a meassure if the effect / area unit (W/m2) the earth/atmosphere system gets from the sun. Hence, it can be categorized as one of the natural aspects of climate change.

When speaking of TSI it is important to know that the values are perpendicullar to the sun. So if you look at Gregg TSI page all values are given as a perpendicular value, and not representing how many W each m2 of the earth gets from the sun at any given point of time. And since the area of a sphere in relation to the area of a circle with the same radius is 4:1 you need to take that Into account.

While the above may seem quite simple, there are actually many People that claims that the figures for TSI and earths energy balance are off by a factor of 4. There was quite an interesting "discussion" between Joe Postma and Roy Spencer on that matter last year.

I don't however know and video about TSI. I would think NASA should have published a few on youtube though.
10-01-2020 12:08
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
jboy751 wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
....


Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?


Changes in natural parameters, such as the ones I mentioned above has always had an effect on earths climate. We have had many changes in climate over the eons of time. The knowledge from theese changes have - among others - been important to understand why we see the changes we are seeing right now. Jeremy Shakun has among others an interesting paper on this matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

But this is not really an answer to your question. I have not seen any serious expert claiming that the current changes we see are natural. Now that does not mean that natural causes do not effect climate.

When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings. I also look at journal metrics to see how creadible the journal itself is if I dont kmow about it. That is no bullet proof argument, but being published in Nature or Lancet is in general top notch by a scientific standard. That does not mean that errors doesn't happen, just look at this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science - just as blaming increased levels of CO2 for causing Bush fires in Australia.
Edited on 10-01-2020 12:11
10-01-2020 16:17
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
MarcusR wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
....


Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?


Changes in natural parameters, such as the ones I mentioned above has always had an effect on earths climate. We have had many changes in climate over the eons of time. The knowledge from theese changes have - among others - been important to understand why we see the changes we are seeing right now. Jeremy Shakun has among others an interesting paper on this matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

But this is not really an answer to your question. I have not seen any serious expert claiming that the current changes we see are natural. Now that does not mean that natural causes do not effect climate.

When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings. I also look at journal metrics to see how creadible the journal itself is if I dont kmow about it. That is no bullet proof argument, but being published in Nature or Lancet is in general top notch by a scientific standard. That does not mean that errors doesn't happen, just look at this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science - just as blaming increased levels of CO2 for causing Bush fires in Australia.



The links are to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I hope they are considered credible. They agree with the Danish ice core researcher who I referenced.

As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/

What we don't know is how much warmer. This hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Science requires that a hypothesis be tested. A computer model is not a repeatable experiment. This does not allow for peer review. Why there is a debate. I have shown 2 groups of credible scientists that say that they are doubtful that CO2 is the driver of climate change as some claim. And a computer model is a claim. It is not based on empirical evidence such as a repeatable experiment.
The focus on CO2 has actually hurt any discussion of trying to understand the things that influence the warming and cooling of our planet.
Edited on 10-01-2020 16:20
10-01-2020 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
James___ wrote: This guy is an ice core researcher. His credentials are Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

So, does he have an unambiguous definition of the global climate, or is he just a devout, WACKED OUT worshiper of the Climate goddess.

James__, who do you pretend owns science? What credentials do you believe constitutes science?

You are obviously a fan of his so contact him and get his unambiguous definition for the global Climate ... and then get back the forum and report the results.

Thank you in advance.

James___ wrote: He is an expert in his field.

So is the Pope.


James___ wrote: Since we don't understand natural climate variation, we can't say how much if any warming is attributed to CO2.

Since we cannot fully grasp the turning of the Dharma Wheel, we cannot say to what extent the wheel conquers the passions and to what extent the passions draw the wheel.

James___ wrote: After all, O2 plays a role in removing heat from the atmosphere but we're not talking about it's diminished levels, are we?

After all, meditation plays a role in removing uddhacca-kukkucca from the self but I hope we aren't talking about dimished levels.

James___ wrote: If you read what he has to say, there were climate ripples in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age when it warmed significantly without CO2.


If you read the acient texts, great torpor sent ripples of sūnyatā throughout the interconnectivity of humanity.


James___ wrote: And today, the Arctic is the place where warming is most pronounced.

James__, the Arctic is the place where freezing cold is most pronounced.


James___ wrote: I think something might be getting ready to happen but that could take a century and be quite significant.

James__, you don't have to get that specific.

James___ wrote: He states that;
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

This guy sounds like a religious nutcase, although he might just be insane.

Is there any chance you can write him a fan letter (email will work just fine too) and get him to post on this forum? I'd like to ask him a few questions, including how he formally and unambiguously defines the global climate. You apparently have no idea so I'd like to ask him directly.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
10-01-2020 18:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
jboy751 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'global warming'.


Let's see where you are going with this
(I will define smilie later)

Let us assume a set of temperature measuring devices placed in many positions in the earth atmosphere, in a homogenous distribution, in all directions (height, angular).

Unknown number of thermometers. Not possible to define margin of error. 10 thermometers spread over the Earth surface uniformly is not going to give you any meaningful temperature of the Earth. Neither are 7700 thermometers (the number that NASA claims to use).
jboy751 wrote:
Let us call T(t) the average temperature measured by these devices at any one point in time t.

Let us call To(t) the averaging of T(t) over an arbitrary long period of time (for example a century).

Why a century? Why 100 years ago and today for the two time intervals? What makes these points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time NOT significant?
Global warming dT(t) is defined as the statistically significant trend of the running average To(t) over any chosen time period (for example 1000 years).[/quote]
Base rate fallacy. Math error. Failure to designate variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to provide raw data. Failure to eliminate biasing influences. Use of random numbers as data (argument from randU fallacy).
jboy751 wrote:
BTW you are wrong that NASA is not talking about global warming.

Never said they weren't.

Define 'global warming'. Why choose a 100 years ago? Why choose 1000 years ago? What makes these points in time significant?


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 8123>>>





Join the debate man made or natural:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
A Part of Natural Climate Variation?827-11-2019 22:29
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact