Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[gwb-trading]

Maybe it is time for NOAA and other organizations to follow basic scientific standards are provide the following:

1. The summary data explaining climate change.
2. The unadjusted raw data and temperatures
3. The methodology used to adjust this data based on error.
4. The entire scientific rationale and reasoning behind climate change in relation to the data.

Until this information is provided we can only view "climate change" as a twisted political movement and AGW as an unproven theory.

 

[futurecurrents]

CO2 is a major player in the plant world, it is a minor player in moderating temperature and a minor greenhouse gas. (It is critical, however, to the proper brewing of beer! ) Water in all its three states is a major player along with the land masses. The layman gets hung up on "the greenhouse effect" because of all the media attention, and because everyone has driven home from their local Walmart on a hot July day after having left their windows rolled up. (Here let me interject that car windows are infinitely better IR absorbers than the CO2 in your car.) But there are many more mechanisms effecting our temperature besides the greenhouse effect. (That complexity, and chaotic nature, is why accurate modeling of our climate has so far eluded everyone.) Lacis, in that silly blurb of a few years back made it sound like everything temperature wise depends on CO2. It clearly doesn't. The paleo record shows periods when CO2 was much higher than today yet the temperature was lower! Now, one can argue that the paleo record is subject to large error. But even so, parts of that record Hansen, et al., want to use to support their hypothesis. But they want to use only the parts that agree with their hypothesis, and reject or ignore the rest. In this sense, at least they are consistent with the approach of modern religions toward interpretation of the Bible.:eek:

"....is a minor player in moderating temperature and a minor greenhouse gas"

Complete bullshit and contradicted by the vast amount of science and climate scientists saying otherwise. And that is just the first sentence.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quoting your post doesn't work to show him the content anymore. The new software blocks that, too. I could copy and paste of course, but that probably violates the board's CoC.

Oh, didn't know that. Works in my favor because I don't have to see jerm's or gwb's insane ramblings anymore.

This piezoe guy is simply lying with regards to AGW. Which is bizarre since his posts on other topics is pretty much spot on. Very curious. He is repeating the same old denier nonsense which has been debunked umpteen times. Like the "seventeen year pause" and "satellite temp data is more accurate" and "CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas" and "there is negative feedback". These are all simply lies. He is lying. This stuff is easily proven wrong.

Maybe he just doing it to cause me consternation.

Can you point to any other topic where he is wrong like this? Trojan horse.

 

[gwb-trading]

Oh, didn't know that. Works in my favor because I don't have to see jerm's or gwb's insane ramblings anymore.

This piezoe guy is simply lying with regards to AGW. Which is bizarre since his posts on other topics is pretty much spot on. Very curious. He is repeating the same old denier nonsense which has been debunked umpteen times. Like the "seventeen year pause" and "satellite temp data is more accurate" and "CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas" and "there is negative feedback". These are all simply lies. He is lying. This stuff is easily proven wrong.

Maybe he just doing it to cause me consternation.

Can you point to any other topic where he is wrong like this? Trojan horse.

 

[piezoe]

Quoting your post doesn't work to show him the content anymore. The new software blocks that, too. I could copy and paste of course, but that probably violates the board's CoC.

I don't have FC on ignore. I don't have hardly anyone on ignore. But it is pointless to discuss any of the science with FC. So while I usually read his posts, I seldom bother to respond. The reason is that he continues to make fundamental errors in his reasoning that invalidates most of what he posts. He believes, and this he states over and over, that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if the concentration of CO2 goes up, the mean global temperature must rise.

He also keeps repeating that the CO2 concentration has gone up 40% since whenever. But he does not grasp that a huge percentage increase in something can be a tiny nominal increase. Nor does he seem to understand that for stability , the climate system as a whole requires net negative feedback to perturbations. When modelers introduce positive feedback to CO2 perturbations their models either retain net overall negative feedback or they produce a doomsday model.

 

[futurecurrents]

I don't have FC on ignore. I don't have hardly anyone on ignore. But it is pointless to discuss any of the science with FC. So while I usually read his posts, I seldom bother to respond. The reason is that he continues to make fundamental errors in his reasoning that invalidates most of what he posts. He believes, and this he states over and over, that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if the concentration of CO2 goes up, the mean global temperature must rise.

He also keeps repeating that the CO2 concentration has gone up 40% since whenever. But he does not grasp that a huge percentage increase in something can be a tiny nominal increase. Nor does he seem to understand that for stability , the climate system as a whole requires net negative feedback to perturbations. When modelers introduce positive feedback to CO2 perturbations their models either retain net overall negative feedback or they produce a doomsday model.

The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.

The basic physics for the present study is rooted in the high precision measurements documenting the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as fully described in the IPCC AR4 report, and in the comprehensive HITRAN database (Rothman et al. 2009) of atmospheric absorption data. The radiative transfer calculations involve well-understood physics that is applied to the global energy balance of the Earth, which is maintained by radiative processes only, since the global net energy transports must equal zero. This demonstrates the nature of the terrestrial greenhouse effect as being sustained by the non-condensing GHGs, with magnification of the greenhouse effect by water vapor and cloud feedbacks, and leaves no doubt that increasing GHGs cause global warming.

^Not piezoe, NASA

 

[fhl]

Yep, even global warming.

 

[nitro]

I don't have FC on ignore. I don't have hardly anyone on ignore. But it is pointless to discuss any of the science with FC. So while I usually read his posts, I seldom bother to respond. The reason is that he continues to make fundamental errors in his reasoning that invalidates most of what he posts. He believes, and this he states over and over, that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if the concentration of CO2 goes up, the mean global temperature must rise.

He also keeps repeating that the CO2 concentration has gone up 40% since whenever. But he does not grasp that a huge percentage increase in something can be a tiny nominal increase. Nor does he seem to understand that for stability , the climate system as a whole requires net negative feedback to perturbations. When modelers introduce positive feedback to CO2 perturbations their models either retain net overall negative feedback or they produce a doomsday model.

What? Are you aware that there are more situations that can be counted where even tiny nomimal levels can have grave consequences to living systems or systems that have components that behave like living systems?

Let's take one example from tens of thousands that could be used. These are in Parts Per Million:

"Hydrogen cyanide causes rapid death by metabolic asphyxiation. The Lethal Concentration in air (LC50, concentration estimated to kill 50% of people) require to kill humans (cited in the same OSHA website) depends upon the duration of exposure, as shown in table 1:
Table 1. LC50 in Air Estimated for Humans [source: Hathaway et al. 1991. Proctor and Hughes’ Chemical Hazards of the Workplace. 3rd ed Van Nostrand Reinold, N.Y., N.Y.]"

Estimated time to death
LC50, ppm,
Exposure Duration

• 3404 ppm
• 1 minute
• 
  
• 270 ppm
• 6 to 8 minutes
• 
  
• 181 ppm
• 10 minutes
• 
  
• 135 ppm
• 30 minutes

http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0604April/TechSpeak.aspx

It is basic science of sink/source systems (forget about feedback systems that make it much worse), and probably one of the first exercises any one does in a first year calculus course in high school, that shows how fast a bath tub fills if a certain amount of water is poured in versus the amount that is being removed. If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you further accept ANY
accumulation in ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere over time without it being absorbed or removed, regardless of how "nominal" it is, BY SIMPLE REASONING YOU GET GLOBAL WARMING at a rate dx/dt, where dx is the rate of change in the amount of accumulation of whatever is acculuating and dt is the change in time. Further, If the system is a feedback system, you also get a positive dx^2/d^2t term for acceleration:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#

What you can argue is that dx/dt is tiny and that the effect on climate change is way off in the models, and that it may takes tens of thousands of years instead of one hundred years to see 1 degree Celsius rise in mean global temperatures (this assumes there is no acceleration term, which is also wrong - but for the sake of argument let's proceed). The odds of this being true by the sophisticated statistical analysis that has been done, as I have said before, is probably a 2-sigma likelihood for climate models being correct at a p-value of 95%, no matter what other natural processes are in effect that could be contributing to the warming we see (probably higher, but I am being conservative). There is smoke, and human beings are part of the fire.

No one, and I mean no one in their right mind takes those odds with anything but the most serious consideration when the entire world is at stake! Don't ask me, ask any actuary. Ask any insurance company. Every leader in the world is scrambling to figure the way out of carbon consumption and deforestation.

 

[piezoe]

What? Are you aware that there are more situations that can be counted where even tiny nomimal levels can have grave consequences to living systems or systems that have components that behave like living systems?

These are in Parts Per Million:

"Hydrogen cyanide causes rapid death by metabolic asphyxiation. The Lethal Concentration in air (LC50, concentration estimated to kill 50% of people) require to kill humans (cited in the same OSHA website) depends upon the duration of exposure, as shown in table 1:
Table 1. LC50 in Air Estimated for Humans [source: Hathaway et al. 1991. Proctor and Hughes’ Chemical Hazards of the Workplace. 3rd ed Van Nostrand Reinold, N.Y., N.Y.]"

Estimated time to death
LC50, ppm,
Exposure Duration

• 3404 ppm
• 1 minute
• 
  
• 270 ppm
• 6 to 8 minutes
• 
  
• 181 ppm
• 10 minutes
• 
  
• 135 ppm
• 30 minutes

http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0604April/TechSpeak.aspx

It is basic science of sink/source systems (forget about feedback systems that make it much worse), and probably one of the first exercises any one does in a first year calculus course in high school, that shows how fast a bath tub fills if a certain amount of water is poured in versus the amount that is being removed. If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you further accept ANY
accumulation in ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere over time without it being absorbed or removed, regardless of how "nominal" it is, BY SIMPLE REASONING YOU GET GLOBAL WARMING at a rate dx/dt, where dx is the rate of change in the amount of accumulation of whatever is acculuating and dt is the change in time. Further, If the system is a feedback system, you also get a dx^2/d^2t term for acceleration:

View attachment 158757


http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#

What you can argue is that dx/dt is tiny and that the effect on climate change is way off in the models, and that it may takes tens of thousands of years instead of one hundred years to see 1 degree Celsius rise in mean global temperatures (this assumes there is no acceleration term, which is also wrong - but for the sake of argument let's proceed). The odds of this being true by the sophisticated statistical analysis that has been done, as I have said before, is probably a 2-sigma likelihood for climate models being correct at a p-value of 95% (probably higher, but I am being conservative)

No one, and I mean no one in their right mind takes those odds with anything but the most serious consideration when the entire world is at stake! Every leader in the world is scrambling to figure the way out of carbon consumption and deforestation.

I think you missed my point. Suppose you determined that a 100% increase in the concentration of component in a mixture had occurred. Is this a significant increase? You would not be able to answer that question with the information I gave you, would you? Of course not! If the sodium chloride in your tap water went from 1 ppm to 4 ppm that would be a 300% increase! I can see the headline "Nitro's Tap Water 300% Saltier!!!'

Lets suppose CO2 goes from 280 to 380 ppm in dry air. This is a 100/280 (~40% or 40pph) increase. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? But it is also an increase of 100 molecules more of CO2 per million molecules in a fixed volume of dry air. In a photophysical gas absorption process that is non-catalytic, if the absorptivity is low, and it is for CO2, this is a relatively small increase of absorbers per volume .

The exchange rate for atmospheric CO2 is far greater than originally assumed by Hansen and by the IPCC. Probably the only good thing that came from the atmospheric bomb tests is it gave us an excellent estimate of the half life for CO2. That's at least one good number we have. You can look it up, but it is on the order of 10 to the first power, whereas the early investigators were assuming an order of 10 to the second or even greater in some cases!!!

This is still another example of where the earlier models were completely off base. That work is not much better than wild guessing.

 

[nitro]

I think you missed my point. Suppose you determined that a 100% increase in the concentration of component a in a mixture occurred. Is this a significant increase? You would not be able to answer that question with the information I gave you, would you? Of course not! If the sodium chloride in your tap water went from 1 ppm to 4 ppm that would be a 300% increase! I can see the headline "Nitro's Tap Water 300% Saltier!!!'

Lets suppose CO2 goes from 280 to 380 ppm in dry air. This is a 100/280 (~40% or 40pph) increase. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? But it is also an increase of 100 molecules more of CO2 per million molecules in a fixed volume of dry air. In a photophysical gas absorption process that is non-catalytic, if the absorptivity is low, and it is for CO2, this is a relatively small increase per volume of absorbers.

The exchange rate for atmospheric CO2 is far greater than originally assumed by Hansen and by the IPCC. Probably the only good thing that came from the atmospheric bomb tests is it gave us an excellent estimate of the half life for CO2. That's at least one good number we have. You can look it up, but it is on the order of 10 to the first power, whereas the early investigators were assuming an order of 10 to the second or even greater in some cases!!!

This is still another example of where the earlier models were completely off base. That work is not much better than wild guessing.

What????

Now you are talking about percent change, not nominal change? I don't even think you understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that our measurements of levels of CO2 are made up?

"In measurement, a nominal value is often a value existing in name only;[1] it is assigned as a convenient designation rather than calculated by data analysis or following usual rounding methods. The use of nominal values can be based on de facto standards or some technical standards.

All real measurements have some variation depending on the accuracy and precision of the test method and the measurement uncertainty. The use of reported values often involves engineering tolerances.

One way to consider this is that the real value often has the characteristics of an irrational number. In real-world measuring situations, improving the measurement technique will eventually begin yielding unpredictable least significant digits. For example, a 1 inch long gauge block will measure to be exactly 1 inch long until the measuring techniques reach a certain degree of precision. As techniques improve beyond this threshold, it will become clear that 1 inch is not the real value of the gauge block length, but some other number approximates it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value