Printable View
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
I am not sure what report you are talking about but this one considers alternative causes (including solar irradiance along with volcanic activity). I posted this link when you claimed it didn't the first time. You had no argument at the time, more or less accepting the fact that you're not very bright...
I don't suppose that after reading the introduction one may expect to find much about Earth's precession or Milankovich's cycles there. I don't suppose that there is anything about plants either. I mean anything meaningful...
-In my days, If I handed-in a report decorated with statements such as: "However, this effect is variable; sometimes plants acclimate so that higher CO2concentrations no longer enhance growth(...)" "Atmospheric aerosols are perhaps the most complex and most uncertain component of forcing due (...)" Not only would my work be immediately rejected, but it would probably also be used as ridiculing material at an appropriate occasion during, say the following class in the lab. - This is not scienece. This is literature. I am not reading this report to admire someones writing skills and broad vocabulary.
What about main statement that you are so eagerly advocate here - one that actually reads that humans are causing global warming? Cannot wait till you point me to that because so far you we have all missed it and it is actually the most important thing.
There is an entire section that discusses the contribution of humans to global warming which I linked for you several months ago and you had no objection to. I have acknowledged I am not an expert on the subject and have not had any formal study of climate. But in my view, if I made one claim in a post and someone demonstrated it was addressed, I would not change the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The reason I preface what I said with my lack of expertise is because I am uncertain what I am about to say is correct. But I think that the report looks at something more proximate than Earth's precession to determine whether precession could be a cause of climate change. Wouldn't a change in the Earth's precession change the amount and distribution of solar energy transferred to Earth? Maybe you can answer for me. How does a change in Earth's precession mediate changes in temperatures? Isn't it because of proximity of regions of Earth to the sun? And isn't this measurement captured? Genuinely interested.
Isn't that what this section says? I know you have objections like they're communists and other things but that's what the entire section goes about discussing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
Earth’s climate is undergoing substantial change due to anthropogenic activities (Ch. 1: Our Globally Changing Climate).
"Human activities continue to significantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that change its radiative balance. These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborne particles (aerosols), and the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface. In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming. The increase in radiative forcing due to these activities has far exceeded the relatively small net increase due to natural factors, which include changes in energy from the sun and the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions."
Oh. So my objection based e.g. on this chart https://science2017.globalchange.gov.../figure2_1.png (which is so far from where it is referred to it that you forget what you are reading about by the time you scroll half of the chapter to see it - yet another reason to dismiss the piece of communist literature right at that point), which shows that there is a dP = 1W/m/m (or as they state underneath a dP'=0.6W/m/m) between the energy that bounces of Earth and energy absorbed by Earth is not valid, is it? Why then, if you read on it is stated that "Geothermal heat from Earth’s interior, direct heating from energy production, and frictional heating through tidal flows also contribute to the amount of energy available for heating Earth’s surface and atmosphere, but their total contribution is an extremely small fraction (< 0.1%) of that due to net solar (shortwave) and infrared (longwave) radiation" Which basically means that 0.1% of this 339W/m/m is "extremely low" So 1W/m/m is worth noting butt 0.3W/m/m, which is 30% of that worth noting value - is not worth noting and analysing further... I wonder if the authors ever even actually considered errors that those measuring instruments and methods used by the pseudo-scientists who allegedly conducted the research this report is based on introduce. Or that there is also a significant difference between a watt and a kilowatt.
...And "signifficantly affecting" or "climate is undergoing substantial change" does not exactly mean that humans "cause global warming". So no, it is not what the section says.
I had not looked at the chart. I will have to do that later if I am able. I simply don't expect that even if I spent weeks analyzing the report I'd be able to understand every aspect of what people have spent their entire adult lives thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
But this is what is in the middle of that paragraph I quoted. I think you misrepresented it by cherry-picking words:
"In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming". That is fairly unequivocal. Dominant cause not sole cause. This is in the part that explains their conclusions.
Human activities continue to significantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that change its radiative balance.
- This means that we somehow contribute to changes in radiative balance. I would like to see quantification of the "significantly" especially that...
These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases,
- which might mean that greenhouse gases are only a small part of what causes radiative balances' changes; and greenhouse gases are only one of the radiative forcings, since others are:
small airborne particles (aerosols), and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface.
In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming.
-A statement out of context considering what was previously said and untrustworthy if you read the report. We suddenly have not changes but climate warming.
The increase in radiative forcing due to these activities has far exceeded the relatively small net increase due to natural factors, which include changes in energy from the sun and the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. (Very high confidence)
More meaningless rubbish that makes one want to bin the whole thing for wasting one's time on "those activities" "far exceeded" and "relatively small increase"... And the bit about volcanic eruptions' cooling effect? Really? Was that necessary to meet the word quota or something? Basically this key finding should be just the "In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming. " Only that "human activities" and "increasingly" should be more specific, and what Trish would probably wank over - quantified.
It is quantified. We went over all of this months ago. It describes the human activities in detail and then quantifies their contribution to climate change. I can point you to the section but I can't teach you how to read. You said something wasn't said, I showed you it was said verbatim and you can't even acknowledge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Your deconstruction of that paragraph only makes me question your literacy.
This from the girl who insists on arguing about the Solar flux even after she made it abundantly clear she doesn’t have the faintest hint what ‘flux’ is or how the greenhouse model works. But no matter how much you flatter me, I’m still going to let you can do your own research. To get you started here’s the 5th IPCC report. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The following is not an example of my eristics, but a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“We do know with a good degree of certainty that between 1750-2011, or since the beginning of the industrial period until today, the average increase in energy hitting a given area of the atmosphere (radiative forcing, measured in a unit called watts per square meter) due to heat-trapping gases is 56 times greater (~ 2.83 watts per square meter) than the increase in radiative forcing from the small shift in the sun’s energy (~0.05 watts per square meter).
In its Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC scientists evaluated simulations of historical climate variables using a number of numerical models. They first assumed no increase in heat-trapping gases since 1750, so that the temperatures calculated were those that would have been achieved if only solar variability, volcanic eruptions, and other natural climate drivers were included.
The temperature results were similar to observed temperatures only for the first half of the century, but the models did not accurately show the general warming trend that has been recorded during the second half of the twentieth century.
When computer models include human-induced heat-trapping gases, they accurately reproduce the observed warming during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
The evidence shows that although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun.”___ https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...l#.Wm3kYoUqmHl
Notice one can tweak the knobs on the standard climate model to include or exclude various factors so that one may compare the predicted effects of those factors. Whether you’re concerned with fluctuations in the Sun’s luminosity, the Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, vulcanism or warming via geothermals one consistently finds that the blanketing effect due to the anthropogenic rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere swamps all other possible causes of our current warming.
We already discussed Milankovitch cycles:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
“The Earth’s precession (the gyroscopic wobble of its spin axis), it’s orbital eccentricity and other orbital parameters vary through a complex set of not yet thoroughly understood cycles called the Milankovitch cycles. As you say, variations in these parameters will induce variations in the flux of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and do (when acting in synchrony) force changes in the Earth’s climate. The cyclic occurrences of Earth’s ice-ages are linked to the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles have (on a human scale) very large periods: on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (the period of Earth’s precession is somewhere around 25000 years and the period in the variations of Earth’s eccentricity is on the order of 112000 years). That’s why over the period of a mere 200 years these variations are largely negligible. However, if you want to include them in the current climate model, know that the Milankovich cycles are now slowing (by a very very small amount) the warming of the Earth. But they are no match against the greenhouse gases that billions of people have been dumping into the atmosphere over the past 1.5 centuries.”___ from post #1585
Your only response came sometime later when you complained, without adding specifics, that we weren’t addressing the issue of Milankovitch cycles to your satisfaction.
At present, the Milankovitch Cycles cannot explain the current increase in global temperature.___from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/...StudyR2014.pdf
Oh really? That’s your objection? I thought it was that the report was written by communists.Quote:
Oh. So my objection based e.g. on this chart
The important thing to remember is the current chemistry of the oceans and the atmosphere are such that the global imbalance of energy is always positive regardless of any variations in the flux of incoming energy. The difference is approximately 0.04% +/- of the incident flux. Modern measurements put the imbalance at 0.6 Watts/m^2. The Earth’s radius is about 6378 km, so the amount of energy captured annually is roughly equal to
(0.6 Watts/m^2) x (4 x pi x (6378000 m)^2 x (1 year x 3600 s/hr x 24 hr/day x 365 days/yr) =
9.68 x 10^21 Joules.
This is 17 times the amount of energy the Earth’s population consumes in one year. 90% of this excess energy is largely stored as heat in the Earth’s oceans.
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2...rgy-imbalance/
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ance/page7.php
One of the objections, yes.
"Human activities continue tosignificantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors thatchange its radiative balance. These factors, known as radiativeforcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborneparticles (aerosols)", and the reflectivity of Earth’ssurface.”
- That is a quote from the bit or your report I discussed yesterday... I am pretty sure that changes in greenhouse gases, or small airborne particles are not being quantified in W/m/m. - your terminology is wrong.
- Energy hitting an area is the solar flux and if you measure that at the top of atmosphere it is more less equal to 1361 W/m/m and since we measure that in space, it cannot be affected by any radiative forcings like heat-trapping gasses
- (… really can't be arsed any more, I guess)
Are you going to refer to what I had written about the chart or are you just going to keep flooding this thread with your communist bullshit propaganda about global warming, some definitions from Wikipedia and calculations that are completely irrelevant?
Trish, who knows more about science than I do and has an ability to present it with a depth of knowledge that you lack, has not used Wikipedia as a reference for the last year of correspondence on this topic -I checked. She does use universally recognized centres of scientific excellence which you do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
In a world of bullshit propaganda, you lead us all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_dungQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I wasn't sure what you meant by your last sentence but fortunately have been able to research it.
If I had used W/m/m to measure changes in the mass density or particle density of any gas or suspended dust in the atmosphere, then you’d be entirely right, but I hadn’t and you aren’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
I believe it was you who first used Watts as a measure of flux. After you saw I used kW/m^2 you quickly recovered saying, Oh yeah, W/m/m, which technically is correct but still a bit weird since area is measured in square meters and never in meters per meter. (Not being a pedant I usually let these sort of things ride. But since you’re bringing up the matter of units for flux I thought I should point it out). When you complained that the greenhouse model doesn’t consider anything like solar flux, I was dumbfounded. It sounded like you didn’t even know what an energy flux is or how the greenhouse model works. I guessed that you either meant variations in the solar flux or perhaps the solar wind, but when given several chances to correct yourself, you didn’t.
You’re forgetting the atmosphere isn’t opaque to all the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Sun. At sea level the measurement is approximately 1000 W/m^2 depending on a number of factors including atmospheric conditions and the angle of the Sun’s rays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The energy that doesn’t make it to sea level doesn’t just stop at the top of the atmosphere and hang there. Nor does it all get reflected. Its gets transmitted, scattered and eventually absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to heat.
I already gave it as much attention as it deserves, see my last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Yes. Here I’m only temporarily adopting your private (and thereby irrelevant) vernacular wherein everyone who disagrees with you is a communist and everything you disagree with is bullshit propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Cape Town ,South Africa may soon earn the dubious distinction of being the first major modern city to run dry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/op...-day-zero.html
A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Hence it takes longer to reach saturation and condense. Longer periods between rains can mean droughts (like the one Cape Town is now experiencing). Higher saturation levels can mean deluges as well as higher energy storms (like the Harvey and other recent hurricanes that destroyed cities and towns along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. and devastated islands in the Caribbean. Whether you’re thirsty or underwater depends on how your local geography interacts with (and your local population reacts to) the new climatic conditions.
In addition to stronger storms, dryer droughts, rising tides, shifting habitations, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost and the concomitant runaway effects (i.e. release of sequestered greenhouse gases and lessening albedo) we now find out that the thawing permafrost could release 1100 tons of mercury into the atmosphere. The risk of this higher level of mercury to humans (direct or through the food chain) is not yet clear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0a31be01955f
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...7GL075571/full
Hey trish , excellent thumb nail synopsis of the basic science / mechanics behind climate change . Damn , even The Donald could understand that.:banghead
Thanks, but Donald's mental and emotional capacities deteriorate with each passing hour. Doctors tell us he's still capable of identifying and properly labeling drawings of animals. So I guess there may still be hope.
definitely...Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Hey how are you finding global warming and all? :DAttachment 1061616
P.S.
I think the author of hungangels' CMS would be better off on the dole than in web development. Stavros and the other commies can prolly see to you getting a decent social house and healthcare funded by the hard-working, wherever you are, and you won't have to worry about heating cos of global warming! :D
Up to date (Feb 2018 ) UAH satellite data ->
Vox has produced a compelling article based on the report from the Office of Management and Budget that proves that under President Obama, Federal Regulations were economically beneficial to US citizens even with high costs, and that the EPA regulations out-performed other departments. They also argue the hostility by the Republican Party to regulatory frameworks is not based on their efficacy, but hostility to the change in direction that money takes when they are implemented. For example, Regulations do not 'kill jobs' but re-distribute them across the US economy.
Here are some extracts-
OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:
- Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
- Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.
EPA rules, OMB writes, “account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and over 70 percent of the monetized costs” of federal regulation during this period.
For example, new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines had (in 2001 dollars) between $6.7 billion and $9.7 billion in benefits. But they cost industry $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion.
The MATS rule, aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power plants, had between $33 billion and $90 billion in benefits (in 2007 dollars, for some reason), but it cost industry $9.6 billion.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...ory-agenda-omb
need more efforts on removal and reversal of carbon
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/733
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/c...-from-air.html
An accidental discovery on a rubbish dump in Japan has the long term potential to reduce the volume of plastic in our oceans. The discovery of a plastic eating enzyme has led to the creation of a mutant that can't get enough of the stuff -
The international team then tweaked the enzyme to see how it had evolved, but tests showed they had inadvertently made the molecule even better at breaking down the PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic used for soft drink bottles. “What actually turned out was we improved the enzyme, which was a bit of a shock,” said Prof John McGeehan, at the University of Portsmouth, UK, who led the research. “It’s great and a real finding.”
Although it will take time for the real impact to take effect, the potential for this reminds us that science doesn't really do despair, that it might take time, but solutions can be found, often by accident. Whether or not there are any whales left by the time this comes to pass we cannot know. A large population of Penguins in Antarctica was only found recently so there is still a vast amount we do not know about the Oceans and its populations.
Full article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lastic-bottles
I'm just worried that the spread of these bacteria will make my dildos go limp. But thanks for the heads-up. :) Interesting article.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world. https://newmatilda.com/2018/05/01/ap...eptional-heat/
Anything to say on this, Redvex? Communists in the weather bureau, perhaps?
There will be communists there too but Australia is not exactly the indicator of global climate, is it? I am in the UK and I still need to keep my heaters on - in fucking May!
Oh, and a few cents on those enzymes.. If anyone of you has a friend that works in forests, then you might wanna ask them how oftrn do they need to buy new heavy duty shoes. Only it must be not be a commie that sits his lazy ass in the lodge, but one that is out and about. Nature doesn't need aid to eat through most of our inventions...
That would be why people look at the global average temperature, as shown in Trish's post above. The point is that what is happening in Australia is far more representative of the global climate than what might be happening in the UK right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Don't be so impatient! Temperatures will be in the 20s from Saturday for most of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Oh dear... someone isn't going to like this !
Attachment 1072677
Peace brother! :D
Ooooh a 1.4 degree difference between the lowest and highest measurements of some RF waves that are not actual temperature but are somehow related to it, taken with 60 year old instruments... Yeah... That sounds reliable...😂
The Nobel Peace Prize has been widely ridiculed over the years as it has no meaning and is worth nothing in real terms. For what it's worth the Prize is awarded to a person or organization that-Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
On this basis, the President of the USA has done nothing to merit the prize. Best spend your time on something that has something to add to this thread on Climate Change.
Climate change? Get some thicker clothes!
& you stop behaving like a petty spoilt brat & start to realize this could represent a huge step to World peace!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Or you could pause for a moment to ask if any progress would have been made with North Korea if it had not been initiated by President Moon Jae-in.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
And you could pause to reconsider the concept of 'world peace' when the US President has sent US military personnel into the Yemen to help the destructive but militarily useless army of the family business from which he benefits financially, called Saudi Arabia (their second war in the Yemen since 1962, as if they learned nothing from their failure in that earlier war); has military personnel in Syria where the mere concept of 'peace' let alone World Peace is as remote from Damascus as the Rings of Saturn.
Then there are US military personnel in Syria itself -are they fighting with the Kurds or prepared to throw them under the bus and run away as Turkish Dictator Erdogan invades Syria illegally without a word of protest from the USA? Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Niger all now host American military personnel 'engaged' with 'the enemy' whoever they are -if the US President is serious about 'world peace' he could withdraw all those troops while chanting 'America First' on the White House Lawn, but who ever said 'America First' had any meaning anyway?
It is rather like denying Climate Change is real, happening, and here. World peace is an aspiration we all support, I hope. Telling lies while creaming off working people's dollars to fund golfing trips Nos 100-120 and threatening to jail people who disagree with him -no, there are no aspirations there, only expirations, at the cost of the stability of the US political system, as if he cared about that.
Peejaye this is a thread on Climate Change. If you want to start a fan-thread for the pompous cretin who claims to be President of the USA, why not start one?
In the Library with your fucking internet again, Stavros? Stop changing your tune just to contradict other people and be consistent like Peejaye:
"I wasn't saying good things about Trump. I don't like him either."
"I'm British so anything else doesn't overly concern me"
"Your getting obsessed with your favourite subject again, Donald Trump. I've told you before I know nothing about Trump."