The thread about the Environment

[Long Live HFC]

Yes there is. The influence of CO2 had previously been exaggerated, with more recent papers significantly reducing the believed impact on warming the atmosphere.
The diminishing return of increased CO2 has also been discovered, with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere having less and less impact.

Actually, what new research is telling us is that most of the warming (~90%+) is occurring in the oceans. The amount of solar energy represented by extra heat in ocean temperatures is quite ridiculous.

 

[alchemy333]

Ahhh, the oceans ate the heat theory. We could arguably have a whole thread dedicated to that topic. Maybe one for atmospheric changes and one for ocean changes?
Would help the flip flopping between the two when chasing the heat signatures, and alienating anyone mildly new to the discussion.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Ahhh, the oceans ate the heat theory. We could arguably have a whole thread dedicated to that topic. Maybe one for atmospheric changes and one for ocean changes?
Would help the flip flopping between the two when chasing the heat signatures, and alienating anyone mildly new to the discussion.

well, i would include "the oceans" as part of the "globe", yeah?

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

What, if not greenhouse gases, are contributing to an increase in the amount of solar radiation warming the oceans?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

 

[alchemy333]

well, i would include "the oceans" as part of the "globe", yeah?



What, if not greenhouse gases, are contributing to an increase in the amount of solar radiation warming the oceans?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

Was that meant to be a trick question, or did you just word it wrong?

You answered your own question with solar radiation...

 

[Long Live HFC]

knowing me, i probably worded it wrong. but feel free to re-word it so i make more sense. if you're implying that an increase in the amount of solar radiation being received is responsible for this warming, then that would be incorrect.

 

[Gus Poyet]

We burned a truck load of stuff at the back of the property the other day rather than pay for a skip to take it away.

 

[louismaxwell]

I must admit i also like to light a good fire every now and then in the backyard and burn a bit of waste just because i can.

 

[alchemy333]

 

[clogged]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

Not really surprising, most of the planet's biomass is being redirected to provide for humanity. Those large animals which have minimal utility for humanity will disappear forever.

 

[alchemy333]

That would fit with the theory of 99.9% of all living things are now extinct.


http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556

 

[clogged]

That would fit with the theory of 99.9% of all living things are now extinct.


http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556

So you think the planet is going through another great extinction period?

 

[alchemy333]

No I don't, but I'm far from qualified to answer that with any certainty.
It does appear likely that everything has a shelf life, even us.

 

[clogged]

No I don't, but I'm far from qualified to answer that with any certainty.

This doesn't seem to stop you usually.

 

[alchemy333]

This doesn't seem to stop you usually.

Correct. Although spending 6 years investigating global warming/climate change has made me an informed observer.

 

[smokingjacket]

Correct. Although spending 6 years investigating global warming/climate change has made me an informed observer.

Don't take this wrong way, usually I really appreciate people who're willing stand up for unpopular things. In this case though can't you take your contrarian attitude and apply it to something where the 97% aren't poorly paid scientists and the 3% are scientists backing energy companies with histories of fraud, tax evasion, coup d'etat, corruption and a general disregard for anyone but themselves?

How about applying that detective work to something that 97% of people believe that actually needs to be overturned for the good of the country, like Gary Ablett Jr. is the best player in the AFL.

 

[alchemy333]

How did you come to those percentages and wage estimates...?

 

[smokingjacket]

How did you come to those percentages and wage estimates...?

Would you prefer 95%? 93% What percentage of scientists would convince you to take out an insurance policy against potentially catastrophic consequences?

If 50% of people told me based on their scientific findings that there was a chance I could burn my house down from smoking indoors I'd take out home insurance or even stop smoking indoors.

 

[alchemy333]

Would you prefer 95%? 93% What percentage of scientists would convince you to take out an insurance policy against potentially catastrophic consequences?

If 50% of people told me based on their scientific findings that there was a chance I could burn my house down from smoking indoors I'd take out home insurance or even stop smoking indoors.

Just wondering where you pulled the number, seems like an arbitrary figure.

 

[smokingjacket]

Just wondering where you pulled the number, seems like an arbitrary figure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

 

[alchemy333]

Ahhhhh, the Skeptical Science survey. I think that one has been scrutinised fairly heavily on BF before.
I can link you to various sites and scientists dismissing the findings, but a quick Google search will lead you right to them.

 

[smokingjacket]

Ahhhhh, the Skeptical Science survey. I think that one has been scrutinised fairly heavily on BF before.
I can link you to various sites and scientists dismissing the findings, but a quick Google search will lead you right to them.

Yeah don't worry I've read plenty of these sort of counter replies. Pulling at the edges of an argument without dealing with the core and using the power of language over science to make it sound as though there's a grand conspiracy afoot.

In this case it's "11,944 climate science papers did not say recent global warming was mostly manmade."

Well did they say it was a factor? A significant one? Doesn't matter, one point to the skeptics.

“If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.”

Pulled this from one of the skeptic blogs and I'd agree with this. Science changes, we should never take science as dogma. However a failure to at least take out an insurance policy against something with such disastrous possibilities is just narcissism.

Worse than that it's already happened. It's done. The 'Green Energy Revolution' is already here and each year it's charging ahead in cost effectiveness. Why are we still bothering defending coal? Someone go out and find a new way to use coal other than burning it so that Australia can do something with it's vast reserves.

Use your talents and free time for something better. There's plenty of issues in the world that need a strong voice to buck the crowd.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I can link you to various sites and scientists dismissing the findings

i can link to various sites and historians dismissing the holocaust too.

 

[alchemy333]

i can link to various sites and historians dismissing the holocaust too.

If you can site a PhD historian denying the holocaust i'll be gobsmacked.

And why do people always bring up the mass extermination of Jews when debating the ins and outs of climate? It's creepy.

 

[smokingjacket]

On Watts Up With That (WUWT) another attempt at discrediting the scientific consensus paper by Cook et al. was made, this time by Christopher Monckton.

These are the numbers from the paper “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” of which Monckton is a co-author. His own numbers destroy his argument and show how ridiculous it is how he calculates these percentages. The numbers for the papers rejecting the consensus are minuscule compared to the already tiny numbers Monckton calculated for papers endorsing the consensus:

If you take for example the papers that explicitly reject that humans are causing global warming based on the abstract rating you get the number of 0.08%. That’s based on 9 papers explicitly rejecting that humans are causing global warming. Against 41 abstract that explicitly state that humans are causing it.

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/

 

[alchemy333]

And down the rabbit hole we go...

I'd link to the other BF threads on this (if i could find them), and save going over old ground, but it will inevitably end in a tit for tat exchange of pro and anti AGW proponents.

However the point i am making and many others have made is, the 97% consensus is incredibly misleading.

David Henderson summarizes by citing Physicist Dr David Friedman and his investigation into Cook's claim:

In short, they got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman's criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, "Of the approximately one third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming." That doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?