Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 7, 2022.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a common denier claim.

    Please take a look at this:
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
     
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,228
    Likes Received:
    16,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I follow climatological sciences.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    This site has a chart showing Earth's temperature compared to solar radiative heating of Earth. The Sun has been in a low cycle for a few decades, yet Earth's heat is rising steadily. So, the warming we measure is not due to change in our Sun.

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200105_senate/Senate-complete.pdf
    This site shows the individual forcings toward both warm and cool, showing what is due to greenhouse gas, what comes from other human forcings and what is natural - as in, the Sun.

    I like this chart because it shows the error bars for each entry. You can see where confidence is high.

    You can find these same conclusions from many other major science organizations in the US and around the world. There are very few deniers anywhere in science - a miniscule percent. There certainly is debate and further investigation concerning various details. Plus, everyone wants the size of the error bars to shrink - even though the full range of error is not enough to discredit the position that humans are warming this planet through greenhouse gas emissions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obsolete.
    2021: The Year Scientists Increasingly Ascribed Shortwave-Modulating Cloud Variability As A Climate Driver
    By Kenneth Richard on 3. February 2022

    Share this...
    “Clouds may be the most important parameter controlling the radiation budget, and, hence the Earth climate.” – Sfîcă et al., 2021
    It has become more and more common for scientists to attribute modern radiation budget (climate) changes to variations in cloud cover. . . .
    Svensmark et al., 2021

    “The consequence is a decrease in ionization in more than 80% of the area of Earth and an increase in polar regions. Observation in polar regions and the rest of the Earth demonstrates a decrease of aerosols21,23 and an increase in polar regions31. These and the present observations are consistent with a cosmic ray-aerosol-cloud link. … From the spatial maps, it is clear that the primary responses are over the oceans and that low liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing. The global response in net radiation to the average of the five strongest FD is approximately 2 W/m2. … A consistent picture is emerging, suggesting that variations in ionization are connected to aerosols and clouds, and now also the energy budget.”
    (press release)

    “The breakthrough is that the effect on the Earth’s energy budget has been quantified directly using detailed satellite observations from the CERES instrument on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. The observation is that Earth absorbs almost 2 W/m2 extra energy within 4 to 6 days of the cosmic-ray minimum.”
    [​IMG]
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting!

    But as you know, it's ridiculous to use one study as a justification for dumping all previous science on the topic.

    Even with just this one study, I'd point out that the results don't appear to be outside the error bars indicated for cloud cover in the NASA cite I posted.

    There are always new results.

    There is one out right now that claims to show the excess heat created by humans is the main cause of warming!!

    The advantage of NASA and the numerous such organizations involved in numerous and repeated testing is that there gets to be time and resources to do serious follow up.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The NTZ post cites, excerpts and links 22 peer-reviewed papers. I selected Svensmark's paper to highlight because he is the godfather of the movement they represent.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. I'm going to hold off until there is more than a infinitesimal representation of climate related science showing that this is significant wrt the known range of cloud related effects.

    While I'm sure you aren't interested, I'd noted that the size of the cloud cover effect in the NASA cites has an error bar that take that to a size not all that far from CO2.

    ===
    More importantly, CO2 emissions is something that humans can change.

    Solar activity is not.

    So, if one is actually interested in Earth's future, the place to focus is not changed by this paper.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except that it seems CO2 matters a great deal less than you suppose.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see this as a valid approach to decision making.

    There are large numbers of scientists working on figuring out how our atmosphere works.

    This is the same problem as your charge that science is fraudulent. We can test and determine that various papers are fraudulent. But, that doesn't mean science is fraudulent. In the same way, these papers you point to do not by themselves invalidate all previous science relating to our atmosphere.

    Obviously, these studies are being taken seriously. But, they don't form a final result, demanding a policy change, or whatever.
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You would do well to drop your nonsensical claim that I think science is fraudulent.
     
  11. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Deniers" is a misnomer. No one I've seen lately has denied that the climate is changing - as it has since the earth was formed, and will continue to do. The question I've seen lately is "how do we know the current changes are bad? No one knows the EXACT optimum climate. We're seeing agricultural production booming for instance; which will help feed the Earth's growing population.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That sentence is a denial of the current rate of climate change. Further, it proposes that there is nothing new going on, which is a denial of anthropogenic change.
    First of all, sea level rise is never good. NOLA isn't good with sea rise. The city of Miami Beach isn't good with sea rise. South Seas island nations that are having to move whole nations are not benefitted by high seas. Bangladesh is not benefited by rising seas. A disproportionate percent of world population lives near seas.

    For food, the issue isn't what an optimum climate might be.

    The problem comes with the fact of change. Our crops, lands, methods, equipment, economies, etc., are tuned for specific climate.

    When that changes, it alters production in the specific area, and when that is negative it is not made up for by increased food production somewhere else in the world. So, increasing world food production, even if true, doesn't cover for the problem.

    Let's remember that we have food shortages even though we grow enough calories for 10M people and there are only 8M people to feed.
     
  13. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, assuming it's a major factor.
    Yeah, a couple of millimeters a decade is a major concern
    Nonsense - there are enough variations of climate around the world.
    Good thing we're producing more.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,228
    Likes Received:
    16,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 'deniers' goes to the 'A' in AGW and not so much, if at all, to the GW, the distinction is important.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2022
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that's not the current rate of sea rise. And, the rate of rise is increasing - not just the sea level itself.

    But, it's worse than that.

    We're in a relatively low cycle of solar irradiance. So, we should be in a cooling period!

    The relatively near future will include solar increases that will further speed warming.

    Take a look:
    [​IMG]

    From https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2022
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no cause for alarm.

    [​IMG]

    Sea Level Alarmism Unravels As Earth’s Coastlines Are Observed Expanding Since 1984
    By Kenneth Richard on 18. November 2021

    Despite sea level rise, 1984-2019 satellite data show coastlines have been globally expanding by a net +0.26 m/year. A new study affirms what satellite data have been telling us for years: “the global coastline is prograding” (Mao et al., 2021). Image Source: Mao et al., 2021 Growing islands, beaches, coasts “all over the world” This […]

    Posted in Alarmism, Sea Levels | 6 Responses

    [​IMG]
    New Study: Antarctica Added 0.76 cm To Sea Levels Since 1992…Ice Extent Has Been Advancing Since 2009
    By Kenneth Richard on 9. August 2021

    Current climate alarmist fervor can be wholly undermined by the magnitude of change for the Antarctic ice sheet in recent decades. It’s IPCC AR6 Day (10 August, 2021) – a day devoted to celebratory alarmism. Here’s the larger perspective. The most concerning aspect of global warming is often identified as the threat of rising sea […]

    Posted in Antarctic, Cooling/Temperature, Glaciers | 3 Responses

    [​IMG]
    We’re Not Gonna Drown! Analyses Show COASTAL SEA LEVEL RISE Is Only 1.69 mm Per Year!
    By P Gosselin on 23. March 2021

    UPDATE: Sea level rise near the coasts where people actually live is found to be 1.69 mm/yr. But when crunching the data for the entire ocean, as Willis Eschenbach has shown, a figure of just 1.52 mm/year is computed. Hot shot data analyst Zoe Phin at her site examines sea level rise. There she notes, […]

    Posted in Sea Levels | 16 Responses

    [​IMG]
    False Alarm: IPCC Models Say A Warming Antarctica REDUCES Sea Levels -0.8 Of A Meter By 3000
    By Kenneth Richard on 15. March 2021

    The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year−1 mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years. In the 4th IPCC report, Working Group 1 (the physical science) reported that as […]

    Posted in Antarctic, Sea Levels | 6 Responses

    [​IMG]
    Sea level Rise Review. Rate Of Rise Depends On Who You Ask. Most Say: “No Alarm”
    By P Gosselin on 21. February 2021

    In the latest video, German climate science site Die kalte Sonne here presents a review of sea level rise. No one disagrees that sea level is rising. But there’s plenty of disagreement on how fast it’s really rising. Tide gauges According to the direct tide gauge measurements, sea level rise has been modest and the […]
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see even ONE significant source of science agreeing with this.

    Plus, the flip, dismissive answers say a LOT about the quality of assessments of your bloggers.

    Besides, you should KNOW from your investigation into the quality of published studies that selecting studies that happen to back your opinion is NOT a way to go about consuming science.
     
    skepticalmike likes this.
  18. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And ruin people's lives. You forgot that part.

    You are a denier. This is what science says:

    Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

    [emphasis mine]

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

    “Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.


    [emphasis mine]

    https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

    Those scientific articles from impeccable sources whose reputations cannot be impugned by screaming "Right-wing Blog!" or "Koch Brothers" or "Oil Industry" that debunk global warming.

    Nature is a promoter and supporter of the global warming nonsense. The Danish government speaks for itself.

    Wrong.

    The EPICA Dome Ice Core samples from Antarctica record the last 8 Inter-Glacial Periods.

    The science is irrefutable: This Inter-Glacial Period is colder than all others.

    The science is irrefutable: This Inter-Glacial Period has lower sea levels than all others.

    Should sea levels rise another 6 meters, the only truthful, accurate, scientific statement you can make is: This Inter-Glacial Period is just like all the others.

    That is the fatal flaw in the global warming nonsense.

    Prove to us, show us, why this Inter-Glacial Period should be different from all others.

    Do you not understand that even though CO2 levels were lower in the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods, sea levels still rose 4-13 meters higher than present and global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F warmer than present?

    Why can't you understand that?

    CO2 levels were 260 ppm to 280 ppm. Reducing CO2 to those levels will not stop sea level rise or rising temperatures.

    So you waste $Billions and destroy countless lives and the sea levels still rise another 4-13 meters and temperatures rise another 7.5°F to 15.3°F.

    And for what? Just so you can feel good about yourself?

    The Free Market will deal with everything once government gets the hell out of the way.

    Without government interference, insurance companies will charge Free Market rates for flood insurance for coastal properties or simply stop insuring them.

    Since no one could possibly afford insurance, banks will stop issuing mortgages, development loans and re-development loans for coastal properties prone to flooding.

    That puts an end to it. People -- in trickles, not droves -- will migrate inland.

    If government does anything, then all you need is for cities, counties and States to enact laws that say if a coastal property is vacant for more than 7 years, the structure(s) have to be demolished and the land restored to its original state as close as possible and at the owner's expense, not the tax-payer's expense.
     
  19. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,100
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Man can tolerate 10,000 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide for 8 hours. I am not suggesting CO2 will go that high. I am wondering what effect an atmosphere of 3000 ppm will do to mankind over a period of time. Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in the past. But wasn't it before man?
     
  20. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ages and periods extend over thousands of years not a 140.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's very much the case.

    The catch is that we don't get to live for thousands of years.

    We need to make this Earth work for us today and for our kids.

    Beyond that, the kind of spikes we're measuring aren't found in history.
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suggest you take a look at the numerous peer-reviewed papers presented by those bloggers.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are tens of thousands of papers written on topics closely affecting climate and the change we are seeing today.

    I'm not interested in taking your approach of sifting for individual papers that seem to promote some particular view. I see that approach as a MAJOR BLUNDER. In fact, totally invalid.

    And, it's not necessary. Throughout the world there are well respected climatology centers that take findings of the world of climate science into account.

    Such organizations can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of papers, compare findings, etc.
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many of the papers linked in #141 were produced by those "well respected climatology centers." You are in denial.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember that the central issue with this is the one concerning finding individual studies that you think support your preconceived ideas.

    The advantage of serious scientific organizations is that they go beyond single studies.

    So, if you post one single study, it still just a single study.

    Please cite one that includes statements of review by members of a serious science organization concerning how that organization sees the paper as fitting into a larger context supported by a significant climate science organization - one of the international ones, NASA, NOAA, or whatever.

    I'm seriously not interested in single papers. They are a miniscule representation and don't include that context information.
     

Share This Page