Tornadoes

[KnotYet]

T
I consider it fraudulent to tack empirical data onto palentological studies and call it science. You can't do that. History did not begin in1979.

Let's compare it with your data set, then. Science doesn't care what you consider.

 

[KnotYet]

Pretty hard to say what is really helping and hurting our planet till you study atom for atom....and how products/energy starts, till it goes back to nature for another million years or more

This is the usual 'if we can't be 'sure' then we can't act' argument.
It's actually pretty straightforward to set up parameters and then see where various actions fit in.

 

[psneeld]

This is the usual 'if we can't be 'sure' then we can't act' argument.
It's actually pretty straightforward to set up parameters and then see where various actions fit in.

I am all for progress and prototyping, but based on so msny negatives popping up that are usually glossed over, I would say it is a pretty good argument in this case.

I would say that mist alternative energy issues gave woefully set a lousy set of parameters that address the beginning to end of a product in the green sector or really any sector for that matter.

Probably why we are in the mess to begin with.

 

[PierreR]

Let's compare it with your data set, then. Science doesn't care what you consider.

You missed the point entirely. It isn't my data set.
This graph is a political construct as no scientist in his right mind would dare publish it. I believe Bill Santer published this abomination during the Obama administration.

Why is it a political construct instead of a legitimate graph? I will explain;
The first part of the graph is the paleo record of temperature constructed from the study of fossil flora and fauna of known plant and animals that live within narrow temperature ranges. The are derived normally from ocean core samples. The resolution is at best +-100 years but could be as much as 500 to 1000 years on some data sets. This science is well established and well peer reviewed and very good for geological time frames. I believe this graph is the one that stops in 1949.

Tacked onto the end is the entire modified HCN data set graph that is shorter than the minimum resolution for the graph. in fact the resolution is monthly. The range on it tells me that it is the modified HCN data set instead of the much more accurate UHA satellite data set.

This graph is the equivalent of taking the satellite record and tacking on one day from 8AM till noon with a temperature rise of 20 degrees and claiming the planet is frying. It's pure nonsense-a political construct

We only have reasonably accurate world temperature data since 1979, the coldest year in the 20th century as a starting point. Yes, I am aware of the fact that this July is the warmest in the satellite record. Not unusual for an El Nino year and extra water vapor in the stratosphere

 

[KnotYet]

PierreR, I don't accept your comments about the graphic I posted as valid without
any supporting evidence but this is the actual article I excerpted it from:
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/important-climate-change-mystery-solved-scientists

 

[PierreR]

PierreR, I don't accept your comments about the graphic I posted as valid without
any supporting evidence but this is the actual article I excerpted it from:
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/important-climate-change-mystery-solved-scientists

I have tried to tell you why you can't mix apples and oranges and pass it off as real. If you choose not to see it with a critical eye.

I won't dive into the political realm here to point out the difference between science and political science The suggested reading for a critical eye on science would be. Conjectures and Refutations- The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl R Popper 1992 reprint Routledge

 

[Jim W.]

I can’t wait until palm trees are growing in CT . Won’t have to worry about burning fuel going south every fall .

 

[KnotYet]

I have tried to tell you why you can't mix apples and oranges and pass it off as real. If you choose not to see it with a critical eye.

I won't dive into the political realm here to point out the difference between science and political science The suggested reading for a critical eye on science would be. Conjectures and Refutations- The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl R Popper 1992 reprint Routledge

On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.
That it is not forthcoming I take as evidence for the lack of such supporting data.

Far from being political, the article I posted is by actual scientists who collected
actual data and then published their hypothesis with the supporting evidence.

On the other hand is you who posts your opinion and then fails to provide any
such support. Lacking supporting evidence, what you have posted is a belief.

 

[O C Diver]

Birth rates decline as annual income increases. This occurs even in the absence of governmental interventions such as what occurred previously in China. Now their death rates exceed their birth rates and incentives are offered to marry and have offspring.

Show me any point in history where incomes increased and the world population didn't continue to grow.

It's not about lowering the growth rate, it's about reducing the population. If you can't perceive the world is over populated by the depletion of most natural resources, and 70% of the edible fish in the ocean, well you haven't been following the science.

As you pointed out, societies need an age pyramid with the base being young people and elderly being the smallest. As a result population becomes a pyramid scene that requires an ever increasing base, until it fails.

Ted

 

[PierreR]

On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.
That it is not forthcoming I take as evidence for the lack of such supporting data.

Far from being political, the article I posted is by actual scientists who collected
actual data and then published their hypothesis with the supporting evidence.

On the other hand is you who posts your opinion and then fails to provide any
such support. Lacking supporting evidence, what you have posted is a belief.

You have actually got to be kidding me. Your are a smart guy, I have valued your opinion before.

Once again, It's not my data and it is certainly not their data. In fact, I am miss speaking for clarity. Nothing in that graph is from actual data. The first part of that graph was in my Climatology 101 courses in college. Its been in the public domain for longer than someone's career. The last part of the graph is produced by NOAA out of Bolder Colorado monthly The HCN data set. As much as 60% of the HCN data is model output and smoothed with an algorithm. That's right, there are no earth based temperature sensors prior to 2005 in the vast oceans. It's modeled.

They can write whatever they want to in an article but the stuff is easy to find online. That graph is the equivalent of a photoshopped picture. You take 12,000 years of smoothed paleo temperature evidence and tack on the human historical record for the last 45 years? Come on.

Tell you what. I will accept the thousands of reproducible studies done over the last 28 years if you can find the smoking gun studies. The one's that prove that CO2 can cause CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Reason being that all of these studies accept that CO2 causes global warming.

The closest I got to it was the IPCC 1995 report stating there was a connection but nothing was found in the body of the report nor any references that were not circular logic.

I do know that there as a lot of controversy among scientists about the report and many wanted to remove their names from the report. They were denied as this was a last minute change and the report went to print the next morning.

Start looking between 1990 and 1995 if it exists. Again, I could not find it even with access to all paywalled information.

I am retired now, I am not looking again.

I am also not buying into your Sol Alinsky type trap. I am very secure I what I know. I also have two funerals this week and surgery in early September. Welcome to the golden years.

 

[Capt Dan]

If loss of boat won't kill your retirement plans, try liability only.

 

[DBG8492]

On the contrary, I have asked twice for your data that supports your conjecture.
That it is not forthcoming I take as evidence for the lack of such supporting data.

Far from being political, the article I posted is by actual scientists who collected
actual data and then published their hypothesis with the supporting evidence.

On the other hand is you who posts your opinion and then fails to provide any
such support. Lacking supporting evidence, what you have posted is a belief.

To be fair to Pierre, you didn't actually post any data. You didn't even post a link to the study. You posted a news story from a university news publication - the same university where the study was based. Not exactly an unbiased source.

To be fair to you, the study - published in Nature - *was* linked in the university news story. However, Nature requires a paid subscription to read it. And while there are places to read the study online, one would need to request the actual data from the researchers to see it for themselves.

Also, please note that the study covered by the university news story you linked has two "Matters Arising" - both challenging the methodology.

The first, added in December 2021 and titled "Non-trivial role of internal climate feedback on interglacial temperature evolution" (https://www.researchgate.net/public...eedback_on_interglacial_temperature_evolution) has the following abstract (emphasis added).

Quantifying seasonal bias in proxy reconstructions (for example, sea surface temperature (SST)) has been a long-standing challenge, hampering our understanding of past climate evolution (for example, the Holocene temperature conundrum)1,2. Recently, Bova et al.3 proposed. a seasonal to mean annual transformation (SAT) method that seems to effectively remove SST signal caused by seasonal insolation change. To extract mean annual SST (MASST) change for the Holocene epoch. (12–0 thousand years before present (kyr bp)), Bova et al.3 selected SST records that additionally cover the last interglacial (LIG; 128–115 kyr bp) period, for which SST is assumed to be solely attributed to variations in local solar insolation, hence allowing for reliable quantification of seasonal bias in SST records. However, this assumption is fundamentally incorrect because it overlooks the roles of internal Earth system feedback (for example, sea ice) on LIG temperature change, indicating that their findings are effectively biased by overcorrecting insolation-induced seasonal bias in SST proxies.

The second, added in July of 2022 was titled "Concerns of assuming linearity in the reconstruction of thermal maxima" (https://www.researchgate.net/public...arity_in_the_reconstruction_of_thermal_maxima) has the following abstract (emphasis added)

Seasonal biases in proxy records are an outstanding issue in deciphering past climate evolution, and may contribute to the current discrepancy between models and proxy reconstructions during the Holocene, which is most pronounced in the northern extratropics. Bova et al. reported a method of transforming seasonal into mean annual temperatures (the SAT method) at low and mid-latitudes, and concluded that the thermal maxima during the Holocene and last interglacial (LIG) were mainly an artefact of a seasonal proxy response. We provide evidence that, in addition to this geographic mismatch, key assumptions of the SAT method are violated, and more importantly, that the method by construction removes thermal maxima. Thus, the main findings of Bova et al.4 probably reflect peculiarities of the SAT method instead of shedding light on the so-called Holocene conundrum.

And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read what he's saying, Pierre asserts that regardless of methodology, using ice cores or fossils will never yield data as exact and accurate as what we've had for the past forty or fifty years, given the tools we now have at our disposal.

They are literally two different datasets - apples and oranges - and, therefore, shouldn't be compared to each other.

In other words, he's not asserting anything requiring him to provide data.

 

[PierreR]

And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read what he's saying, Pierre asserts that regardless of methodology, using ice cores or fossils will never yield data as exact and accurate as what we've had for the past forty or fifty years, given the tools we now have at our disposal.

They are literally two different datasets - apples and oranges - and, therefore, shouldn't be compared to each other.

In other words, he's not asserting anything requiring him to provide data.

You are not wrong but its worse than what you say. First off the fossil record is actually very accurate. It's based on diatoms, single cell organisms that form limestone skeletons. The skeletons are very sensitive to water temperatures. The method is thoroughly tested and reproducible. Now that is oceans at depth.
The land data set is for land and we as boaters all know that land heats way faster than water. The land data set is not even long enough for one data point and pointless when comparing land to oceans.
Add to that the fact that thermometers are accurate but earth coverage is really only good in the western world. The rest of the planet is sparse and filled in by algorithms. Land based stations are also subject to urban sprawl. The slow growth of concrete near the stations is not accounted for well. In other words the land based temperatures may or may not be representative but are probably bias towards increasing in temperature.
They could have tacked on the more accurate satellite record but they did not as the satellite record does not have that much increase

I am saying what they did was so unrepresentative as to be political science fraud.

The two papers you quote are really trying to find fault with the diatom studies. It's hard to write them out of the history/text books.

Bottom line: I man does not cause warming there is no sense funding further studies.

Climatology is a subset of geology while global warming is the study of Anthropogenic warming. Climatology is poorly funded while Anthropogenic warming is funded by massive grants. The paleo record is very inconvenient to the Anthropogenic argument. Follow the money. It's trillions not billions and we are all paying the bills now.

 

[DBG8492]

You are not wrong but its worse than what you say. First off the fossil record is actually very accurate. It's based on diatoms, single cell organisms that form limestone skeletons. The skeletons are very sensitive to water temperatures. The method is thoroughly tested and reproducible. Now that is oceans at depth.

Accurate, but at what time slice? A day? A month? A year? A hundred years? How granular can they get? And I honestly don't know - that's why I'm asking. Because it seems to me that they couldn't get much more granular than perhaps 500 years given the sample sizes they have to work with.

And naturally, the larger the time slice, the greater the pixelation.

The land data set is for land and we as boaters all know that land heats way faster than water. The land data set is not even long enough for one data point and pointless when comparing land to oceans.
Add to that the fact that thermometers are accurate but earth coverage is really only good in the western world. The rest of the planet is sparse and filled in by algorithms. Land based stations are also subject to urban sprawl. The slow growth of concrete near the stations is not accounted for well. In other words the land based temperatures may or may not be representative but are probably bias towards increasing in temperature.
They could have tacked on the more accurate satellite record but they did not as the satellite record does not have that much increase

Agree with all of this.

I am saying what they did was so unrepresentative as to be political science fraud.

In my eyes, it's just plain fraud - political science is the "why," but a the end of the day, it's just plain fraud perpetrated for money and power.

The two papers you quote are really trying to find fault with the diatom studies. It's hard to write them out of the history/text books.

I didn't read them that way. I read them as saying that the methods used by Bova et al to compute their SAT were flawed. But perhaps I misunderstood.

In any case, my main point is that there are scientists who disagree with the findings/methodology of the study and are willing to put a voice to their disagreement - something often left out in the media and political arenas.

Bottom line: I man does not cause warming there is no sense funding further studies.

Climatology is a subset of geology while global warming is the study of Anthropogenic warming. Climatology is poorly funded while Anthropogenic warming is funded by massive grants. The paleo record is very inconvenient to the Anthropogenic argument. Follow the money. It's trillions not billions and we are all paying the bills now.

I agree with all of this. And scientists are, at the end of the day, human. They want to eat, pay the bills, and provide for their families. They have to be able to work to do that and if they know that bucking the system will result in the loss of the career that allows them to do these things, they are far less likely to do it.

And I am sure a lot of them believe that even if what they're saying is wrong, it isn't hurting anyone. But I'm afraid that is not, and will not, be the case. If they're wrong, there is huge potential for large-scale economic harm.

 

[KnotYet]

All good points, gentlemen.

This is the sort of discussion that I was aiming for, though I am far less prone to
label published work as 'political' or 'fraud'. without much more detailed analysis.

I hope we can agree that there is adequate motivation for misrepresentation and
cherry-picking of results on both sides of the MMCC inquiry. To say that the science
that supports the pro-MMCC hypothesis is in a significant way influenced by money
is to ignore the immense vested interests in disproving that hypothesis. In that case
it should be estimated in the trillions, not mere billions of dollars, as well as the politics.

 

[DBG8492]

All good points, gentlemen.

This is the sort of discussion that I was aiming for, though I am far less prone to
label published work as 'political' or 'fraud'. without much more detailed analysis.

I will concede this point and agree that without doing a more detailed analysis, I should say that it looks like fraud at first glance to someone on the outside.

I hope we can agree that there is adequate motivation for misrepresentation and
cherry-picking of results on both sides of the MMCC inquiry. To say that the science
that supports the pro-MMCC hypothesis is in a significant way influenced by money
is to ignore the immense vested interests in disproving that hypothesis. In that case
it should be estimated in the trillions, not mere billions of dollars, as well as the politics.

Both sides of the issue are supported by money - there's no argument there, as that's how the world works. Having said that, I only see one side supported by government and NGO money - and both of those groups have a huge vested interest in selling FUD because the proceeds buy them power.

Please understand that I'm not claiming that the climate isn't changing. It is. It does so all the time, and I admitted as much in my first post on this thread.

I just don't believe humans currently have the capability to overcome enough of the various complex systems that encompass it to force it out of equilibrium on a planetary scale.

 

[Hippocampus]

I just don't believe humans currently have the capability to overcome enough of the various complex systems that encompass it to force it out of equilibrium on a planetary scale.

So for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents?

 

[Hippocampus]

“I just don't believe humans currently have the capability to overcome enough of the various complex systems that encompass it to force it out of equilibrium on a planetary scale.”

So for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents? Please go to the IPCC and go through the reports. You seem to agree climate is changing. If its not MMCC please offer a viable alternative.

The richest entity of the time (catholic church) funded a geocentric view. It was not true. Truly miserable people (Sinatra, Snow, Scarlatti, Wagner etc.) produced great art. You may not like them but that doesn’t effect the genius o their art.

For years the studies I’ve read have listed funding source. In fact non direct funding sources have to be listed to avoid even appearance of funding bias. I’ve had to declare my own as well. Still, the science stands on its own. You imply a bias is produced. You are right funding source raises your suspicion of bias. But you still need to demonstrate that bias before discounting that paper or study. The science stands on its own regardless of who funded it. Please demonstrate there’s funding bias in this case. Even those who are most negatively economically effected (oil companies) have accepted MMCC.

Returning to the original intent of this thread. Has MMCC effected your boating?

 

[PierreR]

So for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents? Please go to the IPCC and go through the reports. You seem to agree climate is changing. If its not MMCC please offer a viable alternative.

I have read every IPCC report that has come out. Please remember that the IPCC was specifically se up to search for anthropogenic sources and money only funds those sources. There is no funding available for non-anthropogenic sources so the bias was built in from the conception. Climatology as a branch of Geology looking at natural causes ceased to exist and we are now 33 years into the rabbit hole.



Even those who are most negatively economically effected (oil companies) have accepted MMCC.

Returning to the original intent of this thread. Has MMCC effected your boating?

Oil companies are not the most negatively affected. They have their hand squarely in the trillions till. Global warming started out as a means to weaken western societies but that backfired at some point because Global Warming has been swallowed up by entrepreneurs after the money. The politics is now very complex

Some man made global warming is probably taking place but at this point, its overall beneficial. If Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change were true, we would not be here as the planet has had CO2 higher by orders of magnitude while life existed on this planet with no runaway green house effect.

Yes I have been affected by MMCC through paying the bills for inflation. No single thing creates inflation like higher energy prices. The biggest losers are us.

 

[DBG8492]

So for you MMCC is a paradigm shift. You apparently believe we are so insignificant in our actions as to be unable to to change the equilibrium. I would only ask have you taken the effort to read any of the source documents? Please go to the IPCC and go through the reports. You seem to agree climate is changing. If its not MMCC please offer a viable alternative.

I have read many reports and many studies - but I also have five senses and a fairly intelligent brain.

Given the fact that volcanoes, most recently a submarine volcano in Tonga, are able to eject as much water vapor and alleged "greenhouse gases" into the upper atmosphere as they do, and the effects, while visible, pass quickly and are basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things, then yes - I am led to believe that humans have little chance of affecting the climate of the entire planet by simply burning fossil fuels.

As for viable alternatives - I give you the sun and the Earth's core. Either could drive significant changes in climate far beyond anything humans can. And there would be very little we could do about either.

The richest entity of the time (catholic church) funded a geocentric view. It was not true. Truly miserable people (Sinatra, Snow, Scarlatti, Wagner etc.) produced great art. You may not like them but that doesn’t effect the genius o their art.

For years the studies I’ve read have listed funding source. In fact non direct funding sources have to be listed to avoid even appearance of funding bias. I’ve had to declare my own as well. Still, the science stands on its own. You imply a bias is produced. You are right funding source raises your suspicion of bias. But you still need to demonstrate that bias before discounting that paper or study. The science stands on its own regardless of who funded it. Please demonstrate there’s funding bias in this case. Even those who are most negatively economically effected (oil companies) have accepted MMCC.

I don't care about the funding - that was a reply to Knot's assertion that there were "trillions" poured into debunking the hypothesis. I assert that there are trillions on both sides because there's money to be made on both sides.

But I couldn't care less about tracking down the sources because those sources aren't always what they seem to be on paper. If you don't understand that, you need to get out more.

Returning to the original intent of this thread. Has MMCC effected your boating?

In a couple of ways - One is to the extent that living on a boat, which is something I have wanted to do since I left the Navy, has now become a means to increase my freedom of movement in response to the reality of incessant political intrusion into the everyday lives of people who just want to be left alone. And the other is just plain old economics. Numerous money-wasting flights of fancy and never-ending political windmill tilting have driven the costs of everything - beginning with energy - through the roof. But that doesn't just affect boating - it affects everyone everywhere.

 

[Old Sea Dog]

MMCC is just a power and money grab, similar to covid. The ones in power need to find ways of controlling the masses.
You can cancel me now.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. (Dr.) H. At my age, the few years I have left, I shouldn't be impacted too much by weather.

To some of the other posters...

 

[PierreR]

Given the fact that volcanoes, most recently a submarine volcano in Tonga, are able to eject as much water vapor and alleged "greenhouse gases" into the upper atmosphere as they do, and the effects, while visible, pass quickly and are basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things, then yes - I am led to believe that humans have little chance of affecting the climate of the entire planet by simply burning fossil fuels.

I remain unconvinced that volcanos in recent years are orders of magnitude greater at climate change than man. There is ample evidence in the fossil records to suggest that volcanic activity has been responsible for mass extinctions in the past but, I do not see enough volcanic activity to justify a large cause today. Some speculate that it's underwater volcanos going off now that were not in the past but I have seen little hard evidence of that. There is even debatable evidence that the large volcanic eruptions of the past 400 years have had more than a blip of a year or two on the world temperatures. I would love to hang my hat on volcanos but I would be fooling myself without the evidence.

Far more puzzling to me is the paleo evidence that suggests that CO2 may actually be a trigger for a new glaciation period. There has been zero research done on natural causes for better than a quarter of a century so you have to go back that far to look at what was being studied prior to being shut down. There is evidence for 19 glaciation periods beginning 2 million years ago. The more recent periods show CO2 increasing fairly rapidly an average of 800 years prior to the onset of a new glaciation period. No one has looked for the cause of that or into the strong correlation of CO2 and ice in the paleo record.

The only thing in my view that is powerful enough with CO2 to make the math possibly work is CO2's affect on plant growth and the natural aerosols that woody plants emit into the atmosphere. Plant growth has increased about 20% since 1950. All you have to do is look at the Smoky Mountains on a summer afternoon to see the effect that natural aerosols have on atmospheric opacity.
Water has a very high surface tension, high enough that long wave radiation (heat) cannot penetrate the surface more than a few microns. The Oceans are heated by short wave radiation that can penetrate up to about 100 ft down. Aerosols form clouds and we all know what effect clouds have on a solar panel by blocking short wave radiation. The atmosphere could reflect more short wave sunlight back to space cooling the oceans.
Again, just my common sense speculation. We are not likely to see this research done because a confirmation would be very bad news for the climate industrial complex.

A further thought. There are a number of critics of Global Warming that hang their hat on this surface tension phenomenon as proof that Global Warming cannot exist because the air cannot heat the oceans. In theory that is true but, we all know that we can go to the beach where warm air is blowing over cold water and feel the air is colder than further inland, even on a cloudy day. We know the surface area of air to water can be drastically increased as we have seen air mix with water in the form of waves. look at the bubble path in salt water when one of those big boys on plane goes by. In short, air heating water is not insignificant but not a big contributor either.

 

[DBG8492]

I remain unconvinced that volcanos in recent years are orders of magnitude greater at climate change than man.

This is my point - they aren't. They push massive amounts of what we are told are greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and while they have a visible and measurable effect, it's measured in months - not decades. And certainly not permanent.

Far more puzzling to me is the paleo evidence that suggests that CO2 may actually be a trigger for a new glaciation period. There has been zero research done on natural causes for better than a quarter of a century so you have to go back that far to look at what was being studied prior to being shut down. There is evidence for 19 glaciation periods beginning 2 million years ago. The more recent periods show CO2 increasing fairly rapidly an average of 800 years prior to the onset of a new glaciation period. No one has looked for the cause of that or into the strong correlation of CO2 and ice in the paleo record.

This is what we were taught in schools in the 70s - that burning fossil fuels would cause global cooling and kick off another ice age. Even after they switched the boogeyman to "Global Warming" and later "Climate Change," the theory that too much CO2 could trigger an abrupt ice age was also the basis of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow."

The only thing in my view that is powerful enough with CO2 to make the math possibly work is CO2's affect on plant growth and the natural aerosols that woody plants emit into the atmosphere. Plant growth has increased about 20% since 1950. All you have to do is look at the Smoky Mountains on a summer afternoon to see the effect that natural aerosols have on atmospheric opacity.

Water has a very high surface tension, high enough that long wave radiation (heat) cannot penetrate the surface more than a few microns. The Oceans are heated by short wave radiation that can penetrate up to about 100 ft down. Aerosols form clouds and we all know what effect clouds have on a solar panel by blocking short wave radiation. The atmosphere could reflect more short wave sunlight back to space cooling the oceans.

Again, just my common sense speculation. We are not likely to see this research done because a confirmation would be very bad news for the climate industrial complex.

Yes. This is just one piece of the multitude of nested complex systems that make up the complex system of planetary climate - some of which have the primary function of consuming carbon dioxide for energy and whose waste products are beneficial aerosols.

And here's the thing: Because those systems are constantly pushing and pulling against each other, if we were to find a way to cut our release of CO2 by a large enough amount, this would likely cause other systems to move to replace what we eliminated in order to restore equilibrium. How might the multiple nested complex systems of planetary climate on the OTHER side of the equation act to replenish the net shortfall and what effect might that have on us?

Cutting CO2 output to "net zero" is effectively trying to manually flip a single circuit breaker on a board with millions (billions/trillions) of other circuit breakers, fuses, switches, shunts, batteries, and power supplies - all of which work together seamlessly in a nested complex system that we simply have no capacity to unravel or understand AS A WHOLE.

A further thought. There are a number of critics of Global Warming that hang their hat on this surface tension phenomenon as proof that Global Warming cannot exist because the air cannot heat the oceans. In theory that is true but, we all know that we can go to the beach where warm air is blowing over cold water and feel the air is colder than further inland, even on a cloudy day. We know the surface area of air to water can be drastically increased as we have seen air mix with water in the form of waves. look at the bubble path in salt water when one of those big boys on plane goes by. In short, air heating water is not insignificant but not a big contributor either.

Water is very efficient at dissipating heat - regardless of the source, and 2/3 of the planet is covered by it - much of it at extreme depths.

I believe air can have some effects on ocean surface temperatures - but the effect is greatly diminished and/or non-existent at any real depth. Raising the surface temperature of the oceans on a scale large enough to make any difference for an extended period would require something below the surface radiating more heat than the entirety of the oceans could dissipate.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. DBG. Your post #54. "...in order to restore equilibrium...". Therein lies the rub IMO. WHAT exactly is the equilibrium? Is it a global condition considered as of now? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10 millennia past?


Climate has ALWAYS been in a state of flux and various areas of the world have changed. From this article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm The Sahara desert was a lush grassland as little as 6000 years ago. As has been noted above, climate is a seriously complex system.



About the ONLY thing I have issues with this whole conundrum is how much influence does man have in altering weather patterns and thus climate? Nowhere have I ever read or heard of the extent of man's contribution to change. Is it 5%? 25%? 75%? or is the situation simply a natural progression of earth's evolution? Is this a solution looking for a problem?


Without a shadow of a doubt, profiteers are seizing the opportunity to fill their pockets but to lump the scientific community in with them is, I think, unfair to said community. I believe there is STILL some morality to science uninfluenced by $$.


Science has never been and "AHA" exercise but more of a "gee, that's interesting" pursuit IMO. Unfortunately the unscrupulous are quick to capitalize on what they tout as being definitive discoveries to line their pockets.

 

[mvweebles]

When I read through the credentials of the 100's of scientists (1000's? 10,000's??) supporting organizations like Academy of Sciences and Union of Concerned Scientists, their money-grubbing and self-serving bias to suck on the public teet for research funding is totally transparent. Thank goodness a low-level research analyst from a no-name university ocassionally comes forward to bravely debunk these conclusions and expose the nefarious motives of the scientific community! Besides the possibility their conclusions are correct, what else besides greed could explain their near 100% consensus that human activities have significant impact on climate?

Academy of Sciences Q&A on link HERE.

Union of Concerned Scientists article on correlation HERE.

And it gets worse - taxpayer funded NOAA spews BS with data like this graph showing atomospheric CO2 measurements have dramatically changed! But wait....there's more. The US Military has started to include this phony thinking into their strategic long-term planning HERE.

Hoax and coincidence!!! I say Stop the Madness!!!

 

[Hippocampus]

“I have read every IPCC report that has come out. Please remember that the IPCC was specifically se up to search for anthropogenic sources and money only funds those sources. There is no funding available for non-anthropogenic sources so the bias was built in from the conception. Climatology as a branch of Geology looking at natural causes ceased to exist and we are now 33 years into the rabbit hole. “

As stated before regardless of funding source science either holds on the strength of the studies and their ability to predict outcomes. So far the models based on the existence of MMCC have had consistent predictive strength. I have worked for industry. I’m appalled by their margins and administrative salaries. Further dismayed by the revolving door with government. Still when a drug or biologic has shown sufficient predictive value that it will have a beneficial effect on my patients I use it. When an agent shows sufficient promise I will serve as a recruiter for a phase 2 or 3 study or serve as a principal investigator. I know pharmaceutical companies are all about the money honey. But if the science is good it’s good regardless of funding source.

Some of the above posts remind me of the blind men describing an elephant. Heat drives the major gyres (ocean currents) hot water is less dense than cold. The surface spins faster as you near the equators than near the poles. For the North Atlantic gyre along the waters I boat because of these two things the prevailing winds are east to west near the equator as are the currents. Along the western portion the current is south to north. In the past as the current goes north it then transfers heat and sinks. Hence the palm trees in Ireland or the moderate weather in New England or Iceland from the surface waters . As the water travels north it cools and sinks. Hence the behavior of the Gulf Stream. Heat is carried deep into the ocean. Our oceans are the major heat sink of our world. As the sun heats the surface water the water loses its heat trying to reach equilibrium with the air in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. If the air is hotter the water losses heat at a slower rate as the gradient is less. Yes anyone who has ever gone diving or used sonar is well aware of thermoclimes but there’s little question the oceans are warming both surface and deep. Yes Floridian waters are currently quite hot but for some years now I’ve been catching prior southern species of fish in New England waters and the lobster have been disappearing as they move north. It’s not a transient event but rather progressive.

So far deniers have posted about funding, microphemonena, politics and economics. As repetitive stated science is viewed on the sole basis of its ability to predict the future and explain the past. This is true for particle physics, cosmetology, biology or chemistry. So far the current models supporting MMCC have been a good fit.we flipped from Newtonian physics to Einstein when the science showed Newtonian was insufficient to explain our observations. From the cyclical model to the Big Bang and now to the no border. Newtonian physics works just find in our day to day. But even there it’s wrong. As with the evolution from Einstein and Bohr you now know they got it wrong. Their understanding of borders was insufficient. Their basic premise was correct however. We’ve seen the same thing with the climatologists. The basic premise is the best available fit. The theory has better predictive value than anything else.

So I ask the deniers to present a theory that proves MMCC is wrong. Explain where it’s inconsistent with observations. Remember to speak to climate not just transient weather.

 

[Hippocampus]

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

Here’s the definition I’m working with. Still mentioned geology. Seem to recall the reason the rabbit hole was dung in the first place was due to repeated observations something was up and unexplained. BTW that’s how science works. Something comes up. Be it observations of Jupiters moons or how bacteria behave around a certain fungus. We want to explain it so offer a theory. Then do studies. If the studies are consistent with the theory we accept it until an observation disproves it or another theory is a better fit. That exactly what happened with MMCC. Do you have an observation that’s inconsistent or a theory that has a better fit?

Please remember the IPCC got going years and years after the theory of MMCC was proposed. It was the cart and never was or is the horse.

 

[DBG8492]

Greetings,
Mr. DBG. Your post #54. "...in order to restore equilibrium...". Therein lies the rub IMO. WHAT exactly is the equilibrium? Is it a global condition considered as of now? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10 millennia past?

This is the million (billion/trillion) dollar question isn't it? It's my view that the whole system tends towards equilibrium, but at times, the fight for equilibrium may not mean that the planet is always habitable. However, I believe the timeline for any change of that magnitude will likely be extremely long - certainly a great deal longer than the past 100 years. I also believe we can do nothing to prevent it if it's destined to happen. We would be better off trying to prepare to adapt.

Climate has ALWAYS been in a state of flux and various areas of the world have changed. From this article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm The Sahara desert was a lush grassland as little as 6000 years ago. As has been noted above, climate is a seriously complex system.

Precisely. It is the height of human hubris to believe we could ever possibly understand ALL of the inputs/outputs/relationships that make up that entire complex system. This means trying to monkey with parts of it is a fool's errand that will have little to no effect in a best-case scenario and cause actual harm at the other end of the spectrum. I believe the chances of harm outweigh everything else, and therefore, we should not be in the business of trying to make drastic changes to a system we could not possibly fully understand.

About the ONLY thing I have issues with this whole conundrum is how much influence does man have in altering weather patterns and thus climate? Nowhere have I ever read or heard of the extent of man's contribution to change. Is it 5%? 25%? 75%? or is the situation simply a natural progression of earth's evolution? Is this a solution looking for a problem?

All very good questions.

Without a shadow of a doubt, profiteers are seizing the opportunity to fill their pockets but to lump the scientific community in with them is, I think, unfair to said community. I believe there is STILL some morality to science uninfluenced by $$.

Of course, there is *some* morality left in science. There are indeed scientists pushing back on all this garbage. But what power do they have against the aligned forces of politics and media? Questioning "the science" on anything these days is - for the unprotected - a career-ending move. Sometimes, that's the case even for the protected.

Science has never been and "AHA" exercise but more of a "gee, that's interesting" pursuit IMO. Unfortunately the unscrupulous are quick to capitalize on what they tout as being definitive discoveries to line their pockets.

Science and politics have been mixing since man first crawled out of the slime and stood upright, so we shouldn't be surprised.

The Mayans and Aztecs sacrificed children to appease gods because the "scientists" of the day convinced those in charge, who in turn convinced the masses that it would be beneficial to do so. And they weren't the only ones by far - they're just the most famous.

Today, we look back on those people with disdain and disgust that they would believe such garbage...

 

[KnotYet]

DBG8492, thank you for the repeated use of the word 'believe' in the above post.
On that we and Mr. Tyson completely agree.