IT IS 3 (now 2) MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
The temperature is rising, so the ice melts.

Ice doesn't care about any quibbles about temperature records.

Your words are smooth and well crafted. But you are not convincing the ice.

resultsCB_700.jpg


back a few years ago, the ice volume actually bumped a smidge higher one year and deniers took off with that big time... but as expected it was pretty much an anomaly. But wondering how many people were sucked in with that single upturn event buried in the decades of lower ice volumes?

Sad.
 
ENIAC said:
This is a fascinating examination as to "Why People Don't Believe In Climate Science".
It's only fascinating in the sense that people still trot out so many false statements (e.g. 97% consensus) and logical fallacies (e.g. stream of anecdotal evidence about hurricanes, etc). The idea that was floated that people do not "believe in climate science" because of peer pressure was particularly special, given that the speaker ignored the very obvious conclusion that many (most?) people that believe that CO2 is dangerous do it for the very same reason.

Climate science, like all science, currently has issues related to peer reviewers operating as gatekeepers, blocking outstanding articles from being published while sheer nonsense gets a free pass. Yet it is not fully dead, yet. As such I have been able to link to THOUSANDS of RECENT peer-reviewed climate science articles which directly contradict the ideas that today's climate is somehow "unprecedented" or more dangerous than in the past. In fact, the trends are that extreme events are getting less frequent as the world has warmed and food production continues its steady rise as CO2 fertilizes our atmosphere. Ice has melted back to where it was in the first half of the 20th century and no on has identified specific harms related to this melting.

I do believe that CO2 is not dangerous for the many reasons:

- I have studied this topic extensively. My belief that CO2 is not dangerous is based on this extensive research into the measured data on this topic.
- Virtually every dire prediction that has been made by climate alarmists has been incorrect. The fact that climate alarmists have learned that making random predictions about dates that would occur within their lifetime was stupid and now only make predictions farther into the future does not change this fact.
- As the world has warmed, it has rapidly greened and extreme weather events of all types have subsided. Food production continues its stead climb. In other words, gradual warming and increasing CO2 concentration is not a danger but rather they are a benefit. When I am told by someone that the climate alarmist that it is bad, I challenge them to tell me of one NEGATIVE effect of "climate change". Not a single one has been able to name something which the data do not clearly demonstrate is going in a BENEFICIAL direction. I've done that here for years.
- The temperature of the *surface* of the oceans is the dominate factor which determines the temperature of the atmosphere.
- The energy capacity of the Earth's oceans is about 2000 times the energy capacity of the Earth's atmosphere.
- Cloud cover is, by far, the dominant factor which determines the temperature of the Earth. Clouds have a significantly-higher greenhouse effect than all of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. More importantly, they modulate the amount of sunlight which reaches the surface of the Earth. Therefore, they control the temperature of the global oceans.
- A decrease in cloud cover of about 0.1% has the same heating effect of the entire increase in CO2 that has occurred since the 1800s.
- Global cloud cover dropped about 3% coincident with the warming of the 1990s.
- Cloud formation is an extremely-poorly understood phenomenon. It certainly is understood well-enough to be modeled. As such, the dominant factor which controls the temperature of the Earth CANNOT be modeled or predicted. There are so many factors which determine if clouds form or do not form that I expect it will be a very long time before it is possible to accurately predict their long-term behavior.
- Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, having about 90% of the greenhouse effect on the Earth. (Some may say a bit less.)
- CO2 is the second-most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, at about 5%. (Some may say a bit more.)
- CO2 CANNOT heat the water of the Earth's oceans.
- CO2 has a secondary or tertiary impact on the rate of loss of heat from the surface of the global oceans. Scientific measurements indirectly show that the current increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere has resulted in a reduction in the temperature drop seen at the surface of the ocean of LESS THAN 0.001K. By contrast, sunlight causes an INCREASE in the surface temperature of the oceans of about 2K.
- In total, the temperature, and therefore the energy content, of the global oceans is not influenced by CO2 in any measurable fashion. Simply put, the temperature of the ocean is controlled by cloud cover and NOT by CO2. Any changes seen are a direct result of cloud cover.
- Clouds are the well-known cause of the El-Nino Southern Oscillation.
- Oh, and the side-show of ice melting in the Arctic and on glaciers is just that: a side show. Historical documents indicate that the ice levels seen today are extremely similar to what they were in second quarter of the 20th century. Good luck finding significant harms from this level of ice melt.
- Finally, global average temperatures closely follow the temperature of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. As such, we should expect they will go down over the next few decades. There are quite a few new scientific papers which make this prediction.

I have provided the detailed, scientific documentation for all of these statements in these forums.

The bottom line is that these scientific facts clearly indicate that we should not focus one bit of effort trying to limit CO2 emissions with the intent of influencing the climate. Those proposing such action are clearly misinformed.
 
GRA said:
lorenfb said:
GRA said:
The weird part as far as Norcal is that we had snow in the Lake Tahoe area just last Sunday, as well as high winds, some light rain, thunder and lightning, hail, a funnel cloud and below average temps in the Bay Area and Sacramento. While not unheard of, snow in June is extremely rare - even May is somewhat uncommon. Temps have been climbing steadily since then, and were in the normal range the past couple of days, but are forecast to break records in many places for the next week or so, with pretty much the entire Central Valley in triple digits a little early in the season.
And?
And nothing. A couple of hot spells every summer is pretty meaningless - they happen every year, although this one's a bit early, and quite a change in a short time. Example, the high a week ago Sunday in Livermore was 65; yesterday it was 106 there, and we're not forecast to see a drop below triple digits until Friday. Quite a few temp records were broken yesterday, some going back almost a century, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to draw any long-term conclusions about climate change from a single heat wave owing to an inland high - that's weather. Climate's a longer cycle.

O.K. then just call it what it is; Present CC theory is based on a similar historical data analysis of the stock market,
i.e. it's a Random Walk! Assuming that one can obtain meaningful and predictive data from a random noise signal
is overly optimistic at best.
 
CO2 level is the most direct most researched most transparent evidence deniers usually skip (or find reason to ignore):

antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=330&v=aqkGoCglp_U
 
More great climate news to report! As the hurricane season begins in the Gulf of Mexico with tropical storm Cindy, the cyclone year in the Southern Hemisphere is wrapping up in nine more days with no storms currently in Southern Hemisphere. What's great is that the Southern Hemisphere just set a new record in the modern instrument era for the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE). The new record of only 101 10^4 knots^2 is only 48% of climatology and beats the previous record of 114 10^4 knots^2 set in 2009. This plot from April of the historical ACE for the Southern Hemisphere does not have the current value for 2017, but it does show you the trend for the previous years:

image_thumb7.png


And the Northern Hemisphere is also extremely quiet early in it's cyclone season at an ACE of only 10 10^4 knots^2, or only 19% of the climatology! The Northern Pacific dominates the global ACE value and it has been very quiet so far. Here is a graph showing how low it is right now:

ACE-2017_JUne-13-768x559.png


The U.S. has experienced 11 years without ANY landfalling major hurricanes and is coming up on 12.

In fact, there has been a steady decline in landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. since the middle of the 19th century:

Screen-Shot-2016-10-09-at-12.09.14-AM.png


The reality is nothing like the predictions. Last season, forecasters predicted 4 to 8 hurricanes would strike Miami. I wonder what planet they are on!

We should all celebrate this steady improvement to our planet's climate!
 
WetEV said:
A blanket can't warm you. It just keeps you from losing heat.
Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does. As I said, CO2 is a second-order or even a third-order effect. In other words, CO2 is a DON'T CARE when it comes to the temperature of the water in the Earth's oceans.
 
RegGuheert said:
Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does.

You fail. Make-up-a fact-Friday isn't this week, and today isn't Friday.

The ice doesn't care.
 
“What we’re experiencing is an assault on the very foundations of our society and democracy — the twin pillars of truth and trust,” Seidman responded. “What makes us Americans is that we signed up to have a relationship with ideals that are greater than us and with truths that we agreed were so self-evident they would be the foundation of our shared journey toward a more perfect union — and of respectful disagreement along the way. We also agreed that the source of legitimate authority to govern would come from ‘We the people.’”

But when there is no “we” anymore, because “we” no longer share basic truths, Seidman argued, “then there is no legitimate authority and no unifying basis for our continued association.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/where-did-we-the-people-go.html
 
GetOffYourGas said:
WetEV said:
The ice doesn't care.

The ice also doesn't care what caused the temperature to rise - whether it was CO2, methane, or sun spots. So your retort does precisely nothing in refuting Reg's claim.

Reg claims that the surface isn't warming. The ice refutes that.
 
WetEV said:
Reg claims that the surface isn't warming. The ice refutes that.

That's your interpretation. Here's the actual exchange:

WetEV said:
RegGuheert said:
Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does.

You fail. Make-up-a fact-Friday isn't this week, and today isn't Friday.

The ice doesn't care.

My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2. To which you reply that ice is melting? Hence my comment:

GetOffYourGas said:
WetEV said:
The ice doesn't care.

The ice also doesn't care what caused the temperature to rise - whether it was CO2, methane, or sun spots. So your retort does precisely nothing in refuting Reg's claim.

Hopefully it's clear where I'm coming from here...
 
WetEV said:
RegGuheert said:
Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does.

You fail. Make-up-a fact-Friday isn't this week, and today isn't Friday.

The ice doesn't care.
I've covered this in detail many times before, most recently here.

When you say that CO2 is like a blanket over the ocean, that is true. But when you omit the scientific fact that it only changes the surface (about 1 um depth) less than 0.00K, that is a lie of omission. That's your bad since this fact has been made clear to you on multiple occasions. Here is the description of what happens again:

Radiant shortwave energy CAN heat solid objects directly. OTOH, heat ONLY ever flows from the ocean to the atmosphere. It NEVER flows the other way. This is because the dominant effect at the surface of the ocean is evaporation, which absorbs heat from BOTH the ocean and the atmosphere. As a result, the surface of the ocean is always a bit cooler than the water just below the surface. This gradient must be maintained so that heat can flow to the surface by conduction:

oceanskinlayermeasurements-GentemannMinnett.gif


The effect of shortwave radiation on the surface is to slightly reduce this temperature gradient so that less heat flows to the surface (and less is therefore lost into the atmosphere). The effect due to only CO2 does not change much over time and is so tiny that it could never be measured using modern instruments. Because of this, researchers have instead measured the effect of cloud cover on this surface gradient because it is equivalent to a forcing which varies by over 100 W/m^2. So how much does a 100 W/m^2 change in shortwave radiation reduce this temperature gradient? About 0.1K. Since CO2 concentrations have increased by less than 50% and a doubling is widely believed to account for about 1.5 W/m^2, then we can determine that CO2 alone reduces this gradient by a mere 0.0005K. Put another way, a reduction in cloud cover of 1% completely eliminates the ENTIRE effect of CO2 on the Earths oceans. You can read about the measurements which were done here.

Of course, we saw a 3% reduction in cloud cover during the decade of the 1990s (and continuing to this day), which instead results in a HEATING effect for the oceans due to an additional amount of longwave radiation of about 10 W/m^2 entering and directly heating the oceans.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2.
That's exactly correct. An excellent example is the "blob" that had persisted over the northern Pacific Ocean for a couple of years, blocking the west coast of the United States from getting the water-bearing jet stream and causing the severe drought that occurred there. The surface temperature of the water there was multiple degrees warmer than normal. People tried to claim that the 'blob" was somehow caused by CO2, but such an idea is utter nonsense, for a variety of reasons:

1) CO2 is well-mixed in the Earth's atmosphere. Had it somehow (magically?) heated the surface of the northern Pacific Ocean by a couple of degrees, it would have ALSO heated the surface of the global oceans EVERYWHERE by the same amount. Clearly the "blob" was caused by a local event, not a global one.
2) The appearance of the "blob" occurred over the course of months. In order to heat that much water by that amount would require massive increases in longwave radiation or upwelling of warm water from below. This can only be accomplished by a reduction in cloud cover over the area or some change in ocean currents.
3) The "blob" disappeared as quickly as it had arrived. If CO2 caused the "blob" to appear, would anyone care to take a crack at the idea of how it made the "blob" go away, given that the CO2 was still there in even higher concentrations?

No, when we measure changes in the temperature of the surface of the global oceans, other factors are by far the dominant causes. There are two primary factors which control the surface temperature of the oceans:
1) Changes in local cloud cover, which modulated how much sunlight reaches the surface of the ocean.
2) Upwelling of warmer or cooler water from deeper within the ocean.

Both of those factors can rapidly change the temperature of the surface of the ocean. We see the second factor at work frequently in the operation of El Ninos.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
My interpretation is that Reg claims the effect of CO2 is very minor. He implies that it only causes about 0.001K worth of warming. He doesn't say (in this quote) that the surface of the earth isn't warming, only that it's primarily caused by factors other than CO2.

Reg claims a lot of things. He also claims that the surface isn't warming, that all of the past measured warming is due to fraud.

RegGuheert said:
Of course those aren't the measured global temperatures. As we all know, this data has been tampered with to get a desired result.

RegGuheert said:
We know that ice extent today is virtually the same as it was in the 1920s,1930s and 1940s. You can read the same alarming newspaper articles about ice loss from all around the world from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Of course it was nonsense then, just as it is nonsense now.

Ice doesn't care.

muir9ab.jpg
 
We know that NASA has been "putting their thumb on scales" when it comes to the temperature record:

NASA-US-1999-2017.gif


And we know that these changes were made with the intention to hide the truth about the past temperatures:
So how did climate scientists make the 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling disappear? They got together and decided to erase it.

From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt


Government climate science is the biggest fraud in history, which is why they and their minions in the press attempt to prosecute and silence anyone who dissents from it.
Finally, we know that much of the historical global temperature data is simple "made up":
Climategate E-mails show that their ocean data is fake too.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <[email protected]> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <[email protected]>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
I don't just make claims. I back them up with hard evidence.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Correlation /= Causation

Lack of correlation disproves causation.

Cosmic rays might be cosmic, but don't relate to climate.

file.php


There does seem to be some link to weather.

Abstract

As early as 1959, it was hypothesized that an indirect link between solar activity and climate could be mediated by mechanisms controlling the flux of galactic cosmic rays (CR) [Ney ER (1959) Nature 183:451–452]. Although the connection between CR and climate remains controversial, a significant body of laboratory evidence has emerged at the European Organization for Nuclear Research [Duplissy J, et al. (2010) Atmos Chem Phys 10:1635–1647; Kirkby J, et al. (2011) Nature 476(7361):429–433] and elsewhere [Svensmark H, Pedersen JOP, Marsh ND, Enghoff MB, Uggerhøj UI (2007) Proc R Soc A 463:385–396; Enghoff MB, Pedersen JOP, Uggerhoj UI, Paling SM, Svensmark H (2011) Geophys Res Lett 38:L09805], demonstrating the theoretical mechanism of this link. In this article, we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full
 
Back
Top