how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

IanC, have you been following this new study--the one I just posted? Do you have any thoughts on it?

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?

Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study.

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.

Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'

Here:

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

 

[IanC]

Already asked and answered Saigon. I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.

Then please give me the post #, and I will read and respond to that post.

I really do not understand why questioning your posts is "deflection"?! YOU raised the issue of socio-economic damage - so why not discuss it?


Ian -

There is enough spamming and abuse on this thread without you adding to it. Stick to the topic.

how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.

there is a finite amount of money for research. every dollar spent on 'climate science' is money that is not spent on something else. while I am not advocating for no money to climate science, I do look askance when hacks like Lewandowsky receive a half million dollars to compare skeptics to conspiracy theorists. especially when they fail in such epic fashion.

you cannot find new technological solutions by simply throwing money around, it has to get to the right (few) people. unfortunately there are a lot of charlatans waiting to cash in on easy money that no one seems responsible for; like the billions wasted on solar companies in the last decade.

so far there are very few realistic solutions that make a significant impact on our energy consumption. I don't believe in just doing expensive things for the sake of doing something, especially when they have no chance of succeeding.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -



Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study.

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.

Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'

Here:

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

So why would you highlight one phrase without including the qualifier that immediately follows it? The two sentences together are the writer's opinion while cherry picking a few words out of it assumes an intent he absolutely did not intend. Such a technique is dishonest and fraudulent and something no true scientist or even a student of science would engage in.

 

[IanC]

IanC, have you been following this new study--the one I just posted? Do you have any thoughts on it?

foxy- I am skeptical about every paper, even the ones that sorta agree with my position. at least this one shows historical consistency. I find it easier to believe people who have no dog in the fight, authors writing about 'ice fairs' on the Thames, explorers measuring ice 100+ years ago, fishermen noticing warm water and different fish stock, etc. everyone puts their own spin on scientific papers because they didn't listen to Feynman's advice. or Eisenhower's either.

long term cooling has been derived many times by many authors over the last many decades of science so it is likely to be correct. finding the right explanation for it is another thing altogether.

 

[Saigon]

Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'

Here:

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

So why would you highlight one phrase without including the qualifier that immediately follows it? The two sentences together are the writer's opinion while cherry picking a few words out of it assumes an intent he absolutely did not intend. Such a technique is dishonest and fraudulent and something no true scientist or even a student of science would engage in.

Fox -

Yes, I would highlight the phrase I found most interesting.

I am still waiting to hear more about the socio-economic damage, btw.

 

[Saigon]

how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.

there is a finite amount of money for research. every dollar spent on 'climate science' is money that is not spent on something else. while I am not advocating for no money to climate science, I do look askance when hacks like Lewandowsky receive a half million dollars to compare skeptics to conspiracy theorists. especially when they fail in such epic fashion.

you cannot find new technological solutions by simply throwing money around, it has to get to the right (few) people. unfortunately there are a lot of charlatans waiting to cash in on easy money that no one seems responsible for; like the billions wasted on solar companies in the last decade.

so far there are very few realistic solutions that make a significant impact on our energy consumption. I don't believe in just doing expensive things for the sake of doing something, especially when they have no chance of succeeding.

My point was not questioning whether converting from any one source of energy to another has a cost - but whether that cost is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

What cost is already being levied on the people who relied for Andean glacial melt for water - and are not suffering from droughts?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of increased droughts in Spain and Australia, combined with the impact of increased floods in Australia, Bangladesh and Holland?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of coral bleaching on global tourism?

The impact of elements we already know for a fact are happening - glacial melt, Arctic melt - will be in the trillions of dollars globaly. Fox's solution is that we do nothing to limit that. I disagree.

As for the points you raise - I agree corn is not the best source of biofuel. Ultimately, perhaps algse will be - but who knows at this point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers. So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you. If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist, Wouldn't you agree?

And you completely missed the point IanC made in his excellent response to your question. Was that due to disinterest too?

 

[PMZ]

Foxfyre -

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?

It seems to me that endemic to conservatism is the belief that doing nothing is always the cheapest alternative. Of course when you are talking about national problems it's rarely the cheapest alternative. I think that conservatives are hard wired to look only at short term costs and liberals at long term investments.

When you consider all of the national damage done by the Bush Administration it's a toss up as to whether more was from what he did do or what he didn't do.

 

[itfitzme]

Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Interesting interpretation. All along I've been under the impression that Copermicus and Galileo were persecuted by the religious community, like the Spaniish Inquisition. *Perhaps the issue is you see science as religion?

It might have been easier on Galileo had there been scientific journals and a better peer review methodology in the 1600s.

Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

Okay, some adjustments to the model. *Isn't that the way it always is?

"Before the 17th century scientists believed that there was no such thing as the "speed of light". They thought that light could travel any distance in no time at all. Later, several attempts were made to measure that speed:

1638 Galileo: at least 10 times faster than sound
1675 Ole Roemer: 200,000 Km/sec
1728 James Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
1849 Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
1862 Leon Foucault 299,796 Km/s
Today: 299792.458 km/s"

That's how it goes, closer and closer.

Or are you suggesting that this article changes the measures of temperature since the late 1800's?

 

[itfitzme]

Fox -*



Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study.*

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.

Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'

Here:

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

Yeah, I read that as in "it's not insignificant". *That's like saving interest rates of .8% aren't insignificant because it helps reduce the effecf of a 2.5% rate of inflation to 1.7%.

 

[itfitzme]

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.*

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.*

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

We've WON the argument saggy. *You have no meaningful legislation going to be passed this year or the next. *Further, as the warmists themselves finally lose control over the various journals the real data will get out to the real world and you will find your religion in full retreat.

And yes sweety, I DO debate.....but there must be two to tango and all you do is spew nonsense and silliness. * If you ever care to REALLY debate something other than posting something up and screaming "see I won", feel free to. *But your methods of "debate" bear no semblance to reality....

Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? * Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. *But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Now I'm still reading new studies of primitive fossilized tree rings that so far are receiving little press and attention because they so challenge the current AGW religion. *So far only those media outlets that report ALL the news rather than only the politically correct news seem to be dealing with it:

. . . An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. . . .

. . . . The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. . . .

. . . ."This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

Copernicus's theory was not fully accepted by the scientific community for most of 150+ years but the rejection of competent science then had no significant affect on the people. *Given the political and socioeconomic damage currently in progress implementing the warmers' religion now, however, I hope it doesn't take that long to get the science right this time.

Oh, I get it.

"J. Esper et al., Orbital forcing of tree-ring data, Nature Climate Change, 8 July 2012 "

So the recent long term trend and short term variability is due to changes in the orbit of the earth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.

Not so weird.. There is a math construct of the Center Mass of the Solar System. Because of the orbital dynamics working on the Sun -- It's center of mass cycles slowly over time.
We haven't had orbiting observatories up LONG enough to get physical evidence (and it's near impossible to ACCURATELY measure TSI directly from the ground), but my I wouldn't be surprised if we find a measureable pattern...

 

[westwall]

Here:

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

So why would you highlight one phrase without including the qualifier that immediately follows it? The two sentences together are the writer's opinion while cherry picking a few words out of it assumes an intent he absolutely did not intend. Such a technique is dishonest and fraudulent and something no true scientist or even a student of science would engage in.

Fox -

Yes, I would highlight the phrase I found most interesting.

I am still waiting to hear more about the socio-economic damage, btw.

You omit the qualifier at your peril there saggy. As far as the damage done, how much money are you willing to squander on politically motivated research? How many need to starve for you to be satisfied? Hundreds of thousands could be fed with the corn that is insanely rendered into alcohol for fuel, fuel that is not as efficient as that which it seeks to replace and which causes more environmental damage in the making?

Get real, even a propagandist like you must have some base ethics...somewhere?

 

[westwall]

how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.

there is a finite amount of money for research. every dollar spent on 'climate science' is money that is not spent on something else. while I am not advocating for no money to climate science, I do look askance when hacks like Lewandowsky receive a half million dollars to compare skeptics to conspiracy theorists. especially when they fail in such epic fashion.

you cannot find new technological solutions by simply throwing money around, it has to get to the right (few) people. unfortunately there are a lot of charlatans waiting to cash in on easy money that no one seems responsible for; like the billions wasted on solar companies in the last decade.

so far there are very few realistic solutions that make a significant impact on our energy consumption. I don't believe in just doing expensive things for the sake of doing something, especially when they have no chance of succeeding.

My point was not questioning whether converting from any one source of energy to another has a cost - but whether that cost is greater than the cost of doing nothing.

What cost is already being levied on the people who relied for Andean glacial melt for water - and are not suffering from droughts?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of increased droughts in Spain and Australia, combined with the impact of increased floods in Australia, Bangladesh and Holland?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of coral bleaching on global tourism?

The impact of elements we already know for a fact are happening - glacial melt, Arctic melt - will be in the trillions of dollars globaly. Fox's solution is that we do nothing to limit that. I disagree.

As for the points you raise - I agree corn is not the best source of biofuel. Ultimately, perhaps algse will be - but who knows at this point.

None of those impacts are true. You'll have to do better than make crap up.

 

[westwall]

Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers. So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you. If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist, Wouldn't you agree?

And you completely missed the point IanC made in his excellent response to your question. Was that due to disinterest too?

Inability...

 

[westwall]

Foxfyre -

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?

It seems to me that endemic to conservatism is the belief that doing nothing is always the cheapest alternative. Of course when you are talking about national problems it's rarely the cheapest alternative. I think that conservatives are hard wired to look only at short term costs and liberals at long term investments.

When you consider all of the national damage done by the Bush Administration it's a toss up as to whether more was from what he did do or what he didn't do.

And yet more environmental damage has been done BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS in CA, than by all the oil companies world wide over the last 40 years. More rare raptors and scavengers have been butchered by "green" windmills in ONE year than by all the oil spills man has caused EVER.

You too, are hoist on your own petard.

 

[westwall]

Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Interesting interpretation. All along I've been under the impression that Copermicus and Galileo were persecuted by the religious community, like the Spaniish Inquisition. *Perhaps the issue is you see science as religion?

It might have been easier on Galileo had there been scientific journals and a better peer review methodology in the 1600s.

Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

Okay, some adjustments to the model. *Isn't that the way it always is?

"Before the 17th century scientists believed that there was no such thing as the "speed of light". They thought that light could travel any distance in no time at all. Later, several attempts were made to measure that speed:

1638 Galileo: at least 10 times faster than sound
1675 Ole Roemer: 200,000 Km/sec
1728 James Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
1849 Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
1862 Leon Foucault 299,796 Km/s
Today: 299792.458 km/s"

That's how it goes, closer and closer.

Or are you suggesting that this article changes the measures of temperature since the late 1800's?

If you're going to pass yourself off as a intellectual then you had better do your research better. Eratosthenes is the first to accurately determine the distance from the Sun to the Earth and to do so he also calculated the speed of light to within one percent.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.

Which is old news

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

So does it explain the current trend?