Climate Change

[jackdale]

In case you missed the dates of of the Skakun paper

Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012

Science progresses.

The mechanism behind CO2 as a GHG has been understood since 1859 (The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect)

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In case you missed the dates of of the Skakun paper

Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012

Science progresses.

The mechanism behind CO2 as a GHG has been understood since 1859 (The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect)

How interesting. I had no idea that science moved in linear fashion, with the last paper published the last definitive word on the topic. Who knew?

On that basis, we now know that CO2 cools, rather than warms the atmosphere, at least according to a 2013 paper (after the 2012 Nature paper, therefore accurate) in Principia Scientific International by NASA scientists. The authors noted:

"According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet."

“The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

So, are you going to start calling for a reduction in human contributions (miniscule though it is relative to the total emissions from natural sources) on the basis that it will help prevent the next ice age, or will you let the topic lie for a bit in the hopes people will forget your prior positions?

[eliems]

I seriously doubt that a rise of 100 parts per million CO2 would have any significant effect on Global Warming. Global warming is Solar Driven.

Tim Patterson - Home Page

Professor Patterson is worth listening to. (His funding does not come from an agenda driven source).

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is to mis-characterise what is going on in Sweden, Sweden is social democracy,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...olm-burns.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...lity-stockholm

Sweden doesn't seem to work well for non Swedes...

Europe fundamentally believes in the social welfare model, Thats not to say it belives in forced income redistribution, but it does believe in subsidised healthcare, schooling, housing and a safety net under the under privileged. Government is not seen as "big" or "small" but mainly that it implements whats it says it will and reasonable efficiently.

There is a lot of variation in Europe. There's no minimum wage in Switzerland. Health insurance is private. The Netherlands privatized health insurance as well. Higher education in the Netherlands is mostly financed by the students themselves, through student loans. But these are countries where it's good living...

There is not a lot of subsidized housing in Belgium, but what exists is dismal. Pensions in Belgium have been mostly nationalized (biggest hold up in the history of the country) and now a third of the pensioners live below the poverty line. In Belgium you will not get emergency treatment at a hospital if you are uninsured. And even if you are insured your insurance will not pay for treatments that are not "on the list". Even if you need it to stay alive.
Millions of Germans work for 5€ an hour...

I could go on for ages about how great the European Social Welfare State is...

[Eddiefuego]

Holy Cats....Great to know there are some folks on boats that still understand how science works!
A couple of links some folks will find interesting. The first is recent news about sea level rise. UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100

The second...I found interesting. It is how some thinking ...self-sufficient...CONSERVATES are getting on board with Renewable Energy. It is nice to know the Fox brainwash tub has not made all the right wing dull....yet...because we really need a working two party system. How the far right developed an unlikely interest in solar energy | Giles Parkinson | Comment is free | theguardian.com

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Eddiefuego

Holy Cats....Great to know there are some folks on boats that still understand how science works!
A couple of links some folks will find interesting. The first is recent news about sea level rise. UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100

Only three feet? I guess I understand why the Dutch aren't worried :-)

The IPCC reports make interesting reading. My conclusion from them is tat even under the business as usual scenario the world isn't doomed. The world is a place full of problems and challenges, but as a whole keeps getting better.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Delfin

How interesting. I had no idea that science moved in linear fashion, with the last paper published the last definitive word on the topic. Who knew?

On that basis, we now know that CO2 cools, rather than warms the atmosphere, at least according to a 2013 paper (after the 2012 Nature paper, therefore accurate) in Principia Scientific International by NASA scientists. The authors noted:...

That would be the same PMI whose membership is open to anyone, and which quotes Lord Monkton (the one which the British House of Lords speaker wrote a cease and desist letter to as he was claiming that he was a member of that august organization) as one of their experts?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Only three feet? I guess I understand why the Dutch aren't worried :-)

The IPCC reports make interesting reading. My conclusion from them is tat even under the business as usual scenario the world isn't doomed. The world is a place full of problems and challenges, but as a whole keeps getting better.

Well, the good news is that based on the actual observed rise in sea level, which has been going on since the end of the Maunder Minimum, sea level is rising about 1.5mm per year. So by 2100, we may see an increase of a whopping 5 inches, or the depth of a good mud puddle.

When Alexander the Great conquered Tyre, it was an island off the coast. Now it is a peninsula because the sea level is so much lower now than it was then. Ocean levels rise, ocean levels drop. Yawn.

The UN IPCC predictions have been so thoroughly discredited that it is surprising that they are still referenced, especially by august and non-ideological news sources like the Huffington Post.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

That would be the same PMI whose membership is open to anyone, and which quotes Lord Monkton (the one which the British House of Lords speaker wrote a cease and desist letter to as he was claiming that he was a member of that august organization) as one of their experts?

Doesn't matter. According to jackdale, what counts is the date on the paper. Therefore, CO2 causes cooling.

The serious point, of course, is that we really can't find a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and warming. If we could, over the last couple of decades with CO2 on the increase we should see an increase of global temperatures, but we don't. Or we would see buildups in atmospheric CO2 preceding increases in temperatures in the past, but that is far from clear.

So, on one side you have us 'deniers', who read contradictory science and conclude, along with a great many climate scientists, that the case for man made global warming hasn't been made, so we should learn more before we act, especially since the action suggested is so ridiculously expensive. On the other side are folks who name call, question the credentials or motivations of those that disagree with them, jigger data to force conclusions (UN IPCC as a primary exhibit) and seem to mysteriously cluster around the political view point that government needs to be bigger. They, of course want to DO SOMETHING, if only for the Children!

Which is why they are increasingly ignored and will continue to be ignored until better data supporting their position comes in, which certainly hasn't happened yet.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

That would be the same PMI whose membership is open to anyone, and which quotes Lord Monkton (the one which the British House of Lords speaker wrote a cease and desist letter to as he was claiming that he was a member of that august organization) as one of their experts?

Incidentally, this organization is simply a scientific news source with an agenda, and that is to counter AGW hysteria. That doesn't mean, however, that the sources of information they quote represent something suspicious. The report from NASA that they reference is here: Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

The scientists merely note that the recent solar storm irradiated the earth with a tremendous amount of energy, 95% of which was reflected back into space by atmospheric Nitric oxide and CO2. In this report, the scientists refer to CO2 as a "coolant", which it certainly appears to be. Hardly controversial, and points to the legitimate observation that atmospheric elements act to cool the planet. So then the question is, if we have more CO2, does that mean that we may retain more solar radiation that gets through, but less gets through? And if so, does this cool the earth or warm it? Beats me, but am I willing to spend trillions betting it is the latter? Nope, although AGW enthusiasts are, and apparently less interested in answering the scientific question than just bulldozing forward with schemes that will probably accomplish nothing, other than making poor people poorer.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by eliems

I seriously doubt that a rise of 100 parts per million CO2 would have any significant effect on Global Warming. Global warming is Solar Driven.

Tim Patterson - Home Page

Professor Patterson is worth listening to. (His funding does not come from an agenda driven source).

Really

R. Timothy Patterson | DeSmogBlog

Patterson was chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition

Yet ICSC received $45,000 from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland's Form 990 for that year.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by eliems

I seriously doubt that a rise of 100 parts per million CO2 would have any significant effect on Global Warming. Global warming is Solar Driven.

Tim Patterson - Home Page

Professor Patterson is worth listening to. (His funding does not come from an agenda driven source).

BTW The Stanford Solar Center says

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW The Stanford Solar Center says


http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

The sun plays a "small part" in warming the earth?

You're serious, aren't you......

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Doesn't matter. According to jackdale, what counts is the date on the paper. Therefore, CO2 causes cooling.

This epitomizes misrepresentatiion.

In the field of peer-reviewed science the currency of that article is a factor.

The Principia Scientific International is a joke. Even Anthony Watts dismisses them:

Most of what that group does is to spin sciencey sounding theories and pal reviewed papers by a mysterious members-only peer review system, and I have yet to any one of them try to do anything at an experimental/empirical measurement level to back up the sort of claims they make.

New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts | Watts Up With That?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really

R. Timothy Patterson | DeSmogBlog

Patterson was chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition

Yet ICSC received $45,000 from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland's Form 990 for that year.

Since the UN IPCC has been shown to falsify their data, as has Michael Mann, does it follow that all research coming from Pitt or funded by the UN is bogus?

Again, lacking credible data to support your position, you resort to character attacks. Pretty scurrilous, really.