Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wild?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wild?

Postby Neri on July 18th, 2019, 11:21 am 

A very recently published paper by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi from the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Turku in Finland has cast doubt on the opinion of many climatologists that man-made increases in CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Another paper published earlier this month by Masayuki Hyodo, Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan came to the same conclusion.

These scientists argue that cloud formation is the principle engine of climate change.

Green house gases have the power to retain heat from the sun and thereby increase the temperature on earth.

CO2 is a green house gas that is currently 400 parts per million of the total atmospheric gasses. However, this is only .04%. of the atmosphere.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that varies between 1% and 5% of the atmosphere with an average of 3% or 30,000 parts per million of the total atmosphere.

However, when greenhouse gasses are taken as a separate category of the atmosphere, such gases consist almost entirely of water vapor with CO2 counting as only a minute fraction of one percent.

Yet, climate computer models employed by most climatologists are formulated in such a way that CO2 is weighted as responsible for most of global warming while the heating power of water vapor is either minimized or ignored. This was done by claiming that the atmosphere is particularly sensitive to CO2, even though there is no experimental data to support such a claim.

The raises the question of the influence clouds on global warming. Clouds reflect the heat of the sun back into space. Without clouds, the retention of heat by water vapor would not be moderated, and the earth would be a veritable oven incapable of supporting life.

According to Kauppinen, Malmi and the Japanese scientists, cosmic rays stimulate the formation of clouds. When there in an increase in cosmic rays striking the earth, more clouds are formed and the global temperature decreases. Thus cosmic rays, although they are high in energy, cause a reduction in the temperature of the earth’s surface—the opposite of what one would expect.

There have been periodic reversals of the earth’s magnetic field over the millennia. These disruptions resulted in a significant increase in cosmic rays reaching the earth with a consequent increase in cloud formation and a decrease in temperature.

Drs. Kauppinen and Malmi report that the magnetic field has been moving erratically from the Canadian Arctic towards Siberia so unpredictably that we may be in for a reversal of the field. If this happens, the earth will suffer another ice age by reason of an enormous bombardment of cosmic rays [The last such reversal occurred some 780,000 years ago.]

The Finnish and Japanese scientists concluded that a small reduction in cosmic rays in the modern period has caused a slight increase [less than1%] in the earth’s mean temperature but that this condition can reverse at any time, and we can do nothing about it.

They point out that an increase in temperature causes a greater release of CO2 from the oceans (Henry’s Law). Thus, the causal relationship is not that a rise in CO2 causes a significant rise in global temperature but rather the reverse—that a significant increase in temperature causes an increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, rising temperatures cause increasing CO2 levels, and not the other way round.

An increase in CO2 of itself causes no significant increase in temperature owing to the fact that it is a minimal constituent of the atmosphere, and the claim that the atmosphere is especially sensitive to this particular gas is a mere makeweight.

The Kauppinen/Malmi paper is highly critical of the climate models employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They maintain that in order to implicate CO2 as the principal cause of climate change, the IPCC “had to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component.”

In other words the IPCC exaggerated the influence of CO2 to get the results they wanted. In so doing, they minimized the influence of cloud formation.

Thus, the Finnish and Japanese scientists would say that the proposition “that increases in CO2 traceable to human activity are responsible for global warming” is not established by fact (as the scientific method would dictate) but rather depends on the output of computer models that reflect only the opinions of those climatologists who baked that proposition into their programs. This constitutes intellectual dishonesty in the form of circular reasoning in that such models presume the very thing they purport to prove.

Kauppinen and Malmi emphasized that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence—a statement of the obvious.

They stated further:

“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.
“The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature has increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

See, http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fin ... icant.html


As for myself, I did not find that either the Finnish or the Japanese teams presented much in the way of experimental evidence to support the postulate that cloud formation is the principal engine of climate change.

However, It is possible, in principle, to construct an experiment that will tell us exactly to what extent cloud formation contributes to global warming. Thus, unlike the CO2 theory, the cloud postulate has the major advantage of being susceptible to experimental falsification or verification.

The CLOUD experiment at the Cern Laboratory has attempted to do just that. Dr. Jasper Kirkby, a particle physicist has designed a cloud chamber that creates a parcel of the atmosphere that can be subjected to various substances and to the “Cern beam,” a very close approximation of cosmic rays supplied by a device called the Proton Synchrotron.

I should point out that, as a physicist, Dr. Kirkby is in the habit of assiduously adhering to the demands of the scientific method. Unlike the CO2 promoters, he deals in experimental facts and not mere opinions. Nor does he believe that a show of hands in favor of or against a climate-change theory is controlling, for such a thing is a political process having nothing to do with the scientific method.

The notion that cloud formation is a minimal factor in climate change was based upon the prevailing belief (never experimentally verified) that there was little difference in cloudiness before and during the industrial era.

However, the CLOUD experiment demonstrated as a fact that there was much greater cloud formation prior to the industrial revolution than there is now. Thus, it appears that reduced cloud formation in the current era has had a very significant impact on climate change not reflected in the IPCC models.

Much of Kirkby’s experimental work has to do with what are called aerosols. These are tiny particles abundant in the atmosphere (160,000 per cubic inch). They are known to come from desert dust, sea salt, soot, the burning of fossil fuels and volcanic eruptions. They may be solids or liquids.

Aerosols are important because they are the seeds that yield the formation of the cloud droplets that constitute the fabric of clouds. Cloud droplets typically form around an aerosol. Thus, the more the aerosols the greater the formation of clouds and the lower the temperature. Clouds cover about 60% of the earth’s surface.

Densely populated regions, particularly where coal is burnt in large quantities, are major sources of aerosols. Because aerosols tend to reduce air quality, their emissions have been reduced in Europe and the U.S. over the last few decades. Ironically, because many anthropogenic aerosols themselves cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space, their reduction likely contributed to the warming of the climate.

The CLOUD experiment uncovered certain previously unknown facts about aerosols.

First of all, it was found that vapors released by trees and other vegetation form aerosols when they are oxidized in the atmosphere. High CO2 levels tend to increase plant growth and consequently foster an increase in such vapors.

Secondly, it was found the ionization of atmospheric gases caused by cosmic rays increases the production of aerosols by a factor of 10 to 20! Certainly, this was adequate to account for the cloudiness of the pre-industrial period. But what caused the current decrease in cloud formation and with it the consequent rise in temperature?

It may have been that the polluted atmosphere of the industrial age blocked much of the cosmic radiation and thereby curtailed the ionization necessary to stimulate sufficient cloud formation.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that much of what is called pollution consists of man-made aerosols that themselves, even without cloud formation, have the power to reflect sunlight back into space and thereby reduce the temperature on earth. It may be simply that there has been a decrease in cosmic rays in the industrial era, as the Finnish and Japanese scientists claim.

Obviously, much more needs to be known before it will be possible to accurately predict future climatic changes. Even the IPCC now admits that cloud formation studies have raised considerable doubt as to the accuracy of their predictions of future global warming.

However, It seems clear that the degree to which the temperature of the current age is affected by cloud formation should be a matter of experimental fact and not a matter of opinion, for the only vote that counts is the vote of nature.

See, https://home.cern/ “CLOUD Experiment Sharpens Climate Predictions” and “CLOUD Shows Pre-Industrial Skies Cloudier than Expected”
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 18th, 2019, 12:08 pm 

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to, or cited to, enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.


http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fin ... icant.html

Per SPCF guidelines, peer-review is required for cited works. Please supply a peer-reviewed source. Thanks.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 18th, 2019, 12:16 pm 

However, It is possible, in principle, to construct an experiment that will tell us exactly to what extent cloud formation contributes to global warming. Thus, unlike the CO2 theory, the cloud postulate has the major advantage of being susceptible to experimental falsification or verification.

The CLOUD experiment at the Cern Laboratory has attempted to do just that. Dr. Jasper Kirkby, a particle physicist has designed a cloud chamber that creates a parcel of the atmosphere that can be subjected to various substances and to the “Cern beam,” a very close approximation of cosmic rays supplied by a device called the Proton Synchrotron.

I should point out that, as a physicist, Dr. Kirkby is in the habit of assiduously adhering to the demands of the scientific method. Unlike the CO2 promoters, he deals in experimental facts and not mere opinions.


The assertion that the experiment will tell us exactly...needs support, and peer-reviewed citation. The aspersion against 99.7 of climate scientists, specifically that they deal in mere opinions and lack scientific evidence....also needs support and peer-reviewed citation. Also, please link any information you have on Dr. Kirkby's training and publications in the field of climatology. Would be most helpful to readers in evaluation of your comments and the degree to which his experimental setup corresponds to actual atmospheric conditions. Thanks.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 19th, 2019, 6:21 am 

Just a quick question to TheVat. Who are the 99.7% of Climate Scientists who are having aspersions made against them?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 19th, 2019, 7:48 am 

The Vat,

Thank you for your interesting comments.

The scientists referenced in my OP are professors of physics and astronomy and not climatologists. Dr. Kirkby is a particle physicist at the Cern Laboratory. While I am not in possession of the full CV’s of these gentlemen, I am sure they are impressive.

It is true that members of the climatology community did not review the work of the Finnish and Japanese physicists before publication. If they had, their work would likely have been suppressed. However, these physicists, and Dr. Kirkby as well, really have no pier among such people. There is a reason for this.

Physics is real science. Climatology is pseudo-science with a political agenda. Why do I say this?

Your own words tell the tale. A proposition claiming that a majority vote among climatologists establishes any proposition as fact runs contrary to the scientific method. It is politics, not science. In real science, experimental verification establishes fact, not mere opinion, whether held individually or jointly. If a vote had been taken among so-called experts in Galileo’s time, they would have agreed overwhelmingly that the sun revolves around the earth. That view was held with a kind of religious fervor, much as anthropogenic climate change is held today among the politically correct.

Real science does not engage in the kind of circular reasoning evidenced by the IPCC climate models, wherein high sensitivity to CO2 and minimization of the influence of clouds is baked into the models, thereby predetermining the result--namely, anthropogenic climate change. Such a thing cannot logically yield truth, for it presumes the very thing it purports to prove. That is the meaning of saying that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence.

Let us not forget, also, that the IPCC is an intergovernmental agency. Governments are the same political institutions that pay generous grants to so-called scientists, so long as they toe the line where climate change is concerned.

I, for one, believe that it is a refreshing development that some of the power of the climatologists in now being shared by those who actually adhere to the demands of the scientific method.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 19th, 2019, 9:37 am 

doogles » July 19th, 2019, 3:21 am wrote:Just a quick question to TheVat. Who are the 99.7% of Climate Scientists who are having aspersions made against them?


Unlike the CO2 promoters, he deals in experimental facts and not mere opinions.


The climate scientists who have linked CO2 ppm and temperature are not engaging in mere opinion. Like other scientists, their research findings rest on data. Climatologists are professionals trained in relevant fields that include chemistry, atmospheric physics, geophysics, and other fields, and use the same methods of science that other fields do. When you confidently step aboard a jet, or undergo a medical procedure, you are accepting the results of the same scientific methodology which has shown a causal link between levels of GHGs like methane, CO2, and diesel soot, and rapid rises in global temperature.

Past threads here go over this data, at considerable length. Members are free to review them, consult other research sources, the IPCC report from last year, and any peer-reviewed reports, and so on. There are threads here where we have scientist members, like Don Lincoln, explain the value of peer review in the scientific method. I remind members that calling research findings "political" is itself a political statement, and therefore best taken to a politics website.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 19th, 2019, 9:58 am 

Your own words tell the tale. A proposition claiming that a majority vote among climatologists establishes any proposition as fact runs contrary to the scientific method. It is politics....


No such tale was told. Findings of the scientists in climatology were not established by voting. See previous post. Consensus, as in other fields, arises from consistent data and what that data shows. It is very hard to find a scientist with real credentials, who has not been sponsored by the petroleum industry, that is not supporting the causal link between GHGs and temps based on the voluminous data sets available. Nor do any of them deny that water vapor does play a role.

Please provide peer reviewed research, per SPCF guidelines.

It's worth noting that, despite intense pressure from the present government administration in the USA to deny any link between fossil fuel use and global warming, professional scientists are still consistently reporting the same findings. This speaks to the essentially nonpolitical nature of science. It's about facts, not industry anxiety -- fortunately.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 19th, 2019, 10:01 am 

Neri » July 19th, 2019, 6:48 am wrote:The scientists referenced in my OP are professors of physics and astronomy and not climatologists.

And this is a good reason to apply their work to climate science?
It is true that members of the climatology community did not review the work of the Finnish and Japanese physicists before publication. If they had, their work would likely have been suppressed.

Not quite true, on either count.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
It is eminently predictable that the published results will be wildly misconstrued by the contrarian blogosphere as actually proving this link. However, that would be quite wrong.


Physics is real science. Climatology is pseudo-science with a political agenda. Why do I say this?

Your own words tell the tale. A proposition claiming that a majority vote among climatologists establishes any proposition as fact runs contrary to the scientific method. It is politics, not science. In real science, experimental verification establishes fact, not mere opinion, whether held individually or jointly. If a vote had been taken among so-called experts in Galileo’s time, they would have agreed overwhelmingly that the sun revolves around the earth. That view was held with a kind of religious fervor, much as anthropogenic climate change is held today among the politically correct.

Nothing prejudicial there! There is no "proposition" or "claiming": consensus among climate scientists is a simple fact. And it is not based on a "vote": it is based on extensive, rigorous observation, measurement, experimentation, mapping, charting, comparison, mathematical fomulation... you know, the whole scientific methodology, which is entirely unlike Galileo saying Copernicus was right (Copernicus was wrong) and Galileo did a grovelling retraction as soon as he was shown the implements of persuasion. Maybe not the best example of scientific rigor.

Real science does not engage in the kind of circular reasoning evidenced by the IPCC climate models, wherein high sensitivity to CO2 and minimization of the influence of clouds is baked into the models, thereby predetermining the result--namely, anthropogenic climate change.

Something has to go in, or there wouldn't be a model.
I'm not sure what it would take to convince me that clouds are not part of the climate, being determined by, rather than determining, winds and currents.
That is the meaning of saying that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence.

Nobody said they were experimental evidence. There is also the small matter of comparing a limited and controlled experiment in a bell jar to what happens in the big world; in fact, the computer model can have a good deal more information to work with.
They are depictions of the accumulated data from observation. Just like everything we know about Jason Kirby's field, astrophysics. http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/02/computer-model
If you throw out computer modelling in one field, you have to toss them all.

Let us not forget, also, that the IPCC is an intergovernmental agency. Governments are the same political institutions that pay generous grants to so-called scientists, so long as they toe the line where climate change is concerned.

Show us where any government has benefitted from the warnings of climate science. In fact, some governments are overtly hostile to climate science. So far, governments have contributed only a small part of the mitigation; most progress is being made by business and citizen action. https://www.wri.org/publication/tracking-progress-2020-climate-turning-point

I, for one, believe that it is a refreshing development that some of the power of the climatologists in now being shared by those who actually adhere to the demands of the scientific method.

Like a professor of Atmospheric Science at Leeds? https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions
This is a huge step for atmospheric science,” says lead author Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds, UK. “It’s vital that we build climate models on experimental measurements and sound understanding, otherwise we cannot rely on them to predict the future. Eventually, when these processes get implemented in climate models, we will have much more confidence in aerosol effects on climate.”
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 19th, 2019, 3:57 pm 

Serpent,

A little historical perspective will help to understand the political aspects of this climate-warming business.

I am old enough to remember that, in the nineteen eighties, Margaret Thatcher, in an attempt to break the back of the coal miners union, appointed a scientific commission to determine if the burning of coal was dangerous to the health. It did not take long for them to come up with this anthropogenic climate change business.

During this period, the European neo-Marxists were trying to remain relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union. Despite its conservative origins, they seized upon the Thatcher climate-change theory, basically because it was anti-industrialist. The theory soon spread throughout the world and became an article of faith for the politically correct.

The U.S. government, for example, offered generous grants to climatologists who supported anthropogenic climate change. Scientists who questioned it could not hope to receive a grant. This woeful condition remains to this day. It is no surprise, therefore, that most (but not all) climatologists argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change. If you are asking if I am so bold as to say that many who champion this theory are intellectually dishonest, the answer is “yes.” Anyone who believes that this issue is not steeped in politics must be living in an alternate universe.

Because of the pioneering work of Jasper Kirkby and others, even the IPCC now reluctantly admits that cloud formation studies have raised doubt as to the accuracy of their predictions of future global warming. However, this has not deterred the likes of Congresswoman Cortez from declaring that global warming will destroy the earth in ten years.

Many Climatologists have seen the writing on the wall and are now willing to consider the powerful effects of cloud formation. This has reduced the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change to considerably less than the 97% cited by others.

You cite a statement of Dr. Ken Carslaw, a professor of atmospheric science at Leeds University. Prof. Carslaw has collaborated on the CLOUD experiment with Dr. Jasper Kirkby who designed it. As a result, he believes that the experimental data obtained from CLOUD “is a huge step for atmospheric science.” He emphasizes, “It’s vital that we build climate models on EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS and sound understanding, otherwise we cannot rely on them to predict the future. Eventually, when these processes get implemented in climate models, we will have much more confidence in aerosol effects on climate.” (Emphasis supplied). Is this not what I have been saying all along?
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
doogles liked this post


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 19th, 2019, 8:32 pm 

...most (but not all) climatologists argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change. If you are asking if I am so bold as to say that many who champion this theory are intellectually dishonest, the answer is “yes.”


And if you back up that opinion with intellectual honesty, by providing us with evidence, i.e. peer reviewed data and interpretation of that data, then it will carry more weight. One must argue from solid evidence (as Serpent examples) rather than theories of Thatcherites or Marxists stifling good science or promoting biased bad science. That's why SCF is committed to keeping focus on the science, so that we don't just ping-pong our political intuitions back and forth.

Your OP didn't just assert that climate models can be improved with better understanding of vaporization, condensation, and aerosols. No one would disagree, in any branch of atmospheric science. You also promoted a theory that CO2 has little causal role in greater heat retention in the atmosphere. This is a far more extraordinary claim, one not supported by roughly two centuries of data, as well as ice core samples and other techniques for studying more ancient fluctuations in climate and CO2. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a second request for you to provide such, and let others here examine that evidence. Time to stop bashing dedicated science professionals with essentially unprovable and vague allusions to "dishonesty."
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 19th, 2019, 9:36 pm 

Neri » July 19th, 2019, 2:57 pm wrote:Serpent,

A little historical perspective will help to understand the political aspects of this climate-warming business.

There is no such 'business', but I'm fine with perspective.

I am old enough to remember that, in the nineteen eighties, Margaret Thatcher, in an attempt to break the back of the coal miners union, appointed a scientific commission to determine if the burning of coal was dangerous to the health.

Coal-miners had been suffering from black lung in sufficient numbers, for enough generations, and dying in enough cave-ins and gas pockets, to know very well how bad the work was for their health. Everybody who worked and lived Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and The Big Smoke itself, had always known coal was bad for their health.

It did not take long for them to come up with this anthropogenic climate change business.

Again, with the 'business'! The warnings about CO2 go back to a century earlier, and a whole international conference on the subject had been held a decade earlier. Thatcher's advisors didn't just invent this problem; none of it was new.
And it has nothing to do with the oil companies displacing the coal companies in British industry.

Finally, Thatcher's very different legacies with respect to oil and coal should remind us these issues are a lot more than simply science, or politics, or economics, or the social networks of individual politicians. None of this is simple, and greenwashing Thatcher's history does her an injustice as well as science and technology policy.https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-science-advice-climate-change


During this period, the European neo-Marxists were trying to remain relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union. Despite its conservative origins, they seized upon the Thatcher climate-change theory, basically because it was anti-industrialist. The theory soon spread throughout the world and became an article of faith for the politically correct.

Whoooo! I'd like to see the mechanism whereby that could happen.

The U.S. government, for example, offered generous grants to climatologists who supported anthropogenic climate change. Scientists who questioned it could not hope to receive a grant.

Not the Reagan government! (By then, the consensus had been reached.) Bush I was pretty sound on the subject; Clinton passed some good legislation, provided funding for the EPA and tax-incentives for business. Bush II, however did the exact opposite of what you claim:
Also in 2001, President George W. Bush established the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). One of the initiative’s two main priorities was to study “areas of uncertainty” in global climate change science.5
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/climate-change.html

and, as for the Trump government, you needn't worry that it's wasting any money on scientists.

Anyone who believes that this issue is not steeped in politics must be living in an alternate universe.

If only there were such an escape!
Look:
Human life is steeped in politics. Politics is the process whereby humans make collective rules, plans, self-defence strategy, decisions and common projects. Governments make policy - they're unavoidable.
"This issue" affects the lives of every person on this planet, and all their descendants. If they don't act through their governments, they cannot act at all.

Is this not what I have been saying all along?

No. You have been saying that climate science is not science.

Anyway, you can stop worrying about what anyone believes. It's too late.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 20th, 2019, 4:08 am 

I found Neri's contribution useful and I'm quite pleased to hear that at least one research group is doing some basic experimental studies.

Neri quoted the following -- "Kauppinen and Malmi emphasized that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence—a statement of the obvious." They stated further: “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. “The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature has increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

This support of experimental evidence over computer models is in line with the open letter from 39 scientists employed by NASA some time ago who complained that the Global Warming theories were too reliant on Computer Modelling. So the Cloud Experiments are a good thing to my mind and should be supported from that stance alone. Are any of our members afraid of experimental evidence?

One of the important points mentioned in threads in this forum is that scientific studies should be falsifiable. Of interest regarding the carbon dioxide theory, I was looking through a 1981 article by James Hansen himself whom I consider to be the one who not only coined the unscientific emotional phrase 'Global Warming', but who also blamed carbon dioxide for the recorded average global increases in near-surface temperatures and who initially suggested that the United Nations set up an International Global Panel to do something about this 'Global Warming'.

In their Introduction to a paper, Hansen et al (1981; http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2 ... n81sci.pdf), stated "The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2 to 3 degrees C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm." Then they added, and this does not appear to have been noted by the IPCC and their faithful followers -- "The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5 degrees C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 build-up. In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact of radiative perturbation by an order of magnitude (10-fold -- my comment), have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood."

This was in 1981 and stated by James Hansen and his team. That cooling effect between 1940 and 1970, in spite of significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (It was the peak of chimney smoke emissions in the western world), does seem to falsify the carbon dioxide religion. I'd be interested in how 'The Faithful" explain that anomaly; James Hansen did not try; he just went on with his modelling.

Note also that Kauppinen and Malmi stated: “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models." Does this sound something like Hansen et al's statement in 1981 that "In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact of radiative perturbation by an order of magnitude (10-fold -- my comment), have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood." Yes! Claims were made back in the 1970s that climate models overestimate by an order of magnitude.

They are NOT my words. They are the words of Hansen's group back in 1981. Not only that, but recognise that to date, 1) I have not been able to find where anyone has studied the absorption and radiation properties of infrared energy by carbon dioxide since John Tyndall's crude heat experiments c 1860s, and 2) After 23 years of attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, no scientific group has yet made an attempt to evaluate the success or futility of attempts to reduce emissions to date.

Look at the carbon dioxide curves at Cape Grim and Mauna Loa and you will not see the slightest of dips in the carbon dioxide curves despite 23 years of emission controls.

I apologise if any of the above 'inconvenient truths' do not sit comfortably with those who still have faith in the carbon dioxide 'models'.
..............................................
There is at least one peer-reviewed study by the same author group in support of cloud and humidity theory -- J. Kauppinen, J. Heinonen, and P. Malmi. Influence of relative humidity and clouds on the global mean surface temperature. Energy & Environment, 25(2):389–399, 2014. It's viewable here -- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... X.25.2.389. The Abstract states "The explanation for climate change is still searching for an experimental proof and the most important question is whether climate change is anthropogenic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming is mostly man made due to the increasing CO2 concentration. In this work we study the contributions of humidity and clouds to the surface temperature. We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before, the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change."

Unfortunately there was a paywall on the full text, so I couldn't criticize the paper itself.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 20th, 2019, 7:04 am 

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/2019-starts-extreme-high-impact-weather
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/india/india-heat-wave-deaths-intl/index.html
https://www.dw.com/en/extreme-weather-threatens-african-society-and-economy/a-45713490-0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/30/canada-flooding-quebec-montreal-justin-trudeau-climate-change
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


Clouds are water. Humidity is water. The ice-caps are melting. The permafrost is melting. The glaciers are melting. The cities are sweating. There is more water up there all the time, to make lots and lots of clouds -- not in a test-tube, not in a tunnel, not on a computer screen, but in the only atmosphere we have --
and it's coming down again in all the wrong places, at all the wrong times.
Good to know we can blame something other than ourselves.
Last edited by Serpent on July 20th, 2019, 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 20th, 2019, 7:12 am 

Doogles,

Thank you for your learned comments.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 20th, 2019, 7:25 am 

Nobody denied the validity or value of cloud studies. Nobody said experimental research shouldn't be supported.
But to base denial of the entire body of evidence regarding a hugely complex system on the partial applicability of one limited experiment is just another exercise in blame-shifting. And pointless.

It happened. We did it. We're stuck with the consequences.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 20th, 2019, 9:48 am 

A couple points for further research, for anyone interested....Doogles?

CO2 release from oceans is related to the oceans role as a carbon sink, and having absorbed more CO2 in the past century, per Henry's Law of dissolved gases. Rises in water temps and coral reef die offs also play a role, releasing some of that dissolved gas.

Look at the carbon dioxide curves at Cape Grim and Mauna Loa and you will not see the slightest of dips in the carbon dioxide curves despite 23 years of emission controls.


This may be due to emissions controls being more than offset by developing countries growth and intensive use of fossil fuels and enlarging motor vehicle fleets. This is worth researching (will try to help, as I find time) before we make flat statements.

Also: Are low clouds the driver of temperature change, or is their increase in response to overall heating? With correlation, we mustn't assume right away which way the causation goes.

Henry's Law -- The overall effect of CO2 dissolving into water is that the concentrations of H+, H2CO3 and HCO3- increase and the concentration of CO32- decreases and the solution is more acidic (i.e. a decrease in pH. The world’s oceans readily exchange CO2 with the atmosphere. As the concentration of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere increases, so to does the level of CO2 that the oceans absorb and therefore increasing the concentrations of H+ in the ocean making them more acidic.

As carbon dioxide obeys Henry’s Law (which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution) an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly leads to an increase in the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the oceans. Human induced CO2 emissions have increased since the industrial revolution through the burning of fossil fuels, land use practices and concrete production. (remember those developing nations with huge populations)

The problem with this, from Malmi, " If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic..." is that it presumes facts that are not supported by evidence. The rise from 280 to 400 ppm (which is massive, and unprecedented in this time scale) correlates strongly with industrial revolution and NOT with the oceans suddenly getting an unexplained itch to release CO2.

Here is a starting point for ocean CO2...

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atm ... -exchange/
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 20th, 2019, 5:15 pm 

The Vat,

In the link I provided in my OP to the Helsinki Times Article on the Kauppinen/Palmi paper, you will find the word “paper” in red. This is an interlink. Click on it and you will get the full text, including all the citations of authority that you requested.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 20th, 2019, 5:54 pm 

The Vat,

Nothing you have said changes the fact that a rise in temperature PRECEDES the release of CO2 from the oceans. One need hardly explain that a cause precedes an effect and not the other way round.

The Vostok Ice Core revealed that CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/ ... l-records/
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 20th, 2019, 7:37 pm 

Thanks. Watts is an interesting guy, a meteorologist who also promotes alternative energy and other Green ideas. I enjoy reading him, and will go over his data, as time permits.

I also want to, as others may also, to read the full text of Malmi's paper, so thanks for directing my attention to that link.

If we're really going to delve into this, members may also want to review the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... rnhse.html

Whatever the role of the three main GHGs, we want to have a grounding in the basic mechanism.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 20th, 2019, 7:48 pm 

One need hardly explain that a cause precedes an effect and not the other way round.


It's useful to remember that synergetic effects may be in play, which can make some of the causal factors not immediately clear. Release of CO2 from oceans may increase as waters warm, but the initial small temperature rise may be caused by CO2 released from land sources. This can cause some positive feeback and accelerate the process. A fairly heavy outgassing from the oceans can obscure the initial cause of the warming cycle being land-based.

Scientists do pay attention to these nuances, whatever detractors may say.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby BadgerJelly on July 21st, 2019, 2:40 am 

We don’t understand longterm causes and effects regarding climate change. We can only predict the change in weather within a very short period of time. We know the globe the warming. We know CO2 is detrimental. It is highly unlikely (0.00000001%) that humans are NOT having an effect on global warming. We can make reasonable predictions about long term patterns - but we’re limited and if we ‘knock’ the natural pattern we’re sailing into the future without a rudder. It may be ‘too late’ but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the human effect will make things better or worse in the long term.

The true extent of our effect is unknown though. Caution is sensible. Regardless, the globe will warm so it’s really a case of how much we add to the change.

When it comes to carbon emissions none of this really matters when the leading powers in the world are unable to do anything productive. The ball is in the court of the western countries citizens - most of them are simply not willing to reduce their use of energy so we’re left relying on schemes to provide economically viable renewable energy sources.

Within a few decades African nations, India and China, will all most likely up their energy consumption. It is up to the west to lead by example.

This is a huge political issue. I don’t think it is sensible to ignore the politics of environmentalism if we’re going to look at possible ways of dealing with our growing need/use of energy.

I was surprised to see that the UK and other European countries have made such progress. Sadly the US has made almost no progression in terms of shifting to renewable energy sources (it’s been like that for decades so blaming presidents is blame misplaced).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 21st, 2019, 8:56 am 

BJ,

You say that we know that CO2 is detrimental. We know nothing of the sort. Plant life would not be possible without CO2, and all animal life would, as a consequence, eventually disappear. So that it is not an exaggeration to say that CO2 is essential for all life on earth.

The Finnish scientists are not saying that CO2 has absolutely no effect on climate change. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It must have some effect, however minimal, on the rise in temperature. They are saying that the warming effect of this gas is so small that it is of little moment.

Further, they maintain that most of the CO2 comes from the oceans and not from human activity. Because the human contribution of CO2 is an extremely small percent of the CO2 naturally provided by the sea, there is virtually no anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

Now, to get a rise in the CO2 from the oceans, a rise in temperature is a necessary precondition—that is, a rise in temperature causes the sea to give up its CO2.
Because a rise in CO2 itself does not lead to a significant rise in temperature, something else must be at work in causing a higher temperature. According to the Finnish scientists, that cause is a reduction in low cloud formation. They argue that this reduction is caused by a decrease in cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere. By the way, The Cern CLOUD experiment has demonstrated experimentally that cosmic rays have an extraordinarily great effect on cloud formation.

I suggest that you read the full text of the paper in order to get a better understanding of the issues involved.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 21st, 2019, 10:06 am 

The work of the Japanese scientists will be found here:

http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kob ... 03_01.html
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 21st, 2019, 10:59 am 

Because a rise in CO2 itself does not lead to a significant rise in temperature, something else must be at work in causing a higher temperature....


Are you reading the physics link I provided on the greenhouse effect? Forum rules do require that you respond to posts challenging your assertions, and explain how basic physics may be tossed out. You also seem not to have read other links that clarify how land-based CO2 enters into the picture. As well as methane. Nor have you responded to the point on how oceans respond, in a feedback, to heating from land based CO2.

If you read forum guidelines (for science section), you will see I have bent the rules in not moving this to personal theories, and in letting this continue without any peer-reviewed citations in support of the two Finnish scientists. And you are repeating the OP thesis to Badger, without any concession to the reality that atmospheric physicists and climatologists have poked large holes in the Finnish team's conjecture. Not from fealty to ideology, but fealty to facts. If some piece of their theory survives, well and good. And peer review and the "poking of holes" will have done its job in keeping the integrity of science.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 21st, 2019, 11:07 am 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... l-warming/

Read the critical analyses by Osborn, Betts, and Brierly in the review section.

There are others reviewers there, too, all with citations to research and experimental data.

If this thread is to continue, members need to read at least a couple of the critiques at the above link. Nonresponsive posts or political rants will be promptly removed, in keeping with forum rules.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 21st, 2019, 3:10 pm 

The Vat,

I have reviewed your contribution of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and have found nothing that supports the notion that a minute portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for dangerous warming of the planet, when it is a rise in temperature that causes the increase in CO2 in the first place.

Nor did I find anything that contradicts the fact that the vast majority of the CO2 thereby released comes naturally from the oceans and only an insignificant portion from human activity.

Nor did I find any contradiction of the fact that water vapor constitutes the vast majority of greenhouse gases and CO2 only a infinitesimal fraction of one percent of such gases; nor any contradiction of the fact that clouds moderate excessive heating by water vapor because they reflect sunlight back into space. Nor did I find any proof that climate sensitivity enormously magnifies the otherwise insignificant warming effects of anthropogenic CO2.

There was no evidence, nor could there have been any, to contradict the fact that cosmic rays have an enormous effect on cloud formation-- in view of the fact that the Cern CLOUD experiment established as a fact that cosmic rays increase the production of aerosols (the seeds of cloud formation) by a factor of 10-20.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 21st, 2019, 3:43 pm 

Nope. You need to read the posted link, above your last post. It's apparent that you did not, as your reply shows the same misunderstanding of the science as previously shown.

If you posted a link on how lawyers, say, do voir dire, I would read it carefully and understanding that's an area where you have professional knowledge and insight. So it's mystifying that you can't seem to accord me and others with scientific training (mine included life sciences and earth sciences, including hydrological cycles) the same courtesy and respect.

As I said, the analyses provided by Osborn, Betts, and Brierly are a good window into the relevant atmospheric science. Those are the comments most pertinent to the thesis you support in your OP.

Cherry-picked facts, without context, are bad science and may even be pseudoscience.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 21st, 2019, 3:50 pm 

One selection from my linked reviews...



Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:

The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that (a) all of the CO2 rise is from human activity, (b) that 100% of the CO2-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and (c) that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.

A published paper demonstrating (a) and (b) is Cawley (2011)1.

A body of evidence for (c) is Haustein et al (2017)2 and references therein.

1- Cawley (2011) On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide,
Energy & Fuels
2- Haustein et al (2017) A real-time Global Warming Index, Scientific Reports


I would provide more, but feel that participating members can find the link and peruse the reviews more thoroughly. As anyone with a respect for science would do.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 21st, 2019, 5:23 pm 

There is a not uncommon problem with taking one factor out of its ecological or biological context and running off with it.

Neri » July 21st, 2019, 7:56 am wrote:BJ,

You say that we know that CO2 is detrimental. We know nothing of the sort. Plant life would not be possible without CO2, and all animal life would, as a consequence, eventually disappear. So that it is not an exaggeration to say that CO2 is essential for all life on earth.

It's a matter of proportions. Water is essential life; tsunami is destructive. Oxygen is essential to humans and other aerobic organisms, but hyperoxia can make them blind. So, too, excess of CO2 is detrimental, even to plants.
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/15166/20150615/climate-change-plants-choke-much-carbon.htm

Where more or less of detrimental emissions (not just CO2, but SO2, CH4, N2O, CF4, SF6, C2F6, CC12F2) originate is less significant than their role in the cycle. A global system evolves over geological time to reach equilibrium: so much of one chemical comes out of here and is absorbed or neutralized there; so much of a compound is produced; so much is stored in a more stable configuration until balance requires that substance to be broken down, because its components are needed elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if you claim to have added only a little bit of arsenic to somebody's breakfast, compared to the natural arsenic content of wild yams - you're still guilty of poisoning him.

I'm not attacking the study of clouds; I'm suggesting it would be more useful in perspective.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby BadgerJelly on July 22nd, 2019, 3:10 am 

TheVat » July 21st, 2019, 10:59 pm wrote:
Because a rise in CO2 itself does not lead to a significant rise in temperature, something else must be at work in causing a higher temperature....


Are you reading the physics link I provided on the greenhouse effect? Forum rules do require that you respond to posts challenging your assertions, and explain how basic physics may be tossed out. You also seem not to have read other links that clarify how land-based CO2 enters into the picture. As well as methane. Nor have you responded to the point on how oceans respond, in a feedback, to heating from land based CO2.

If you read forum guidelines (for science section), you will see I have bent the rules in not moving this to personal theories, and in letting this continue without any peer-reviewed citations in support of the two Finnish scientists. And you are repeating the OP thesis to Badger, without any concession to the reality that atmospheric physicists and climatologists have poked large holes in the Finnish team's conjecture. Not from fealty to ideology, but fealty to facts. If some piece of their theory survives, well and good. And peer review and the "poking of holes" will have done its job in keeping the integrity of science.


I defense there is room for doubt regarding the full effect. Causation and correlation, plus all that jazz. Of course, we know the basic mechanism involved and other gases such as water vapour and methane act as green house gases too.

We have no previous evidence of such a drastic change so I am certainly wary and believe caution is required. I think the whole political issue has badly clouded the science in terms of how any little data set fitting this or that narrative is blown out of proportion making the significant details grey in comparison.

The climate was changing anyway so if there was les carbon in the atmosphere then maybe we’d be seeing the beginnings of a ice age, if things continue then maybe we’ll see an ice age via the cessation of the gulf stream, OR maybe what has bee done already is enough to completely throw everything off balance and we’re heading for a period of such rapid temperature increase that we’ll hold of any ice age and drive the thermostat up so quickly that we’ll scorch the equator?

Either way if enough scientists live through the coming changing we’re going to learn something :)

I cannot blame Neri for pushing pieces of data. It is silly to suggest that one piece of data tells the whole story or that any single data set is fully understood.

Neri -

I think Serpent put it neatly enough above. We know for a fact that CO2 has a green house effect. When I said ‘detrimental’ I assumed you were astute enough to realise I meant in the extreme. I don’t personally believe it is simply a matter of CO2 and no climatologist with half a brain would suggest the global climate is definted by CO2. The chaotic nature of weather doesn’t play out in the same chaotic manner on the scale of climate predictions. The scientists are not making blind guesses about this stuff, they’re interpreting the data according to our best understanding.

I am sure there are many data sets that flummox scientists in the field that lean more toward CO2 being either more or less of a significant factor.

I do find it annoying that some people seem to wish the human race would cease to exist. My advice to them is to take a gun and put it to their own head and leave living to those that admire humanity despite its fits of stupidity and meaningless greed and violence.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Next

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests