Equivalent Climate Change 3

[TugboatEng]

That other thread got me thinking. Perhaps global warming is happening due to heat being released into our atmosphere and is not primarily driven GHG emissions.

https://environmentalsystemsresearc...uggest that,global warming or climate change.

This is bad news for nuclear because so little of it's energy produced becomes useful power. Remember that all energy, no matter it's source, eventually becomes heat.

Perhaps the solution to global warming is space lasers . Energy cannons that can radiate heat off into space.

 

[TugboatEng]

You miss my point. Our attempts to mitigate climate change are luring the wolf because they are incredibly energy intense to implement and may not provide any benefits if CO2 isn't really the problem.

 

[Tomfh]

the only issue is the quality and timing of the modeling and the predicted outcome

That’s not exactly a small issue. Everything hinges on the models.

 

[GregLocock]

If the models are right (despite the evidence to date) then we can affect global temperature by changing CO2 emissions, assuming the two big elephants in the room get on board. But if the models overemphasise the contribution of CO2, as they appear to by a margin of 200-300%, then whatever we do to CO2 will make little difference.

Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms of observed trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.

taken from
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe (john.fyfe@ec.gc.ca), Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers

That was published in Nature

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

The laughably stupid precautionary principle says we should reduce CO2 anyway, because of the children. As I have demonstrated in practice nobody really obeys the precautionary principle when it is their money and their family that is involved. It only gets invoked when public money is involved.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

Having had a shower I've gone off that graph, all it does is say that the models didn't account for the Pause, the comparison is taken over a short timeframe and so capture the Pause. If the Pause is due to the PMO/AMO cycles then sadly we'd have to wait 70 years for the effect to average out. The models are designed to ignore ocean/air interaction, the 0.3 degrees say of difference measurement to model over 20 years represents an ocean warming of an unmeasurable 0.003 deg C change in average ocean temperature. Even if it was concentrated in the top 10% that would still be at the limit of resolution of a thermometer, and the sampling is not exactly dense spatially.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[LionelHutz]

It's the predictions that come true that are the ones we need to worry about. That's only logical!

More deflection?

A whole bunch of the cry wolf type predictions from the believer side have failed to come true over the years. So many that most people are sick of hearing about them. My statement that the truth doesn't lie on either the denier or believer side is 100% true.

 

[SkipVought]

Follow the $ $ $ $ $

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...vest-property-beaches-climate-change-sea-rise

It's a tell.

Skip,
[sub]
Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance![/sub]

 

[TugboatEng]

Al Gire gets 6 fireplaces and I can't have a gas stove.

 

[Guest102023]

So many that most people are sick of hearing about them.

If I lived in Paradise CA or Lytton BC, I too would be getting sick of hearing scary stories.


"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[JoshPlumSE]

A whole bunch of the cry wolf type predictions from the believer side have failed to come true over the years. So many that most people are sick of hearing about them

Yup, excellent point. Young people these days cannot understand, of course. Remember the prediction that entire nations would disappear by 2000 or 2010 due to sea level rise.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/

I got into a heated debate with a good friend about this. I said this is an excellent example of alarmism in the media on the subject of global warming. He kept objecting that it wasn't an example of alarmism because the media "reported it wrong" or something along those lines. I think this Snopes article does a pretty good job of laying out the widely reported claim.

What happens is that the IPCC panel comes up with a a very dry, relatively scientific document with predictions far in the future (100 years away) with a huge margin of error. Predicted sea level rise of 0.66 meters with an uncertainty of between 0.31 and 1.1 meters. Noting that this uncertainty is larger than the actual prediction!

Members of the media sees this report and obviously do not understand it. So, they go to a "trusted source" to help them interpret it. That source is, of course, an environmental activist who explains it in the most alarmist way possible because that's his political motivation. The media still doesn't fully understand this because many people in the media don't understand ANYTHING about basic statistics or basic science. So, the article comes out wrong and maybe even more alarmist than the environmental activist intended.

No harm, no foul as far as the media is concerned.... The article births a new generation of environmental activists intent on completely transforming our economy and our society. Despite the fact that they've never had a real job of their own, and never really participated in our economy or society.... because they still live at home with their parents.

Until 20 years later when the predictions reported have proven to be so incredibly wrong. Then everyone who doesn't worry about global warming cries foul over new predictions by citing this old (and extremely incorrect one). And, everyone on the global warming doomsday side says that this past prediction had no basis in science and that their new doomsday scenario is soooo much more believable.

 

[Guest102023]

So in conclusion, nothing to see here. Or outside. Reports of massive fires and drought are all exaggerated lies.

Thanks for clarifying things.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[SnTMan]

So much disputation. So little effect

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[TugboatEng]

Brimstoner, you're misrepresenting our comments. We are not calling the reports lies. We are disputing the abnormality of such events. The increase in intensity of forest fires here in California has direct links to the attempts control them. Decrease the frequency, increase the intensity.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Aw

http://www TBE,

I was really hoping you would not resort to ad hominem attack again.

I'm not sure TBE's was an "ad hominem" attack. It was an attempt at humor. Saying that you were emitting a lot of hot gas was a creative way of saying that you were coming off as a "know it all" blow hard. Wrapping that into a suggestion that these emissions were contributing to global warming was comedic genius. In cases like this, the best practice is to acknowledge the burn and tip your hat to TBE for the creative way in which it was done. LOL

So in conclusion, nothing to see here. Or outside. Reports of massive fires and drought are all exaggerated lies.

Was this quote about my post? If so, I'm not sure you really read or understood my post. It was meant to criticize how the media reports on science in general, but the concept of global warming in particular.

It was meant to critique the environmental activists / politicians who twist up the science and manipulate the media because they know the media doesn't care about (or understand) science except for how it helps them general clicks and revenue.

 

[Guest102023]

Give me strength…

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[IRstuff]

The increase in intensity of forest fires here in California has direct links to the attempts control them. Decrease the frequency, increase the intensity.

And the fact that we're in a drought of epic proportions has zero to do with it, of course.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[TugboatEng]

IR, that might be the case initially but after prolonged drought, the vegetation will eventually disappear and the intensity of fires will decrease. Saying climate change will worsen forest fires by drought is simply wrong.

In regions like California and Eastern Washington where we have short wet winters and long dry summers, an extended growing season caused by late season rains makes the fire risk worse in many cases.

https://crosscut.com/environment/2022/06/what-was-cold-wet-spring-means-summer-wildfires

 

[JoshPlumSE]

And the fact that we're in a drought of epic proportions has zero to do with it, of course.

Of course California is in a drought. California is always in a drought. I'll quibble a little with your "epic proportions" comment. The current drought has only been 2 years. We had continuous drought from 2012 to 2017.

Our water reservoirs may be depleted in a "epic" way. But, more of that is due to politics than this current drought? Wasn't is 2007 / 2008 ish when CA water got shut off and diverted from our reservoirs and water supplies and dumped into the delta / bay to support the fish. That's about when we saw all the signs for the Pelosi / Boxer created drought when driving along I5. Now, that we've had +10 years of farmers draining aquifers and such there is less water in the system than there would have been after previous 2 year droughts.

Take a look at the following image. Much more epic drought years in the past 20 years than this one. I wish these site tracked it back to the 1970s (when I first moved here). But, I'd guess that the ratio between drought an non-drought years is something like 4 to 1 in CA. May I wish this chart when back to the 1970s (when I moved to California). I remember one or two really wet years in the early 80's when storms were dumping huge amounts of rain.

Note that this chart was taken from the Drought.gov website for California:

https://www.drought.gov/states/california

 

[Tomfh]

We are disputing the abnormality of such events.

Yeah, here in Australia the climate alarmists aren't willing to discuss the fire and flood record of Australia. It's expected of all citizens to accept that the most recent fires and floods are totally abnormal and the unmistakable result of climate change. Any pointing out of previous fires or floods over the 200 years leads to claims you're a "climate denier".

 

[Tomfh]

He kept objecting that it wasn't an example of alarmism because the media "reported it wrong" or something along those lines.

Yep. This is a common strategy used to explain away exagerated predictions. I've had the same discussion, to the extent of people claiming that the "UN reported it wrong" when the UN reported an "urgent code red" after the most recent IPCC report.

Generally the science gets to the media in various ways. Via scientists. Via the various orgisations. The IPCC plays a big role. When predictions fail to eventuate (e.g. coming ice age, sea level rise, permanent drought), there is plausible deniability on the grounds that it "wasn't the scientists" making the claims, but "it was the media". They let the media do the dirty work of reporting the hysteria to the public, and when the hysteria turns out to be overblown, well, that was just the media making the mistakes, not the scientists.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Surely, drought years must be related to our forest fires. Dry wood and fire are much more of a problem than wet wood and fire.

It's reasonable to say that droughts could be getting worse due to global warming. But, you best give real statistics that go back some good period of time.

Part of the problem is when Al Gore got away with saying that
a) there was an increase in hurricanes,
b) that this was related to climate change / global warming.

I know his words were probably something more like, "scientists predict the frequency and severity of hurricanes to increase due to global warming". But, the standard media belief is that both of those items are true. It's just become "common knowledge". Total BS, but most people believe it.