Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[beej67]

Pretty sure your numbers on the H bomb are off by as many as four orders of magnitude, there chief. Depending on the bomb.

Also, Global OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995. Was CO2 flat?

Regardless, I never made the claim that all warming was due to H bombs. I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.

And when there's more of us making heat, the warmth of the globe goes up, regardless of whether it's CO2 related or not.

I'm sure some of that is from CO2. But the idea that it's all CO2 is something I just don't buy. I especially don't buy the idea that even though warming and human population were clearly coupled well before the CO2 boom, carbon credits will somehow decouple the two in the future.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

what is a global sea level ? (much like what is a global temperature)

is it the average of several locations ? why then does the scatter reduce so much in recent years ? (ok, better instruments, better readers).

rise in sea level before CO2 ? ... maybe it was due to all the shitgarbage we through in it ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[2dye4]

""I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.""

There ya go again throwing thermodynamics to the wind...


Another way to look at it.

Lots of interesting if fragmented attempts to cast doubt on MMGW being posted here. The trouble is the devil is NOT in the
details in this case, it's in the big picture. Whether it is occurring can only be inferred from comparing one statistical
history and inferring probabilities of various departure scenarios with what we observe today and drawing a conclusion as
to whether the random process that generated the history has changed and if so what other causes could there be.

I ask again, why if there is so much room for serious scientific skepticism is there no reputable funded research to
back it up??

Before you wear out your keyboard pounding on it I don't mean funded by the government I mean funded by the industries that
have the most to lose. Why can't BP, EXXON.. etc cough a couple hundred million to get reputable research done and publish it
themselves??

I will say what I think, they know there is no opportunity for reputable research to match their desired conclusions. What else can it be?

 

[swall]

2dye4--in the early 2000's, Exxon did exactly that. They got a ton of heat from Maine Senator, Olympia Snow. They decided to stop the funding.

 

[rb1957]

i think the perception was that "big oil" would bend the research towards it's own goals

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

If big oil did fund a study, would you believe the results? How would it be less reliable than the results funded by big goverment? Both have something to gain and loose in this debate.

So do you bow before big goverment, or follow caplitisem?

More goverment taxes, or more prosperity?

 

[beej67]

""I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.""

There ya go again throwing thermodynamics to the wind...

Sorry, would you mind explaining this comment in the context of a thermonuclear explosion?

The big problem with climate science is that there's simply so much bad science and bad media attached to the bad science on both sides of the issue, that the whole thing reaches 'religion' status no matter what side you're on. Check this article out:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/col...ady-feeling-effects-of-climate-change/2178532

Here we have an article by the guy who was the chief of the EPA under Ronald Reagan, claiming that salt water intrusion in Florida's aquifers is due to global warming.

What.
The.
Nuts.

No, sir, saltwater intrusion is due to well pumping. It always has been, and it always will be, and he should know better. There's very hard science to it, and the very water management districts he's referencing in the article know full well what causes it, but he glosses that over in order to move the needle. That kind of thing as got to stop if any of the science is to be taken seriously.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

First heat can neither be created nor destroyed. That is why we cannot "make" heat.

We can concentrate it but not make it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

The radioactive elements scraped up to make the bomb would decay on their own releasing the heat anyway, although spread out in time.

I admit there is a publicity kick going on now to raise support for climate change mitigation.

Its doomed to fail, there will always be somebody talking up the skeptic side and to most people that is more palatable.

 

[swall]

Where do I go to sign on and get a free T-shirt?

 

[rb1957]

2dye4 ? ... surely the explosions release a lot of energy, as the material of the bomb is disintegrated ? agreed, the energy contained within the bomb materials was there before, but would natural decay on unenriched material release the same energy ... ok, maybe, over eons; but by exploding a bomb we put that energy (or heat) back into the atmospehere rather more quickly and so possibly heated the atmosphere (by about 1/2 a gnat).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Energy is neather created or destroyed, not heat. Heat is a form of energy.

What if we attempt to rediate more energy back into space than arrives on earth each day, by some amount the equates the amount of chemical energy consumed.
Another option is to install more bird friers so we can increase the amount of energy we recieve on the earth each day, and make global warming happen by green energy sources.

 

[rb1957]

i agree; the energy released by a bomb (nuke or conventional) came from somewhere and the explosion releases it quickly into the atmosphere ... why are we talking so much about nothing ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

Re: this whole a-bomb thing – it was a silly statement that was proved to be absurdly insignificant. We should have stopped talking about it then.

Also, Global OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995. Was CO2 flat?

[image

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

]
~4x10^22 J of energy is “flat”? Looks like you use the same definition for “flat” when discussing the “pause”! Also, that period contained the two largest volcanic eruptions since 1910 (El Chichon and Pinatubo) and was during a positive PDO period (where the oceans are in their heat release phase). So you cherry-picked the dates and it STILL wasn’t true. Another super random, factually incorrect statement.

The big problem with climate science is that there's simply so much bad science and bad media attached to the bad science

That’s what “skeptics” do, they muddy the waters with junk science. The media sensationalizes everything; they need to sell papers. Again, that’s why you should stick to peer-reviewed literature and information from reputable, unbiased scientific institutions. Of course the peer-review process isn’t infallible but it is hands-down the best source of information we have.

And again, if the peer-reviewed literature and information from reputable, unbiased scientific institutions does not agree with your opinion on the matter, it is more likely that your opinion is the issue.

 

[beej67]

Hrmm.

The radioactive elements scraped up to make the bomb would decay on their own releasing the heat anyway, although spread out in time.

Fusion /= Decay. Are you seriously saying hydrogens jump into other hydrogens to make heliums spontaneously all the time on their own?

Again, I'm not saying it's a huge impact on the climate, just saying we humans find lots of interesting ways to make heat. And when we do (something) that creates heat from fuel that wasn't going to spontaneously release its heat on its own, then that *is* "creation" of heat in the system. Further, when plants use radiant energy to make more plant via photosynthesis, and that plant matter doesn't get turned around and burned later, then that is absolutely heat-removal for the purposes of climate modeling. Humans impact both things, and both things are ignored in the climate models. The fact that plants are pulling heat out of the system naturally is ignored in the global albedo calculations of the models. Modelers think a forest, a corn field, and a tennis court are all the same effective albedo for the purposes of global warming, and they're not. You can tell they're not from space, with IR photography.




Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

i guess that's the difference between 0-700m and 0-2000m ... ??
clearly 800-2000m is very active ... ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

I post global OHC 0-2000m. You rebut with North Atlantic (60-0W, 30-65N) OHC 0-700m. You, through acts like this, are the problem I discussed early about “skeptics” purposely muddying the waters with junk science. If you think that climate change should show a 1:1 relationship with CO2 across all temporal and spatial subdivisions then you (even more) clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

First read this article.

Then look at this data from NOAA regarding the global 0-700m OHC:
[image

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

]

0-2000m:
See above

 

[TGS4]

As I have discussed previously, anything OHC that is pre-full-deployment of the ARGO float system is both temporally and spatially crap. We don't have enough data yet!!!!!

 

[rb1957]

a couple points to ponder ...

1) According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

2) The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3oC) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.

1) makes me think about our effect on the atmosphere
2) makes me think things are going to change soon ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GrandpaDave]

rb1957... think things are going to change soon?

Personal question: Help an old retired fellow engineer.
I have an acre on a tidal bayou in NW Florida. My house
sits about 17-ft above mean sea level. How soon is soon?
With all this scare stuff going around I had better sell
tomorrow and head to Denver and join the pot heads... Right?

I am sorry to say but there are too many self appointed
experts on this thread. Gpa That's weed in the pipe!

 

[cranky108]

From the comments made, Fusion=, well maybe some day we can make fusion happen. Fission is what typically happens in atomic bombs. Fusion is what happens in the sun, and it does a good job of keeping us warm.

"makes me think things are going to change soon..." I expect it to be changing all the time, as space weather will show that SOL is not a constant.