Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf…
You have that a little backward: There is a lack of environmental controls causing the out of control pollution in China’s cities. But, the out-of-control pollution is exactly what the government of China is willing to accept in order to get the industrial output and exports they need to support their population and government spending. They want heavy industrial output, and they don’t want pollution controls to hamper that output. That’s why pollution is the way it is in Chine; it’s NOT accidental. It’s that simple. Don’t obfuscate that fact.

I hope I didn’t give the impression that the lack of environmental controls in China was accidental. In fact your explanation of the reasons behind their policy makes perfect sense. My point was simply that when reasonable environmental controls are enacted, the resulting costs are not artificial. That is, they do not represent a cost that didn’t have to be paid in some form or another anyway. In the case of the Chinese, the cost of producing energy the way they do can take one of two forms:

1. The pollution hurts the health and quality of life for the populace, or…
2. The removal of the pollution through regulation raises the price of the energy.

Choice #2 could be considered artificial if it were not for the fact that choice #1 is the alternative.

 

[alevanpa]

Leaf,
Sorry if I was strident. I misunderstood where you were coming from. Glad we both agree: China’s industrial policies hurt its people, and the pollution emitted probably does harm to people outside China.

 

[aragonjohn1]

The global warming delusion is ludicrously unsubstantiated.

As soon as our mini ice age arrives I hope all the warming fanatics realize their mistake, and don’t insist it’s just a “stage” to global warming.

yes, this is most likely true the north pole has had the biggest cold and ice expanse since

they have kept records, the global average temperature has decreased by 4+ degrees

Fahrenheit in the past 300+ years, the temperature was raised spontaneously quite a few

times in the middle ages according to firsthand and Antarctic ice and tundra accounts by

at least 4 - 8 times present and recent temperatures. a few examples of this phenomenon

are the heat wave that led to the plague; called the black death, and during a few mass

literature burnings near the time of the Reformation to name just a few. there were also

many other instances both pre- and post- flood and many many environmental changes

etc… that contributed to different temperature and natural changes. so the recent drops in

temperature and the distant rises in the past are not at all unusual in or history or for

planets in creation.

also many of the credited and ‘‘reliable’’ scientists and non-scientists have admitted they

were lying or spreading half truths about global warming and climate change.

one of these is about the “hole” in the ozone is not actually a hole just an area effected by

the normally strong Antarctic winds not artificial and medical factors as they claim.

a second sadly among many lies half truths they say or are misinformed about is the

atmosphere can clean up pollution very well over time Eg; cow flatulence, dying creatures,

plants, carbon, etc…

God bless

 

[weller2]

Despite the alarmism today, temperatures have not increased globally since 1998, leaving warmists scrambling to come up with an explanation.

slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/16/global_warming_new_study_shows_pause_doesn_t_exist.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

Indeed, just last week saw 2,000 cold and snow records broken in the U.S.

Meanwhile, in Europe we’re having an very warm winter.

 

[Ender]

slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/16/global_warming_new_study_shows_pause_doesn_t_exist.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

The comments in the article you cite are relevant to the discussion LeafByNiggle and I have been having about what the greenhouse gas theory actually predicts. I have shown (assuming we accept the IPCC as a trustworthy source) that, yea verily, the troposphere is supposed to warm more than the surface if warming is caused by CO2. The last article Leaf cited was to a paper that attempted to show that such warming was actually occurring despite the fact that it wasn’t obvious from the data.

The Slate article you cite ignores this part of the GHG theory and simply asserts that, well, the seas are warming so warming is still occurring and there has been no 15 year hiatus. The problem is, even if the article is correct about the seas continuing to warm, unless the troposphere warms then whatever warming is occurring elsewhere on Earth it cannot be caused by CO2… the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, *most *of that heat is going into deep ocean waters. (Slate)
I wonder at the credulity of people who believe that climate scientists can deduce the temperature of the Earth eons ago from core samples of trees and ice but managed to overlook the fact that the temperature of the oceans would rise if the air above them grew warmer. Did the modellers overlook this fact? Where in any of the theories of GHG warming is it theorized that the troposphere doesn’t have to warm if the heat is transferred to the deep oceans? Ironically this article, contrary to the one Leaf cited, accepts that tropospheric warming has not been occurring and attempts to explain it away. Leaf’s citation is the more reasonable one in that it is at least not contrary to the theory it is defending.

Ender

 

[JB_Dugan]

The comments in the article you cite are relevant to the discussion LeafByNiggle and I have been having about what the greenhouse gas theory actually predicts. I have shown (assuming we accept the IPCC as a trustworthy source) that, yea verily, the troposphere is supposed to warm more than the surface if warming is caused by CO2. The last article Leaf cited was to a paper that attempted to show that such warming was actually occurring despite the fact that it wasn’t obvious from the data.

The Slate article you cite ignores this part of the GHG theory and simply asserts that, well, the seas are warming so warming is still occurring and there has been no 15 year hiatus. The problem is, even if the article is correct about the seas continuing to warm, unless the troposphere warms then whatever warming is occurring elsewhere on Earth it cannot be caused by CO2… the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, *most *of that heat is going into deep ocean waters. (Slate)
I wonder at the credulity of people who believe that climate scientists can deduce the temperature of the Earth eons ago from core samples of trees and ice but managed to overlook the fact that the temperature of the oceans would rise if the air above them grew warmer. Did the modellers overlook this fact? Where in any of the theories of GHG warming is it theorized that the troposphere doesn’t have to warm if the heat is transferred to the deep oceans? Ironically this article, contrary to the one Leaf cited, accepts that tropospheric warming has not been occurring and attempts to explain it away. Leaf’s citation is the more reasonable one in that it is at least not contrary to the theory it is defending.

Ender

Could not have said it better myself

Just like to add:

Damaging Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. (Climate hack) Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From: Phil Jones. (Climate hack)To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling.

 

[tomarin]

I do feel sometimes that they are making the data match the conclusion which is pre-ordained in their minds. Which is not how science is supposed to work (although “how science is supposed to work” is itself an unsettled and debatable topic; if you’ve ever read any Thomas Kuhn you’ll know what I mean).

 

[weller2]

Damaging Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. (Climate hack) Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate"

What part of Our observing system is inadequate you can’t understand? Mann & Co. knew back in 2009 that surface temperature data is biased, because most monitoring stations are at temperate latitudes, but most of the warming is at the poles. Coincidentally, the latter is what modellers have been predicting all along (starting with Arrhenius over 100 years ago).

From: Phil Jones. (Climate hack)To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling.

If you actually researched the matter, you’d know that they weren’t masking the decline in temperatures. (In fact, assertion that temperatures have fallen since 1961 is laughable for everyone where I live.) What they were masking was the fact that Keith Briffa’s temperature proxy (tree rings) tracked the temperature well between 1800 and 1960, but diverged later on. After 1960, instrumental record showed clear increase, but temperature reconstructed from tree rings had a decline. So when drawing graph of the reconstruction, they have chopped the tree ring data in 1960, and glued on instrumental records. Voila, perfect correspondence between tree rings and instrumental temperature

The reason they have done that is that if they have shown tree rings data after 1960s, then the reviewers (or readers) would have noticed the discrepancy and started asking how tree rings can be trusted to reconstruct temperature in 1400 (which what Mann & C. were actually trying to do) if they cannot reliably record temperature in 1970.

If you believe that temperatures have fallen since 1961, then you must believe that tree rings are better at measuring temperature than thermometers.

 

[weller2]

The comments in the article you cite are relevant to the discussion LeafByNiggle and I have been having about what the greenhouse gas theory actually predicts. I have shown (assuming we accept the IPCC as a trustworthy source) that, yea verily, the troposphere is supposed to warm more than the surface if warming is caused by CO2. The last article Leaf cited was to a paper that attempted to show that such warming was actually occurring despite the fact that it wasn’t obvious from the data.

AFAIK there are currently two solutions being proposed to the lack of warming problem:

(1) the temperature is increasing fastest in the polar regions where we have no measurements, so the mean temperature is actually going up, we just don’t see that

(2) melting ice increases ocean’s capability to sink energy – therefore, we have increased energy (name removed by moderator)ut (increased CO2 feedback) without the growth in temperature – essentially the temperature will keep constant until all of the Arctic melts

The elephant in the room is that Earth’s heat content must increase with increased CO2 – that much follows from basic physical properties of CO2.

 

[JB_Dugan]

AFAIK there are currently two solutions being proposed to the lack of warming problem:

(1) the temperature is increasing fastest in the polar regions where we have no measurements, so the mean temperature is actually going up, we just don’t see that

(2) melting ice increases ocean’s capability to sink energy – therefore, we have increased energy (name removed by moderator)ut (increased CO2 feedback) without the growth in temperature – essentially the temperature will keep constant until all of the Arctic melts

The elephant in the room is that Earth’s heat content must increase with increased CO2 – that much follows from basic physical properties of CO2.

There’s the Elephant again…CO2 at record levels and Temps at a flat line.

Maybe, just maybe its something else…or natural climate variability might have something to do with the climate.

 

[arnoldoe]

yes, this is most likely true the north pole has had the biggest cold and ice expanse since
they have kept records, the global average temperature has decreased by 4+ degrees
Fahrenheit in the past 300+ years, the temperature was raised spontaneously quite a few
times in the middle ages according to firsthand and Antarctic ice and tundra accounts by
at least 4 - 8 times present and recent temperatures. a few examples of this phenomenon
are the heat wave that led to the plague; called the black death, and during a few mass
literature burnings near the time of the Reformation to name just a few. there were also
many other instances both pre- and post- flood and many many environmental changes
etc… that contributed to different temperature and natural changes. so the recent drops in
temperature and the distant rises in the past are not at all unusual in or history or for

planets in creation.

also many of the credited and ‘‘reliable’’ scientists and non-scientists have admitted they
were lying or spreading half truths about global warming and climate change.
one of these is about the “hole” in the ozone is not actually a hole just an area effected by
the normally strong Antarctic winds not artificial and medical factors as they claim.

a second sadly among many lies half truths they say or are misinformed about is the
atmosphere can clean up pollution very well over time Eg; cow flatulence, dying creatures,

plants, carbon, etc…

God bless

ok…

 

[weller2]

There’s the Elephant again…CO2 at record levels and Temps at a flat line.

Maybe, just maybe its something else…or natural climate variability might have something to do with the climate.

Except that the natural climate variability must occur by some physical mechanism – i.e. by natural change in solar (name removed by moderator)ut / orbital geometry or natural change in the level of greenhouse gases. (*) We are seeing none of these things. Well, we are seeing changes in the level of greenhouse gases, but they are man-made.

(*) For example, the Permian-Triassic event is now believed to have been caused by rapid increase in CO2 due to massive volcanic eruptions and forest fires.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Except that the natural climate variability must occur by some physical mechanism – i.e. by natural change in solar (name removed by moderator)ut / orbital geometry or natural change in the level of greenhouse gases. (*) We are seeing none of these things. Well, we are seeing changes in the level of greenhouse gases, but they are man-made.

So has anyone looked into these natural change in solar (name removed by moderator)ut / orbital geometry or natural change in the level of greenhouse gases ( I’m sure there a lot more) to see if there could be something else to blame…other than man???

 

[weller2]

So has anyone looked into these natural change in solar (name removed by moderator)ut / orbital geometry

Yes. Between 1980 and 2000 we’ve had both warming and a decline in solar irradiation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

So less sunlight and the temperature is going up… Interesting, isn’t it? Must have been greenhouse gases then.

or natural change in the level of greenhouse gases ( I’m sure there a lot more) to see if there could be something else to blame…other than man???

Here is graphic showing natural and man-made flows of CO2:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

Also, we can measure atmospheric CO2, and we know how much CO2 we’ve produced, because we keep track of how much carbon we have mined:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/images_article/488035a-f1.2.jpg

So you see, we have people chanting natural warming! natural warming! but they have been consistently unable to show how exactly that natural warming is supposed to occur.

Disproving AGW is as easy as demonstrating that there is a natural cause of temperature increase observed until 2000. So, what is it?

 

[alevanpa]

Not sure what to make of weller2’s two points referring to the lack of evidence of global warming:

AFAIK there are currently two solutions being proposed to the lack of warming problem:

(1) the temperature is increasing fastest in the polar regions where we have no measurements, so the mean temperature is actually going up, we just don’t see that

(2) melting ice increases ocean’s capability to sink energy – therefore, we have increased energy (name removed by moderator)ut (increased CO2 feedback) without the growth in temperature – essentially the temperature will keep constant until all of the Arctic melts

The elephant in the room is that Earth’s heat content must increase with increased CO2 – that much follows from basic physical properties of CO2.

If there is no evidence of an activity, then how can anyone claim that that is proof that the activity exists.

Consider the logic of (1):
If You say, unicorns exist,
and I can find no evidence of unicorns.
then You say, the unicorns must exist where you are not looking,
because, unicorns exist.

In order for a scientific theory to be valid, we must be able to show how it would be invalid. If there is no way to demonstrate invalidity then it is really not a scientific theory. It is simply a statement of belief for which no proof exists.

Consider the logic of (2):
if, heat melts ice,
[OK, makes sense]

and, melted ice sinks heat (takes it to the depths of the ocean where it can’t be measured)
[OK, the heat is not measurable]

then, heat will not be visible until all the ice melts
[But, the question is, “how can all the ice melt if there is no measurable heat to melt it?”]

because, melted ice sinks heat
[And, here we’ve come full circle, again.]

Both arguments have the same issue: they are circular.

Can I be right in my thinking, here?

 

[weller2]

If there is no evidence of an activity, then how can anyone claim that that is proof that the activity exists.

Consider the logic of (1):
If You say, unicorns exist,
and I can find no evidence of unicorns.
then You say, the unicorns must exist where you are not looking,
because, unicorns exist.

This is a straw man. A more accurate analogy would be:

(1) a lot of evidence for unicorns has been observed between 1950 and 2000

(2) no evidence for unicorns has been observed after 2000.

What should we conclude about the existence of unicorns? Are we justified in saying that there is a good chance that unicorns exist, but have been hiding since 2000?

[But, the question is, “how can all the ice melt if there is no measurable heat to melt it?”]

Heat energy is not temperature. You can have increase in heat energy without increase in temperature – in fact, this is exactly what happens when you melt ice.

Suppose that a piece of ice, initially at –50C, is continuously slowly heated. An ‘ideal’ graph of temperature against time (not drawn to scale) would look like:

http://www.animatedscience.co.uk/ks5_physics/general/Heat/Calorimetry_files/Image1067.gif

Changes of phase occur at fixed temperatures. We know that water melts (and freezes) at 0C and boils at 100C. On the graph this means that we get flat sections during the changes of phase – as the temperatures are fixed. But the sample is being steadily heated all the time. This means that during a change of phase, all the heat supplied is used to bring about the change, and none is used to raise the temperature.

The heat involved in a change of state is called latent or ‘hidden’ heat because it does not ‘reveal’ itself as a change in temperature.

animatedscience.co.uk/ks5_physics/general/Heat/Calorimetry.htm

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Consider the logic of (2):
if, heat melts ice,
[OK, makes sense]

and, melted ice sinks heat (takes it to the depths of the ocean where it can’t be measured)
[OK, the heat is not measurable]

then, heat will not be visible until all the ice melts
[But, the question is, “how can all the ice melt if there is no measurable heat to melt it?”]

because, melted ice sinks heat
[And, here we’ve come full circle, again.]

Both arguments have the same issue: they are circular.

Can I be right in my thinking, here?

It is important to keep the distinction between heat and temperature clear. They are not exactly the same thing. When ice melts and becomes water, it does not change temperature. It just transitions from ice at 32 degrees to water at 32 degrees. But even though the temperature of the ice did not change, the amount of heat necessary to accomplish that much melting is equivalent to the heat it would take to raise that same amount of water by 144 degrees F. Look up “latent heat of ice” if you want more information on this fact.

Also, when people use the word “sink” in this context, this nothing to do with things going down into the depths of the ocean. The word means anything that takes rather than gives something. The opposite of a sink is a source.

 

[estesbob]

AFAIK there are currently two solutions being proposed to the lack of warming problem:

(1) the temperature is increasing fastest in the polar regions where we have no measurements, so the mean temperature is actually going up, we just don’t see that

(2) melting ice increases ocean’s capability to sink energy – therefore, we have increased energy (name removed by moderator)ut (increased CO2 feedback) without the growth in temperature – essentially the temperature will keep constant until all of the Arctic melts

The elephant in the room is that Earth’s heat content must increase with increased CO2 – that much follows from basic physical properties of CO2.

(3) The theory is wrong

 

[alevanpa]

It is important to keep the distinction between heat and temperature clear. They are not exactly the same thing. When ice melts and becomes water, it does not change temperature. It just transitions from ice at 32 degrees to water at 32 degrees. But even though the temperature of the ice did not change, the amount of heat necessary to accomplish that much melting is equivalent to the heat it would take to raise that same amount of water by 144 degrees F. Look up “latent heat of ice” if you want more information on this fact.

Also, when people use the word “sink” in this context, this nothing to do with things going down into the depths of the ocean. The word means anything that takes rather than gives something. The opposite of a sink is a source.

1. Where’s the heat:
   The point is that the premises of comparable arguments need to be symmetrical–not identical. If you claim that somthing exists–but is not, visible, measurable, or quantifiable in any way–it is an assertion. That’s all the argument say’s.
2. The point of the “sink”, in the argument is to hide the heat: to make it unmeasurable by any observer–with, or without, a stake in the outcome. That makes it no more than an assertion, too.
3. And, that’s the issue. You have not answered the question asked, but a question you posed instead–that had nothing to do with the original question. If you cannot measure an event (see it, or taste it, or hear it, or touch it, or smell it ) that event does not exist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. Where’s the heat:
   The point is that the premises of comparable arguments need to be identical. If you argue that somthing exists–but is not, visible, measurable, or quantifiable in any way that a neutral observer can measure–not just those who make the claim that their argument is valid–It is an invalid argument. It is an assertion.
2. The point of the “sink”, in your argument is to hide the heat: to make it unmeasurable by any observer–with, or without, a stake in the outcome. It is no more than an assertion that is unable to be proved by anyone.
3. And, that’s the issue. You have not answered the question asked but a question you posed instead that had nothing to do with the original question. That is not valid argumentation.

The heat used to heat the ice is not beyond measurement. It exists and can be measured by the amount of ice that has turned into water. I’m sorry if you find that physical fact inconvenient, but the physics of heat transfer through latent heat of fusion has been known for centuries. If it is difficult to measure the volume of ice that has melted, that’s just the way it is. Nobody is making that measurement any more difficult than it already is. If you see a conspiracy in this fact, you would have to go back several hundred years to when it was discovered.