What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve-b said:
As I already said. I believe in climate change. We have it 4 times/yr. It’s called seasons. Warming and cooling. happen regardless of what we do.
Click to expand...
Seasons are not “really” (actually none at all) a phenomenon attributed to any specific chemical compound that is produced at a rate faster or less than naturally being produced. Just like being closer to the equator makes the “land hotter” has nothing to do with this. I really hope that was just a sarcastic answer because if it was sincere I would say there is no hope here in this discussion !
 
Last edited:
Beware of anyone who says, ‘I can prove it to you but you have to wait 12 years…’
 
Ender said:
In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature .
Click to expand...
What to they mean by “natural temperature change”? That’s begging the question. The temperature is going up at quite a clip. What’s their explanation for it? Obviously, unless they think it is supernatural punishment then the cause has some explanation in the natural sciences. Honestly, one would think they’d be a bit anxious to know if the cause was some other factor that humans could be unintentionally causing, wouldn’t you think? I mean, really–don’t you want to know?

If someone says “wow, it is hotter in here than it has ever been” and someone else says “the furnace must be on” and a third person says, “no, I checked, and the furnace is not on,” that normally is not the end of the conversation. Everyone present, including the third person, would normally still want to know why the room is so unusually hot and if there were anything those present could do to mitigate the situation. That curiosity seems to be conspicuously absent from those who put forth reasoning that sheds doubt on CO2 levels as a reason.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature .
Click to expand...
You see in my job we work with models a lot. Saying you have a model for whatever normally raises many more eyebrows and creates many more questions.
  1. How was this model verified?
  2. What data did you use to verify it?
  3. While verifying (assuming the first 2 could be answered) what was the conditions. Was it normal, abnormal etc?
  4. In what way would you assure us this model represents reality?
In the real world models are many times an academic experiment and industrial companies are very scared to rely just on a model. I have seen this first hand. PhD students getting to be called Dr. X just to have their model proven wrong later. So a model is really not the way to go in proving any claim.
 
Last edited:
The climate is naturally changing as it has since the earth was created.

The concept of “man made” climate change is like a pagan, earth worship quasi-religion.
 
Do you really believe that? If yes then we have nothing to talk about. If you have some reservations and informed thinking about the subject then maybe a conversation can be justified!
 
The ignorance in this post…

We are not in the stone age. Google is your friend!
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
What to they mean by “natural temperature change”?
Click to expand...
They mean it is a natural phenomenon; it is not anthropogenic.
What’s their explanation for it?
Click to expand...
From the paper:

2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature

Figure 4 shows the sum of the temperature changes due to the natural and CO2 contributions compared with the observed temperature anomaly. The natural component has been calculated using the changes of the relative humidity.

I wish I could copy this figure because it shows a near perfect match between humidity and temperature and highlights the complete mismatch between CO2 and temperature. Again, this is a brand new paper and hasn’t been evaluated by other scientists, and it will be important to see what is said by others. Still, you wanted another mechanism, and this is a very interesting possibility.

One of the great question marks in the IPCC hypothesis is the calculation of the climate sensitivity. Here’s what this paper says about it:

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude 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 [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.
 
MichaelP3 said:
In the real world models are many times an academic experiment and industrial companies are very scared to rely just on a model. I have seen this first hand. PhD students getting to be called Dr. X just to have their model proven wrong later. So a model is really not the way to go in proving any claim.
Click to expand...
The authors of the paper would agree with you.

We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence.

This is why they computed the results from observational data.

In Figure 2 we see the observed global temperature anomaly (red) and global low cloud cover changes (blue). These experimental observations indicate that 1 % increase of the low cloud cover fraction decreases the temperature by 0.11°C. This number is in very good agreement with the theory given in the papers [3, 2, 4]. Using this result we are able to present the natural temperature anomaly by multiplying the changes of the low cloud cover by −0.11°C/%. This natural contribution (blue) is shown in Figure 3 superimposed on the observed temperature anomaly (red). As we can see there is no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing within this experimental accuracy.
 
MichaelP3 said:
40.png
steve-b:
As I already said. I believe in climate change. We have it 4 times/yr. It’s called seasons. Warming and cooling. happen regardless of what we do.
Click to expand...
Seasons are not “really” (actually none at all) a phenomenon attributed to any specific chemical compound that is produced at a rate faster or less than naturally being produced. Just like being closer to the equator makes the “land hotter” has nothing to do with this. I really hope that was just a sarcastic answer because if it was sincere I would say there is no hope here in this discussion !
Click to expand...
😎

humans did NOT have any effect on this Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained that’s according to science.
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
Hi Petra

Who are you talking to here? If there is another Chemical Engineer on here I would love to converse with them!
Click to expand...
Chemist. Very retired! I had college rooomates who were chemical engineering graduate students, so the difference isn’t lost on me, though.

No, actually, I think that burning petroleum and its derivatives is spectacularly wasteful, so proving the connection between CO2 and global warming is almost a moot point to me. I think going in the direction of lower energy consumption and more sustainable energy is a very good idea just for the frugality of it. As for climate change, I am mostly concerned that we need a plan to respond to more frequent extreme weather events. No matter what causes them, the chances that “100 year flood” and “20 year flood” and so on need to be totally re-defined seems totally reasonable. At some point, you have to quit thinking of natural disasters as anything other than what they are, which is regularly-occuring weather-caused events that need to be prepared for as a matter of course.
 
Last edited:
That is great. In the end it is the basic fundamental principles that you have. That is non-existent in the other posts here where posters just like to post articles and papers without going back to the fundamentals which should make any person with a background in some form of Chemistry very uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
That is great. In the end it is the basic fundamental principles that you have. That is non-existent in the other posts here where posters just like to post articles and papers without going back to the fundamentals which should make any person with a background in some form of Chemistry very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
As I said, I take a slightly different tack which is:
a) we need to concentrate on planning for the changes we are seeing in what we ought to expect from nature and from the weather.
b) we would benefit from starting the long process of weaning ourselves away from using petroleum starting products as sources for combustion-based energy. Rather than burn the products of photosynthesis, learn to DO photosynthesis, leaving the photosynthesis products for other uses that are not so easily duplicated.

As for CO2 levels, I am greatly alarmed at what it has to be doing to the chemistry of the oceans.
 
PetraG said:
As for climate change, I am mostly concerned that we need a plan to respond to more frequent extreme weather events.
Click to expand...
Our preparedness for extreme weather events is woefully inadequate, which would be really bad if they were happening more frequently, but they aren’t. Yes, I know it is regularly claimed that they are, but the facts don’t seem to support the claims.
MichaelP3 said:
That is great. In the end it is the basic fundamental principles that you have. That is non-existent in the other posts here where posters just like to post articles and papers without going back to the fundamentals which should make any person with a background in some form of Chemistry very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
Having a science background is useful in understanding the basics of the discussions, but mostly what is needed is simply the ability to comprehend what has been plainly written to be able to distinguish what is implied from what is actually claimed. What technical expertise is required to look at Mann’s hockey stick and recognize that the MWP and LIA had been erased from history?
 
Ender said:
Our preparedness for extreme weather events is woefully inadequate, which would be really bad if they were happening more frequently, but they aren’t. Yes, I know it is regularly claimed that they are, but the facts don’t seem to support the claims.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we’re getting more and worse fires out here in the West. We just are.
The frequency and severity of flooding is going up. You can blame it on whatever you want, but it is getting a little ridiculous for Congress to act as if this kind of thing is some kind of surprise. Where it will happen is not predictable; that it will happen is.
 
MichaelP3 said:
The ignorance in this post…

We are not in the stone age. Google is your friend!
Click to expand...
the big problem w/ suggesting someone use google, is there is lots of “noise” and very little “signal”



basically given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”


looking at this thread alone,… we’ve seen “attribution studies” called junk science and the suggestion to consider the writings of a bankrupt “subprime banker” as serious scientific gospel

…then there is another related problem,… as you pointed out an ‘illusion of confidence’ which is called the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’ is all too real
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
Yup. That is the jest of it! Point is that we are rarely as smart as we think we are!
Click to expand...
PetraG said:
As for CO2 levels, I am greatly alarmed at what it has to be doing to the chemistry of the oceans.
Click to expand...
yup, the detrimental knock on effects of elevated CO2 levels are not appreciated by people who don’t have a basic understanding of chemistry
The Ocean Is Getting More Acidic—What That Actually Means

Scientists say the pH level of the world’s seas have already dropped—on average from 8.2 to 8.1 on the pH scale (lower numbers are more acidic). That’s a 26 percent drop in the past century (because the pH scale is logarithmic). But as the ocean absorbs more industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, its pH is expected to double to 7.7 pH units by the end of the century, according to Aleck Wang, professor of marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nderwater-drones-gliders-science-environment/
Click to expand...
[SARCASM ON]

on the bright side if ocean water pH does become 7.7 by the end of the century, the science community is going to witness firsthand darwin’s survival of the fittest in the marine environment,… in a human lifetime

[SARCASM OFF]

sigh,… one serious bright spot

A Religious Response to Climate Change (podcast)
 
phaster said:
basically given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”
Click to expand...
Yea you convinced me. Google can respond with very strange things and many believe them if you are not educated in the field as is proven on this very thread.

I just like individuals who think a bit further. And the Chemistry here is actually pretty basic. But again, I would rather trust a heart surgeon to do my heart operation just like individuals should keep the understanding of Chemistry within that sphere and not sell their knowledge based on reading the “understand chemistry” book.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it was a sarcastic answer then as I have no idea why you used the sunglass dude emoji.

Yes it has been proven an ice age happens every some amount of time. The problem of being 2% wrong in this instance will cause the human race to be 2000 years (very long time and many of us can’t fathom it) earlier facing troubles that could have been prolonged compared to naturally!

Mr Steve B. We will all be dead by the time this will be a problem. That does not mean I care less for the children! Please think a bit further past our expiry date!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top