Page 4 of 228 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #31
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    yes, absorbtion is the key.

    and thats why the climate has been changing, because we have changed the earths absorption with carbon gases.
    The debate is by how much.

    The models hold solar input as a constant. I have shown, and can show continuously, that solar input changes.

    It is the ONLY input. The absorption rate as theorized by the models and how you have stated to perceive the world, I have shown is over stated.

    Natural variations from the sun, if added to the equation, offer more variation in total than CO2 would without the hypothesized multiplier for water that never arrived.

    We have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere - and there is an expected 1.1wm^2 of warming to be expected from doubling it. But not the 4.4wm^2 as hypothesized, and modeled. That is eclipsed though by solar variation, in all of it's forms.

    And that is without getting into the results from the CERN study that show a strong correlation between solar output and it's affects on clouds. Turns out cosmic radiation has a direct affect on cloud development.

    Which means a 160mw^2 change in affect - cloud can reflect 160 times the amount CO2 would if we doubled from pre-industrial eras.

    Natural variation is huge. It only made sense in the models that used Dr. Robert Hass's Method of model building - which holds natural variations at a constant to see the affects of one variable.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #32
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    so, yes, there is a consensus. extra output from the sun is not what is warming the earth.
    In that you are simply ignoring the evidence I put forth, hundreds of pages worth, while offering NONE of your own.

    http://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975498

    There are several proposed mechanisms1
    through which the 11-year solar cycle (SC) could influence the Earth’s
    climate, as summarised by Figure 1. These include: (a) the direct impact of solar irradiance variability on
    temperatures at the Earth’s surface, characterised by variation in the total incoming solar irradiance (TSI); (b) the
    indirect impact of variations through the absorption of Ultra-Violet (UV) radiation in the upper stratosphere
    associated with the presence of ozone, with accompanying dynamical responses that extend the impact to the Earth’s
    surface; (c) the indirect impact of variations in energetic particle fluxes into the thermosphere, mesosphere and
    upper stratosphere at high geomagnetic latitudes; and (d) the impact of variations in the generation of ions by
    galactic cosmic ray (GCR) penetration into the troposphere. Although different in their nature, these four pathways
    may not work in isolation but their influence could be synergetic. For example, there is modelling evidence that the
    influences of TSI at the surface in combination with the stratospheric response to the spectrally-resolved solar
    irradiance (SSI) variability could reinforce solar influences on regional scales, such as the tropical Pacific2
    .
    Furthermore, the surface imprint of energetic particle precipitation may be similar to influences of SSI variability3
    .

    This paper provides a summary of evidence and our current understanding of the first two of these proposed
    mechanisms, namely those involving solar irradiance variability, with a focus on surface impacts in the Pacific and
    in the Atlantic / European sector.

    One of the primary challenges in this research field is the difficulty in identifying the optimal indicator of solar
    variability in the various wavelength bands. Direct satellite measurements of TSI, i.e. the total irradiance across all
    spectral bands, have been available since the late 1970s, starting with the NIMBUS7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB)
    in 19784
    , and continuing to this day with the currently flying Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)
    Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM)5
    and TSI Continuity Transfer Experiment (TCTE)/TIM. However, this period
    encompasses less than four solar cycles, and is inadequate for the analysis of long-term data such as sea level
    pressure and temperature where global datasets extend back to the mid 19th century and for European datasets that
    extend even further back, to the 17th century. For these analyses a variety of ‘proxy’ data indices are employed to
    represent past solar variability, for example sunspot number. The situation is even more challenging for the analysis
    of responses that involve modulation of the amount of UV radiation, since direct observation of spectrally-resolved
    solar irradiance (SSI) over a wide range of UV wavelengths has only been achieved since 19816
    , and with
    sufficiently good stability to capture accurate solar cycle changes above 250 nm since 19917
    with the Upper
    Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Solar Ultraviolet Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM)8
    . There has also
    been much uncertainty in recent spectral observations from SORCE, particularly in the size of the change in UV
    radiation between solar minimum and solar maximum9,10.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #33
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    If the policy-relevant crux of the AGW debate is to what degree humanity exerts control over the climate, I suggest reading this:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/nat...er-review.html

    Note that we have a pretty reasonable, backtested confidence interval using CO2 as a primary forcing. These intervals include all external sources of error (residual variance). I do a significant amount of modeling, both predictive and statistical, for work, and generally speaking combining first principle drivers with a good corpus of experimental data is a strong way to develop a confidence interval.

    I changed my position from AGW skepticism when I read and understood the 2007 IPCC report, and understood the effect of ocean acidifcation.

    These are the points I find most convincing, as a former skeptic:

    1. Climate is "chaotic", but is also metastable due to positive feedback loops in CO2, methane, and water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. This amplifies the risk of even relatively small man-made perturbations.

    2. All credible models show significant temperature effects at unabated emission rates. While some analyses may suggest that small temperature increases along with elevated CO2 levels may provide net positive benefit globally (e.g. thorugh increased growing productivity), there would be significant wealth transfers and disruption through the rapid pace of change (e.g. changes in shoreline housing markets)

    3.Oceanic warming and acidification over short timescales are significantly disruptive to the marine ecosystem.

    However, I also believe there are very few policy prescriptions capable of mitigated emissions in the face of economic drivers. While the idea of carbon cap+trade or linear carbon tax is ideologically attractive, we've seen that it's a political nonstarter.

    Economic drivers external to policy (Fracking boom), policy adjustments (solar credits, electric car credits), and technology advancements (efficiency, wind, solar, grid choerography, possibly long term nuclear) all are what is needed to drive emissions down. Renewables are good for developing nations since they carry inherently decentralized grids. BRIC nations need to adjust or pivot to carbon neutral generation.

    Ultimately, some form of geoengineering may be needed to address damage already done, but it's likely that this will carry less economic burden than rapid emissions reductions.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The debate is by how much.

    The models hold solar input as a constant. I have shown, and can show continuously, that solar input changes.

    It is the ONLY input. The absorption rate as theorized by the models and how you have stated to perceive the world, I have shown is over stated.

    Natural variations from the sun, if added to the equation, offer more variation in total than CO2 would without the hypothesized multiplier for water that never arrived.

    We have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere - and there is an expected 1.1wm^2 of warming to be expected from doubling it. But not the 4.4wm^2 as hypothesized, and modeled. That is eclipsed though by solar variation, in all of it's forms.

    And that is without getting into the results from the CERN study that show a strong correlation between solar output and it's affects on clouds. Turns out cosmic radiation has a direct affect on cloud development.

    Which means a 160mw^2 change in affect - cloud can reflect 160 times the amount CO2 would if we doubled from pre-industrial eras.

    Natural variation is huge. It only made sense in the models that used Dr. Robert Hass's Method of model building - which holds natural variations at a constant to see the affects of one variable.
    no, it isn't.

    cosmic rays and cloud cover have long been debunked as a driver of climate, mostly becuase cloud cover does two things:

    1: reflects the suns rays back before they can convert to long wave radiation and thus be trapped (cooling the earth)
    2: traps warm air near the ground (warming the earth)

    after 9/11 all aircraft in the country were grounded, this was a unique chance to measure the effect cloud cover has on the earth because air altitude cloud cover is effected and seeded unnaturally by contrails.

    what was the effect?

    almost nothing. this is because clouds do both, and so, even if you seeded many more clouds (cosmic rays are not yet even proven to seed clouds) you still would not change the temp of earth much.

    by far and away the two largest drivers of climate are the suns output, and the absorption properties of the earth. one is the fire inside the house heat it (the sun) the second is the insulation in the house (the atmospheres radative properties).

    1. we measure the suns output directly, and know that it has not changed significantly. the fire has not changed in intensity there for it is no longer controlling the houses temp.
    2. we have changed the absorption properties of the earth by inducting massive quantities of carbon gasses (co2 gets a bad rep, its actually methane that will do the real damage). this has actually been directly measured, and we KNOW the earth is given off less heat through radiation, by satellite. so we are insulating the house .... and that makes the temp go up.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #35
    interesting link (fully cited) on the actual measuring of the earths radiative changes: https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...use-effect.htm
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #36
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    cosmic rays and cloud cover have long been debunked as a driver of climate, mostly becuase cloud cover does two things:
    Hence, the CERN CLOUD project, which tested it and found that it has a very strong correlation. Just in the last 2 years.

    Saying it was 'long debunked' before it was tested is a very interesting claim. How can you debunk something before you test it? And after it is tested, then... you should accept the results.

    The results are astoundingly clear, and disagree with your position.
    ______________________

    Ah, Cook. I mean skeptical science. Now, that report that lied about 97% of papers when they truth was .3%? - That is Cook. He organized it and had 6 reviewers.

    Lets just say this straight out: He lies on scientific papers to try and fake a position that is not real.

    But lets look at this from your link to Cook:

    The Empirical Evidence
    As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

    We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

    Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
    See, classic Cook. All have not been thrown aside, the CLOUD experiment is a prime example.

    And then, there is this Gem, gonna quote it twice:

    We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur
    He showed that the long wave radiation should present lower values - and he skips the big caveat: 'The Theory' uses water as a 3X feedback. This is really important. If you remove that feedback, there is no exponential growth, like the models show. There is nothing to be worried about. He kinda skips that. Because of Lindzen.

    So, that brings us to the Lindzen Choi 2011 paper (in response to claims against Lindzen Choi 2009) http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf

    Which is an actual paper written on the longwave emission readings from Earth. This is the actual Empirical evidence.



    It turns out that there is a NET NEGATIVE feedback.

    Not a positive feedback.

    'The Theory', expecting a positive feedback, is Falsified by the fact there is a Negative Feedback when actually looking at the evidence.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #37
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    It is not a consensus.

    It is not known yet.
    What is your metric for this assertion?

    How does currently available data and research compare to other scientific knowns/unknowns?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Hence, the CERN CLOUD project, which tested it and found that it has a very strong correlation. Just in the last 2 years.

    Saying it was 'long debunked' before it was tested is a very interesting claim. How can you debunk something before you test it? And after it is tested, then... you should accept the results.

    The results are astoundingly clear, and disagree with your position.
    ______________________

    Ah, Cook. I mean skeptical science. Now, that report that lied about 97% of papers when they truth was .3%? - That is Cook. He organized it and had 6 reviewers.

    Lets just say this straight out: He lies on scientific papers to try and fake a position that is not real.

    But lets look at this from your link to Cook:



    See, classic Cook. All have not been thrown aside, the CLOUD experiment is a prime example.

    And then, there is this Gem, gonna quote it twice:



    He showed that the long wave radiation should present lower values - and he skips the big caveat: 'The Theory' uses water as a 3X feedback. This is really important. If you remove that feedback, there is no exponential growth, like the models show. There is nothing to be worried about. He kinda skips that. Because of Lindzen.

    So, that brings us to the Lindzen Choi 2011 paper (in response to claims against Lindzen Choi 2009) http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf

    Which is an actual paper written on the longwave emission readings from Earth. This is the actual Empirical evidence.



    It turns out that there is a NET NEGATIVE feedback.

    Not a positive feedback.

    'The Theory', expecting a positive feedback, is Falsified by the fact there is a Negative Feedback when actually looking at the evidence.
    so you disagree that the changing of the wavelength of radiation from how the suns rays reach earth, and how it bounces back into space, is not correct?

    you do realize that science has been known for nearly 200 years. right? long before climate change was even an idea, we have known that the earth emits radiation at a different frequency that the suns rays, and thats why the earth has any heat at all .... otherwise it would just reflect back to space any heat that hits it.

    this post sounds like gibberish. if radiation effects actually cooled the earth, the earth would be near the temperature of space.



    and as cited, clouds do not have a large effect on climate either way. so it doesn't even matter if cosmic rays seed them or not. we have known that for 15 years.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #39
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Oh, and this is BS:

    after 9/11 all aircraft in the country were grounded, this was a unique chance to measure the effect cloud cover has on the earth because air altitude cloud cover is effected and seeded unnaturally by contrails.

    what was the effect?

    almost nothing.
    https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/e...ge-experiment/

    About a year after the attacks, Carleton, David Travis, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin, and another colleague argued in a paper that thin clouds created by contrails reduce the range of temperatures. By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped.

    The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.

    Other studies have tended to back up the research.
    In 2011, British scientists wrote that an air raid in May 1944 involving over 1,400 aircraft measurably lowered daytime temperatures in England. In that case, the situation was the reverse of 9/11 – large-scale air travel was unknown, and dense concentrations of large planes were rare.

    In 2004, NASA scientist Patrick Minnis wrote that “increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.”
    The Clouds Reflect 160wm^2 back up, and trap 120wm^2 down - that is a difference in 40wm^2. We are discussing the potential impact of potentially 4.4wm^2 or 1.1wm^2 - IF we increase levels another 200ppm or so.

    So how is ignoring an affect that can change things by 40wm^2 even possible? (shakes head)
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Oh, and this is BS:



    https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/e...ge-experiment/



    The Clouds Reflect 160wm^2 back up, and trap 120wm^2 down - that is a difference in 40wm^2. We are discussing the potential impact of potentially 4.4wm^2 or 1.1wm^2 - IF we increase levels another 200ppm or so.

    So how is ignoring an affect that can change things by 40wm^2 even possible? (shakes head)
    do you even read what you post?

    increasing the range is not increasing the temp.

    i mean we intuitively know this ... cold winter nights are cloudless winter nights, and cool summer days are cloudy ones. clouds are a damper, not a driver. ergo, if you reduce clouds, you reduce the damping, you do not change the mean.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •