And the Forecast says....

The article lies by omission, in that calling Nic Lewis a "climate scientist" ignores that he has a minor in physics, perhaps his only science qualification, and that the latest paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific but a contribution of noise released to the scientifically illiterate press. They literally cherry picked one study that supported the answer they wanted to give and discounted all other results, including http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

For more, read http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/06/lord-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Admittedly modeling global warming is complex and not perfect, but not doing enough to decrease man's contribution MAY cause worst ever disaster (Extinction of mammals). Preventing that by significantly reducing man's CO2 release is easy, and if cars are fueled with sugar cane alcohol instead of gasoline, more economical. That is a sustainable technology proven practical for 35 years in Brazil. This cleaner burning fuel reduces repair bills too, and the modifications to IC engines needed at car factories are trivial especially compare to switching to battery powered cars. To replace all fossil fueled cars with alcohol fueled cars would take about a decade and during that time sugar cane could be planted in the 3% of Earth's arable land required for total conversion to alcohol fuel. - That is less than the currently abandoned pasture, as much of the world has such cheap land that it is more economical to exhaust a field an move to another than to take care of the first as US's cotton plantations once did. A side benefit is that cutting cane requires little skill /education so many jobs in third world countries for the under employed who live outside the cash economy would be created, converting those now paid in cash workers to buyers of first world exports. (Every one wins, except "big oil" stops screwing and lying to you.)

With all the above benefits, it is stupidity to burn oil for fuel, so man should break free from "big oil's grasp" and switch to alcohol fuel even if there is zero chance than the current system will kill all mammals, humans included. Why continue to fund terrorists and regimes exploiting human rights, like Saudi Arabia, etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cane roots & Tons of alcohol in fuel tanks = slightly CO2 negative.

Now from old posts, here is how mammals MAY be driven extinct:

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?40077-A-Note-Global-Warming-Threads/page6
The current rapid RATE* of CO2 release has never before occurred. Now CH4 is being released in dense (sub sonar killing) Arctic Ocean "bubble clouds" that make me concerned that we may be making a possible great disaster for mankind (and other warm blooded animals that cool by evaporation) as being in a wet-bulb environment of only 35C will kill you in less than an hour. Due to increased ocean evaporation the amount of rain and average air humidity is increasing now. The fact that increasing atmospheric concentrations of CH4, increase the half life of CH4 in the air and CH4 is at least 10 times better IR absorber than CO2 is sort of scary too.** - If present rates of CH4 continue, even neglecting their self- accelerations, then in a few decades at most, CH4 will be a more important GHG than CO2.

* Except perhaps during large volcanic eruptions.

** The life time of CO2 in air is increasing as it is mainly removed in reaction with the OH- radical but that reaction also lowers the concentration of the clearing OH- radicals too. (I. e. CH4, now being released makes that released next year last longer in the air before being destroyed by the then lower OH- radical concentrations.) Currently the CO2 concentration, in ppm, is ~ 400 and that of CH4 averages ~1.816 (data sources and more discussion in post 909). So there is 400 / 1.816 = 220 times less CH4 concentration than CO2 in the air, and CH4 absorption is still in a linear absorption-function concentration range. If the CH4 concentration were to increase by a factor of only 1.85/0.51 = 3.627 to an average concentration of 6.59 ppm then it would be as important as CO2 is now and still in the linear function range. CH4 is the real GHG threat, not CO2, that all focus on. ...

The volume of alcohol fuel needed to fuel all the world's cars, even if cellulosic alcohol does not prove to be economically competitive with that produced from sugar cane, can be produced with only about 2% of the earth's arable land growing sugar cane. ... The advances of modern agriculture can increase the yield per acre, compared to the primitive means used in large areas, by at least 20% so while switching to sugar cane based alcohol, there could be also at least a 10% increase in the production of food and fiber." See calculation of this "about 2% of arable land" at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133084-Apocalypse-Soon&p=3079459&viewfull=1#post3079459

and from: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...a-pipe-dream&p=3101002&viewfull=1#post3101002
"every one not able to live in air-conditions rooms dies as humans, with their 37C bodies need to dump ~100W to the environment even just resting in a chair. No work can be done, not even slow walking as then they can't keep from over heating and dying with 35C wet bulb temperatures. Even the rich with air conditions will be dead soon if many die as the power lines will fail with no repairmen climbing poles, etc., food stores will not get food deliveries, etc. As Hansen put it: "not only will the arctic be ice free, the world will be human free." ...

Also CH4, released at low altitude, say from frozen tundra or ocean floor hydrates,* has slightly more than a decade half-life. Until a few decades ago the atmospheric concentrations of CH4 were essentially static with release rate = destruction rates, but now CH4 is being released faster than it can be destroyed so the atmospheric concentration is increasing, and this is a positive feed back system.

*BTW, there is more carbon stored in those hydrates and tundra than ALL the coal AND oil that ever existed on Earth! It is now bubbling up in the shallow Arctic ocean so fast that it forms "clouds" (some a mile in diameter) that submarine sonars can not see thru - like human is blind in an intense atmospheric fog. This is new - not experienced by WWII subs."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I would like to see is more of this in the world.

https://www.upworthy.com/a-dutch-guy-is-disgusted-by-america-but-he-has-a-hell-of-a-point?c=reccon1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here are some other considerations connected to water that may not be part of any climate model. D20 (deuterium oxide) which is heavy water (H2O is light water), shifts the absorption spectrum of water, such that the red aspect of H20 get shifted into the IR. D20 makes water absorb IR heat better.

Other materials dissolved in the water also play a role in the absorption spectra of water;

We add fluorine to water to help with tooth decay. This shifts the absorption spectrum to lower wave number (higher wavelength).

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html

 

wellwisher's source does not support his claims.

• The ratio of D₂O to H₂O is small with the proportions fixed by the cosmological abundance of the deuterium isotope. Deuterium is not produced by any commercial method, rather natural deuterium is separated from natural sources.
  • There was a 1980's episode of "GI Joe" where opposing forces fought a battle over access to a pool of heavy water at the bottom of the ocean, but that was an invention of the writer's mind and exists in contrast to scientific fact.
• Both of the first two claims are about liquid water where due to hydrogen bonding and constant proximity of other water molecules, has a vastly different spectrum than gas-phase water vapor. Specifically the first of the two quotes is from a paragraph that begins "In liquid water and ice the infrared and Raman spectra are far more complex than the vapor due to vibrational overtones and combinations with librations (restricted rotations; that is, rocking motions). These librations are due to the restrictions imposed by hydrogen bonding ..."
• The third source also cannot play a role in the absorption spectrum of water vapor. And it is water vapor which is at issue here. Water vapor is free of the effects of any ions in its source, which is why distilled water is pure water indeed.
• Fluoridation of some municipal fresh water supplies mimics a natural process elsewhere, natural sources may have higher concentrations.
• Lakes and oceans can be very deep so in general they already absorb most insolation, so on a global scale any albedo change from ionic shift would be minor indeed.

But hey, at least you cited your source material this time. Someday you might be able to contribute something other than noise to the discussion, but your biggest problem is your lack of adoption of scientific epistemology. At no point have you shown that you have asked yourself what evidence it would take to convince you that 97% of climate scientists were right and you were wrong. Without allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong, you keep trying "angles" to trip people up rather than fact-based arguments to seek the truth.

 

Any source that changes the energy balance is part of the conversation. Carbon dioxide has a demonstrated impact in the gas phase but it is a one trick pony. Water has an impact on the global energy economy in the gas, liquid and solid states. The truth does not limit the discussion to the one trick of CO2 but needs to include all angles of water, since these also impact the global energy balance even more than CO2.

When I brought I fluorine, the consensus had ozone depletion occurring with very little fluorine. Fluorine is a cosmotrope (creates order in water) and is not the only cosmotrope found within water. Sodium is also a kosmotrope.

 

Manmade global warming has never occurred before in the history of the earth. However, there is hard evidence of the earth, all by itself, causing changes in temperature and climate without man. For example, the last ice age. The first is a consensus prototype, that is still a work in progress. While the second is hard data based on actual events, that does not need a consensus, since the data is self standing. Science is not about consensus or we would vote each day of which is the best theory for everything using mudslinging and rhetoric. We would also need celebrity mouth pieces campaigning for the lay audience vote. Science is about test proven results, that are self standing, and do not need the subjectivity of consensus prestige.

I focus on this because the layman should be aware of the difference. It is like comparing putting a man on the moon, with putting a man on Mars. The first has been done and the all the unexpected can be taken into account. The second still have unanswered questions, since it still at the level of a work in progress. If you ever did development work, these are two different places on the development learning curve. The first does not need a consensus since it has historical data, the second need more sales pitch and uses more imagination. This is needed to shape opinions so we can get more funding to run a real test. This is the main purpose of consensus.

When I did development work, after the lab results were successful, you needed to recruit support to get the funding to scale up for proof of concept under field conditions. This is where consensus helps the cause. There is still risk of failure and waste, but having the support of a consensus allows you to move forward to the level of pilot testing. This can be expensive, if we need to simulate a large scale phenomena. It also has it own problems that you will need to iron out until it runs smooth.

I remember doing a project. The consensus said it could not be done, since it was way out of the box. The concept needed to go against the grain of existing thinking. The projected was connected to an anaerobic denitrification process, which I needed to do in an open pond, expose to the air (aerobic conditions). This was bad enough, but it also had to occur with five other parameters that exceeded the limits of the traditions; lack of ph control, a lot of heavy metals like lead and mercury, chlorinated solvents, 1-2 order of magnitude higher nitrates than optimized in the then current bioreactors, and most of the period table of the elements with unknown impact. I got the process to work in situ, for a 2.5 million gallon experiment, which became the new state of the art.

The consensus was against me for the cost of scale-up, and this may never have occurred. This scale up only happened because of a coincidence in time emergency situation, where there were no other option, and the EPA said we had to something. This was only approach that could be implemented, quickly, and was allowed, only to buy time. I could improvise and did not need to buy off the self, so it was cheap and fast and was only allowed as a distraction until the consensus could work out a strategy.

On paper, the experts formed a consensus based on their experiences inside the box of traditions. I lost the consensus battle and did not trust consensus for a long time. Now I realize the consensus means well, but can't see too well outside the box. Once you leave the box the consensus are like students. Manmade global warming is out of the box (never done before). One cannot just assume what works in the box is going to work outside the box.

In the Climate Gate subtopic, I asked about a pilot study since that is normally the next step after the consensus forms. One now has the power behind the sales pitch. The Phoenix test was mentioned and its conclusion was CO2 was a minor parameter instead of the first. This is not what the consensus hoped for. But that is not stopping the sales pitch, since a better controlled pilot testing is still needed. Water was in the top two, which is why I see that as a better path for further development. I am looking at the all the options before I settle. I am sharing my thinking and looking.

 

To get funding you need to publish these results in a pier-reviewed journal. If you did not, don't blame the system, others etc. If you did, please give link, as I doubt, based on your many false assertions in posts, you have adequate understanding to have pass thru this first stage of fund seeking.

 

But you didn't demonstrate that your source was significant in any way. Deuterium isn't sourced in any terrestrial activity, natural or manmade. dissolved ions in liquid water do not affect the gas phase absorption of water vapor. The ocean is deep and salty and large and has many sources and sinks, so an allegation of a change in albedo from an unspecific inorganic discharge of undescribed size with undescribed effect isn't adding to the conversation, but adding noise.

It's at least a three-trick pony, as it is a well-mixed greenhouse gas, ocean acidifier and source of carbon for photosynthesis. Your dismissive attitude is unscientific.

But since water vapor tends to condense out at the lower temperatures of the troposphere, it is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas and thus man's activities on water are mostly local and limited to a time period of days, not hundreds of years like CO₂. The main exceptions are larger amounts of water vapor in the troposphere and albedo change from global temperature rises melting old ice, and minor albedo changes caused by increased agricultural runoff. Also because of higher temperatures in the tropics, some water vapor may leak into the stratosphere where it will contribute somewhat to global warming.

A claimed motive of pursuit of truth does not justify repeated clutching at straws to prop up your denial that anthropogenic global warming is the best model to explain the changes in climate that we are seeing. You didn't understand anything of the science of water's interaction with light, but instead clutched at a bizarre quote-mine of one article on the topic and fixated first of all on Deuterium! You made no fact-based arguments that albedo change in the open oceans was quantitatively significant because your single source didn't provide that and you lacked the motivation to contribute more than noise to the discussion. Having failed to demonstrate significance of the effect, you also failed to demonstrate that it was being ignored by the experts.

And the ocean is already salty. Please what is the point? That there is little ozone in seawater?? That FEMA's "New World Order" is as near as the salt shaker at the local diner???
But, hey, I ridicule you because I care ... about science. You haven't shown that fluorine (as opposed to chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere) is significant in ozone depletion. (For example, fluorine burns out of the catalytic cycle earlier because forms HF molecules which are much more stable than HCl or HBr.) In fact, HF is what signaled in the 1990's that ozone depletion was due to man-made changes to atmospheric chemistry. http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/ozone/nasarelease.html

Please explain the qualitative difference. Man and Nature are governed by the same physical laws. Man flies not in defiance of nature, but with understanding and exploiting of nature. Both man-made and natural dams break with terrifying floods. I think you are committing the error known as "special pleading."

The same natural factors that would promote cooling are in evidence today, but anthopogenic changes dominate in magnitude because the globe is taking in more energy than it releases to space.

Special pleading again, because all science, including gravity, is a work in progress. You have not articulated the standard which would be needed to convince you that your position is wrong, therefore no one has an expectation you will bring more to this discussion that noise, goal shifting and bad argument.

You ignore the possibility that the consensus exists because the hard data in the first case is in and is based in part on the hard data of the second part. How much of the IPCC WGI AR5 2013 report have you read? Every paragraph is chock full of citations to scientific papers that directly support the statements being made, giving you the direct ability to literally "check the facts." But do you do this? Ever? How then are you motivated by a pursuit of truth?

Where is the evidence that the consensus of experts to have one opinion on a question of fact in their area of expertise was driven by mudslinging and rhetoric as opposed to fact-based argument? In contrast it was those that deny the globe is warming that sought to draw a comparison between Michael Mann and a sexual predator. How is a 97% consensus on anything comparable to a hotly contested political campaign outcome where 57% is described as a landslide?

The lay audience doesn't get a "vote" in the 97% consensus of climate experts. Most research on the topic of the consensus is taken from the peer-reviewed scientific articles. (You know, the ones filled with the facts that you are demanding.)

If you accept this principle, why do you clutch at straws so to try and prop up your preconceptions? But I disagree in part:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29520&view=findpost&p=490047

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=51416&view=findpost&p=626510 ​

I don't think you understand that since we have the Earth already subject to the scientific theories of physics and chemistry, detailed knowledge of the climate is one of refinement, not starting from scratch.

That's not a science question, that's an engineering question. All the science questions about space hazards were settled before the Apollo 11 launch which is why it worked on the first try. All the science questions about navigation were settled in 1687.

You've swapped the position of your first and second -- just a note for your future writing. "Shaping opinions" and "sales pitches" are no part of any scientific "learning curve." Science isn't a product to be sold.

I think you are thinking of "patent medicines" not science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yM2babqZs

This is engineering and commercial development, not science.

"Way out the box" doesn't seem like a scientific argument for the consensus holding their opinion. Have you read any of the IPCC's WG I AR5 2013 report?

OK, the point of your self-aggrandizing story is that the people who say something that never has happened before can't happen are fools who are trapped "in the box" and only science can free them?

It's not me calling you a fool at this point, it's your own life experience. Also, have you read any part of the free-to-download WG I AR5 2013 report?

You have the science backward. In science, you establish the superiority of the model that describes the behavior of phenomena and then the consensus of experts build on that superior summary of nature. That's how anthropogenic global warming was predicted in the 1940's.

You have never understood the science and therefore don't understand the Phoenix observations. The Phoenix CO₂ bubble did not change concentrations much about 500 meters and thus only changed the column densities over the whole atmosphere by a few ppm. Thus the expected effect size was always small, get it?

"All the options" sounds impressive, but have you tried the option of reading the IPCC WG I AR5 report? Have you tried enrolling in university classes that cover greybody emission laws and thermodynamics and optical transmission and scattering so you would understand the basic's of Earth's equilibrium temperature? It's embarrassing when you lump near infrared radiation in with mid-infrared radiation (like astronomy's N band) or confuse wavelength with temperature. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irwindows.html

 

I looked at the article and it backs up my point; there is plenty of "natural precedent", for climate change, without any human interaction. This is another of the many tricks nature can use. Humans are not needed for major changes to occur in climate. This is a case in point.

I am not arguing about the 1 degree of global warming over the past 100 years. I agree with that data. This is hard data. Manmade global warming, is a horse of different color that is not as definitive as the 1 degree.

Manmade global works under the premise that human activity is responsible. It only looks at data from the last maybe 100-150 years, since there is nothing attributed to man any earlier than that. There is no need to look further. This is the first time, like the first kiss. The first time for anything always results in the imagination going wild, since there is no precedent to compare to. This magic makes it idealized.

If the consensus said, in the years 1044-1100, climate change also happened, due to humans. These were the conditions then, and here are the conditions today. See how there are the same. I would say, I see the parallel , science showed it happened before, and it is looking like the same, therefore it must be human. I can compare the first kiss to the second kiss.

But what we have one data point, still in the process of being made. One data point does not allow us to know if we are drawing the correct straight line as compared to two points. One point allows a line using any angle you want, including sales pitch angles. Consensus science is needed if you don't know for sure. Consensus is needed because one data point makes the angle hard to define; we needed educated opinion.

Let me give an example of the contrast between hard science (plenty of natural data) and consensus science (one human data). If look at the sunrise and sunset times for today, we don't need a consensus, since these numbers come from proven science.

Consensus would be needed if we don't have these charts or equations, so we cannot properly calculate sunrise and sunset. Without hard science, everyone is now trying to guess, based on what they think they know. We look at where the guesses are clustering, and that is the consensus. If someone finds the equation or the chart, we get rid of the consensus and let science speak for itself.

 

Wellwisher's magical thinking

Wellwisher has for some time articulated that there is some difference between the acts of man and the acts of nature. Of course there is, for man can be held morally and legally responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of his acts while this is not so for nature. But there is no scientific reason to think that the laws of the universe care if acts are the work of man or nature, indeed there is not one scientific theory that ascribes outcomes differently due to the identity of the actor.

Example: Long before Sputnik, Newton predicted that the same Universal Gravitation that cause fruit to fall from trees and the planets to circle the sun would also predict that any body, including a man-made one, with sufficient tangential velocity would orbit the Earth.

Example: Color matching machines at house paint store work the same with man-made and natural samples.

Example: There are no identified differences between snow melted by the sun and snow deliberated heated over a fire for drinking.

To presume that the acts of man and nature are subject to different physical laws is magical thinking, and has no proper place in a discussion of climate change. Because it is not a belief held for rational reasons, a rational basis for adopting Wellwisher's belief system has not been articulated.

Meanwhile, scientific research has left no room for rational doubt of man's culpability for the greater part of recent global warming in a trend which is accelerating. Continued dithering serves no purpose but to trade short term profits for a few for long term catastrophic losses for all.

(Initially posted from a phone, please excuse the brevity.)