How would you score the AGW debate -- IF?

[flacaltenn]

12 years from now -- the GATemp has gained 0.25deg but the rise rate has greatly taper off AND we NOW know that there is a warming trend and CO2 has an influence, but is NOT the primary driver of the warming.

In other words, increased amounts of CO2 contributed by mankind has ENHANCED the warming trend, but never was the primary driver of the warming.

Let's say we've discovered long term physical cycles of climate change due to the alignment of solar system, earth positional dynamics or changes in the nature and composition of the Solar irradiation. -- AND the thermal forcing that is created by THAT primary driver is enhanced 25% by the increased CO2/GHG concentration..

Do we ALL win? Are Hansen and Mann still heroes in the history books because they honked the warning horn, but blew the analysis? Is Al Gore still a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Does the Hockey Stick and that Siberian YAD061 tree still matter?

Are skeptics like me still guilty of stalling and foot-dragging on spending TRILLIONs of dollars on CO2 mitigation? Will Muller still be a "skeptic"?

I just might pull a Muller here as I learn more about what's being claimed. I don't think ANYBODY'S got the CAUSE of the warming down right yet. YET -- It is warming and we are gambling here.. I'm not a "cult retard denier" without a conscience or a brain.

Chances are -- EVERYBODY'S gonna look stupid at a high scientific level when the history is written. That's the way science history usually goes..

 

[flacaltenn]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

 

[skookerasbil]

Flacaltenn..........actually, Ive been keeping score for the forum the last two years or so.............

The current score, skeptics vs alarmists................

 

[Old Rocks]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

So -- nothing short of a Biblical Sign of Divine Proportion is gonna justify a change?

Could still be a disaster under the thought experiment I gave. That would please you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

What kind of change. I'm only for change as long as it's economical and doesn't hurt people.

Caring about the poor and middle class must always be a factor in our decisions.

 

[Old Rocks]

12 years from now -- the GATemp has gained 0.25deg but the rise rate has greatly taper off AND we NOW know that there is a warming trend and CO2 has an influence, but is NOT the primary driver of the warming.

In other words, increased amounts of CO2 contributed by mankind has ENHANCED the warming trend, but never was the primary driver of the warming.

Let's say we've discovered long term physical cycles of climate change due to the alignment of solar system, earth positional dynamics or changes in the nature and composition of the Solar irradiation. -- AND the thermal forcing that is created by THAT primary driver is enhanced 25% by the increased CO2/GHG concentration..

Do we ALL win? Are Hansen and Mann still heroes in the history books because they honked the warning horn, but blew the analysis? Is Al Gore still a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Does the Hockey Stick and that Siberian YAD061 tree still matter?

Are skeptics like me still guilty of stalling and foot-dragging on spending TRILLIONs of dollars on CO2 mitigation? Will Muller still be a "skeptic"?

I just might pull a Muller here as I learn more about what's being claimed. I don't think ANYBODY'S got the CAUSE of the warming down right yet. YET -- It is warming and we are gambling here.. I'm not a "cult retard denier" without a conscience or a brain.

Chances are -- EVERYBODY'S gonna look stupid at a high scientific level when the history is written. That's the way science history usually goes..

IF

Thus far all the science states that the GHGs are the primary driver of the warming. I have yet to see an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that shows the sun to be the primary driver.

Tyndall established the cause in 1858. That has been confirmed hundreds of times since, with increasingly accurate mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs, natural and manmade.

I have followed this issue since the mid '60's when a graduate student made a presentation to geology class I was attending. In that half century, I have seen the predictions of the 'alarmists' proven routinely wrong. That affects that those scientists were predicting have arrived decades early in almost every case.

We are seeing consequences now that were not expected until midcentury. Both Swiss Re and Munich Re confirm this in their actuarial books on extreme weather events. Professor Jennifer Francis's lecture on the affects of the melting ice in the arctic on the weather patterns is an eye opener on how the extreme weather events are created.

Even were we to decide to cut GHGs on a worldwide level, we still have 30 to 50 years of heating in the pipeline from existing levels. And the reaction of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean is going to determine how bad it will get. The time for prevention of consequences is long past, we are seeing consequences now, and will see those consequences increase in the coming years. Reduction in output of GHGs on a worldwide level will help those in the 22nd century, but the path of warming in this century is already established.

The question now is will those that prevented reductions in GHGs for the last 30 years prevent prepartion for the consequences of the warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

So -- nothing short of a Biblical Sign of Divine Proportion is gonna justify a change?

Could still be a disaster under the thought experiment I gave. That would please you?

None of this is pleasing to me. I do not like the changes I have seen in the mountains that I love. I do not like the prospect of the forests being burnt out as the climate warms, and droughts and flooding both become major factors in firestorms and extreme erosion.

You are a prime example of why it will take a major disaster to wake up the people up. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists of academic fraud, or worse.

The science has been established for a long time. That you cannot or refuse to comprehend that is your problem. Events are vindicating the scientists that have tried to warn us of the consequences of the warming.

The policy statements of all the scientfic societies that deal in science related to the warming have been unequivical for the last 5 years. The GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere has created a very bad future for all of us.

That you now wish to state, "Oh maybe there is just a little bit of truth in the science" at this time only indicates your basic lack of understanding of what is happening, or a basic dishonesty on your part.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

What kind of change. I'm only for change as long as it's economical and doesn't hurt people.

Caring about the poor and middle class must always be a factor in our decisions.

The poor and middle class will see major impacts from the changing climate. Far more impacts than if we do nothing at all.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...6314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

12 years from now -- the GATemp has gained 0.25deg but the rise rate has greatly taper off AND we NOW know that there is a warming trend and CO2 has an influence, but is NOT the primary driver of the warming.

In other words, increased amounts of CO2 contributed by mankind has ENHANCED the warming trend, but never was the primary driver of the warming.

Let's say we've discovered long term physical cycles of climate change due to the alignment of solar system, earth positional dynamics or changes in the nature and composition of the Solar irradiation. -- AND the thermal forcing that is created by THAT primary driver is enhanced 25% by the increased CO2/GHG concentration..

Do we ALL win? Are Hansen and Mann still heroes in the history books because they honked the warning horn, but blew the analysis? Is Al Gore still a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Does the Hockey Stick and that Siberian YAD061 tree still matter?

Are skeptics like me still guilty of stalling and foot-dragging on spending TRILLIONs of dollars on CO2 mitigation? Will Muller still be a "skeptic"?

I just might pull a Muller here as I learn more about what's being claimed. I don't think ANYBODY'S got the CAUSE of the warming down right yet. YET -- It is warming and we are gambling here.. I'm not a "cult retard denier" without a conscience or a brain.

Chances are -- EVERYBODY'S gonna look stupid at a high scientific level when the history is written. That's the way science history usually goes..

IF

Thus far all the science states that the GHGs are the primary driver of the warming. I have yet to see an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that shows the sun to be the primary driver.

Tyndall established the cause in 1858. That has been confirmed hundreds of times since, with increasingly accurate mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs, natural and manmade.

I have followed this issue since the mid '60's when a graduate student made a presentation to geology class I was attending. In that half century, I have seen the predictions of the 'alarmists' proven routinely wrong. That affects that those scientists were predicting have arrived decades early in almost every case.

We are seeing consequences now that were not expected until midcentury. Both Swiss Re and Munich Re confirm this in their actuarial books on extreme weather events. Professor Jennifer Francis's lecture on the affects of the melting ice in the arctic on the weather patterns is an eye opener on how the extreme weather events are created.

Even were we to decide to cut GHGs on a worldwide level, we still have 30 to 50 years of heating in the pipeline from existing levels. And the reaction of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean is going to determine how bad it will get. The time for prevention of consequences is long past, we are seeing consequences now, and will see those consequences increase in the coming years. Reduction in output of GHGs on a worldwide level will help those in the 22nd century, but the path of warming in this century is already established.

The question now is will those that prevented reductions in GHGs for the last 30 years prevent prepartion for the consequences of the warming?

What I gave you here was a projected truth, not an actual truth. But one that I believe to be the most likely outcome of this debate. It IS based on the ideas of others that I've read. For instance Nicola Scarfetta has taken the official Surface Temp Record and clearly shown 60 year "natural cycles" in the last 2 centuries that COULD account for up to 60% of the warming attributed to anthropogenic causes. HE speculates on astronomical reasons for this cycle. Cycles that were also (coincidentally) identified by ancient civilizations.

Because the Anthropogenic part of AGW is focused solely on MOSTLY the last 100 years, folks could be missing the LARGER picture.. But we're not discussing Scarfetta or individual ideas.

The excersize was to project a plausible outcome where we're BOTH somewhat right. That you and your bud Tynedahl fingered CO2 but blew the theory part of causality, and I was correct about the complexity of the driving causes and skeptical of purely anthropogenic cause -- but maybe too ready to dismiss auxilliary "contributions" from GHG.

In that case -- it might not interest you at all -- because you've got your flak jak on waiting for the immediate apocalyse rather than pondering and thinking about the issues. And when your primary defense is that some dude without a lab or satellites or computers in the 18th century had it all right and refuse to review a LITERAL OCEAN of work since -- then I take it you're done debating and you're gonna bet on Tynedahl REGARDLESS of any new evidence presented or any descrepancies in the theories or measurements.

 

[Old Rocks]

Long term, there are only two things that determine the temperature at the surface of the Earth. The amount of energy that we recieve from the sun, and the amount that we retain. GHGs increase the retention of energy. That was what Tyndall showed. Further work on absorption spectra have shown his work to be correct. In the last 50 years, we have actually seen a slight decrease in TSI. Yet we have seen a major increase in surface temperature in the same period.

So what has changed? A 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and a 150% increase in CH4. As well as many industrial GHGs which have no natural analog and are up to thousands of times as powerful as CO2.

The oceanic cycles, ect. are merely variations in heat recieved and retained. They are important in distribution and short term cycles, but neither add nor subtract from that which we recieve and retain from the sun.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet TSI has contributed about 1W/M2 in irradiance since the beginning of the 18th century. That's almost 1/2 of what we're looking for in terms of a forcing function. Alarmists ALWAYS point to what the sun has done in the past 60 years -- but IGNORE what I just stated. And with a complex STORAGE system consisting of deep oceans and ice you love to watch melt -- the time constant for turning up the thermostat could be 100 years.

And it's NOT just heat from the sun. It's the climate reaction to that heat. The amount of water vapor, albedo change, upper level atmos changes and such that the heating causes. It's a dynamic model with DYNAMIC (and now we're beginning to understand) REGIONAL climate sensitivities.

 

[polarbear]

12 years from now -- the GATemp has gained 0.25deg but the rise rate has greatly taper off AND we NOW know that there is a warming trend and CO2 has an influence, but is NOT the primary driver of the warming.

In other words, increased amounts of CO2 contributed by mankind has ENHANCED the warming trend, but never was the primary driver of the warming.

Let's say we've discovered long term physical cycles of climate change due to the alignment of solar system, earth positional dynamics or changes in the nature and composition of the Solar irradiation. -- AND the thermal forcing that is created by THAT primary driver is enhanced 25% by the increased CO2/GHG concentration..

Do we ALL win? Are Hansen and Mann still heroes in the history books because they honked the warning horn, but blew the analysis? Is Al Gore still a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Does the Hockey Stick and that Siberian YAD061 tree still matter?

Are skeptics like me still guilty of stalling and foot-dragging on spending TRILLIONs of dollars on CO2 mitigation? Will Muller still be a "skeptic"?

I just might pull a Muller here as I learn more about what's being claimed. I don't think ANYBODY'S got the CAUSE of the warming down right yet. YET -- It is warming and we are gambling here.. I'm not a "cult retard denier" without a conscience or a brain.

Chances are -- EVERYBODY'S gonna look stupid at a high scientific level when the history is written. That's the way science history usually goes..

IF

Thus far all the science states that the GHGs are the primary driver of the warming. I have yet to see an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that shows the sun to be the primary driver.

Tyndall established the cause in 1858. That has been confirmed hundreds of times since, with increasingly accurate mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs, natural and manmade.

I have followed this issue since the mid '60's when a graduate student made a presentation to geology class I was attending. In that half century, I have seen the predictions of the 'alarmists' proven routinely wrong. That affects that those scientists were predicting have arrived decades early in almost every case.

We are seeing consequences now that were not expected until midcentury. Both Swiss Re and Munich Re confirm this in their actuarial books on extreme weather events. Professor Jennifer Francis's lecture on the affects of the melting ice in the arctic on the weather patterns is an eye opener on how the extreme weather events are created.

Even were we to decide to cut GHGs on a worldwide level, we still have 30 to 50 years of heating in the pipeline from existing levels. And the reaction of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean is going to determine how bad it will get. The time for prevention of consequences is long past, we are seeing consequences now, and will see those consequences increase in the coming years. Reduction in output of GHGs on a worldwide level will help those in the 22nd century, but the path of warming in this century is already established.

The question now is will those that prevented reductions in GHGs for the last 30 years prevent prepartion for the consequences of the warming?

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

You should keep your mouth shut instead of pretending you are "not scientifically challenged"...like you said "here is an article for the scientifically challenged"..:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5820613-post164.html
And then replied "have you ever heard about Archimedes"..!!!
Hey I`m still waiting for you to answer a simple Archimedes puzzle..

I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks

And now you pretend to know what a clathrate is...!!!!

All You do is regurgitate, copy&paste internet web pages without a clue what it is all about


If you do (after you Googled for it) please do tell what the primary binding force is called that gives a substance the ability to act as a host in a clathrate..
Incidently I hold 2 U.S. patents on clathrates,

so be careful with your usual "smart"-mouth answers..

I`m still waiting for you to answer that too...:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5820613-post164.html

You know,...!!! where you mouthed off " "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"

If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks

And you still can`t answer a simple Archimedes puzzle...every normal high school kid has to be able to answer that + ~ 50 more such questions in less than 1 hour in a science test to make the grade

Maybe you had all your school records sealed just like Obama?...I just watched the news where people who were at same the college at the time he claims to have graduated, say they never even saw him there...

 

[polarbear]

Flacaltenn..........actually, Ive been keeping score for the forum the last two years or so.............

The current score, skeptics vs alarmists................

You got to update your scoreboard...I know it`s not easy, because it`s running as fast as the U.S. debt clock since Obama is in the driver`s seat
"OldRocks" is trying to fuck with me (again) and has his usual delusions that he is a scientist, but as always he showed up with a dull knife at a gun fight.

 

[skookerasbil]

No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.

What kind of change. I'm only for change as long as it's economical and doesn't hurt people.

Caring about the poor and middle class must always be a factor in our decisions.

The poor and middle class will see major impacts from the changing climate. Far more impacts than if we do nothing at all.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...6314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

So what.............do we all buy stock in sand?????

 

[skookerasbil]

Flacaltenn..........actually, Ive been keeping score for the forum the last two years or so.............

The current score, skeptics vs alarmists................

You got to update your scoreboard...I know it`s not easy, because it`s running as fast as the U.S. debt clock since Obama is in the driver`s seat
"OldRocks" is trying to fuck with me (again) and has his usual delusions that he is a scientist, but as always he showed up with a dull knife at a gun fight.

More like a pea shooter in a bazooka fight.

 

[mamooth]

We see the smoking guns now, the changes in heat flux balance, the decreased outgoing longwave radiation, the increased reflected longwave radiation. We see the IR spectral window closing down over the greenhouse gas frequencies. The atmosphere behaves as AGW theory predicted way back when.

It's not sufficient to simply wave your hands around and shout "natural cycles!". That's avoiding the issue. Natural cycles have causes, and we know what those causes were in the past. Since no one can identify such a cause now, it's not rational to assume natural cycles now, especially not when we can directly see the actual cause.

 

[flacaltenn]

We see the smoking guns now, the changes in heat flux balance, the decreased outgoing longwave radiation, the increased reflected longwave radiation. We see the IR spectral window closing down over the greenhouse gas frequencies. The atmosphere behaves as AGW theory predicted way back when.

It's not sufficient to simply wave your hands around and shout "natural cycles!". That's avoiding the issue. Natural cycles have causes, and we know what those causes were in the past. Since no one can identify such a cause now, it's not rational to assume natural cycles now, especially not when we can directly see the actual cause.

Welcome Mamooth -- HOpe you enjoy USMB..

Somethings smoking.. But I would not call models that are tuned to proxies and proxies that are tuned to models -- a gun.. We are constantly refining the carbon sink/source numbers, errantly looking for a single foolish Global Climate Sensistivity number when we observe high regional variations and loading the conclusions with a lot of political baggage. And there is a general admission that the models do not handle the feedbacks very well...

And contrary to your assertion, there is AMPLE evidence of natural perturbations that are capable describing a LARGE portion of the temperature forcing. I've mentioned Nicoli Scaffeta as one who simple took the accepted Surface Temp record and EASILY showed a 60 year cycle that is attributed to planetary motion. Just as there are feedbacks associated with the GHG theory -- there are auxilliary effects to primary solar effects. Including cloud creation from hi energy radiation, interaction with the "window" thru spectral changes and a lot of other science that is being relegated to "whacko" deniers and ignored because it is not politically correct..

The purpose of THIS mental excercize is NOT to sort this all thru but it is more of a moral excersize to test how each side would feel if in a decade, when the understanding HAVE changed. And a scenario where both sides have made miscalculations. And as I have said, given the history of scientific debate -- this is a very likely outcome..

So how would you score the 1990 to 2020 debate IF other forcing functions turn out to play a major role, but the additional GHG still ENHANCE -- but not CAUSE the warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

if

 

[flacaltenn]

....or WHEN --- sil vous plait...