The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

[well named]

I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims about climate, for example on the role of greenhouse gases in the atmospheric radiation balance. I thought i would share the link.

ACS Climate Science Toolkit - American Chemical Society

 

[flacaltenn]

I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims about climate, for example on the role of greenhouse gases in the atmospheric radiation balance. I thought i would share the link.

ACS Climate Science Toolkit - American Chemical Society

Most sections (other than the narratives ARE well done and presented straight up.. Anyone claiming to argue these points should understand all those basics.

But the disconnects lie in the HISTORY of claims for Global Warming and the magnitude of effects predicted. Almost ALL of these claims have been constantly revised down since the 1980s -- including the dire scary projections of temperatures in 2100 and the sea level state of affairs.

The media (as usual) has done a biased and piss poor job of presenting the actual science. Preferring to use the TOP of very wide projections in order to hype the talking points.

Some relevant facts have been completely omitted from the narratives given to the public. Such as the ability of ANY Global Temperature proxy study over the many past millenia to FIND the actual "short time variance" of temperature or CO2.. In short -- reading tree rings, or chemically analyzing mud bugs CAN NOT provide any useful information on the natural variation of climate over time scales shorter than 400 or 800 years. So in fact, no claims can be made that our tiny 0.6DegC temperature blip in YOUR lifetime is any kind of anomaly..

 

[mamooth]

Some relevant facts have been completely omitted from the narratives given to the public. Such as the ability of ANY Global Temperature proxy study over the many past millenia to FIND the actual "short time variance" of temperature or CO2.. In short -- reading tree rings, or chemically analyzing mud bugs CAN NOT provide any useful information on the natural variation of climate over time scales shorter than 400 or 800 years. So in fact, no claims can be made that our tiny 0.6DegC temperature blip in YOUR lifetime is any kind of anomaly..

That's Flac's "You can't prove CO2 and temperature didn't have sudden brief inexplicable wild variations, so they did!" logic.

It's similar to "You can't prove fairy magic doesn't drive climate, so it does!" logic. That's why everyone laughs at it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Some relevant facts have been completely omitted from the narratives given to the public. Such as the ability of ANY Global Temperature proxy study over the many past millenia to FIND the actual "short time variance" of temperature or CO2.. In short -- reading tree rings, or chemically analyzing mud bugs CAN NOT provide any useful information on the natural variation of climate over time scales shorter than 400 or 800 years. So in fact, no claims can be made that our tiny 0.6DegC temperature blip in YOUR lifetime is any kind of anomaly..

That's Flac's "You can't prove CO2 and temperature didn't have sudden brief inexplicable wild variations, so they did!" logic.

It's similar to "You can't prove fairy magic doesn't drive climate, so it does!" logic. That's why everyone laughs at it.

Only to folks who believe in "guilty until proven innocent" or science needing to prove NEGATIVE assertions.,

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data. By means of inspecting the various resolutions of the data and resampling and filtering applied to the data. There's virtually no SHORT TERM data (less than 500 years) RETAINED in the data processing.

No need to prove what Marcott and others have already admitted to... That's how the "science thingy" works.

That's Flac's "You can't prove CO2 and temperature didn't have sudden brief inexplicable wild variations, so they did!" logic.

I'm not the one LYING about what the Proxy records tell us. That would be Mann, and the rest of the zealots. And I've constantly said -- the only thing they tell us is a running LONG TIME mean..

So I'm not hyping anything. That would statements like "The current warming rate FAR EXCEEDS anything seen in the last XXXXXXX years of the Earth's temperature record..

THERE ARE NO "RATES" in ANY of the Global Proxy temperature studies that even come CLOSE to a 100 or 200 period.. Because they CAN NOT EXIST with that data processing paradigms. So --- all that hysteria is the Bad Science. Not me...

 

[mamooth]

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data.

What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data.

What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.

We're not talking "short" time periods on a climate time line. 400 years is 5 times longer than our little temperature blip since the last solar minimum.

40 and 50 year events DO SHOW on high quality, high resolution LOCAL paleo-proxy studies. And they suggest that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods had similar rates and magnitudes of temperature variance to our CURRENT experience.

But the point is --- NONE of that was ever available on the GLOBAL "meta-studies" that produced all those hockey sticks. It was science maliciously and badly hyped for public consumption...

 

[flacaltenn]

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data.

What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.

I have no need for a theory. Or a moral imperative to replace ANY HYPOTHESIS in science that gets refuted. The only salient action here is to correct the FRAUDULENT misrepresentations that a handful of activists made for the many global "hockey stick" studies.

Doesn't REQUIRE an alternate means of studying ancient climate --- because right now -- there ARE no viable ways to get more accurate "ancient weather or climate"..

 

[sparky]

I laugh and laugh and laugh.....

I'll make this simple , CC is all about science VS corporate polluters

So some corporate clown hires some enitty parading about as a scientist, and they write up their take on it all

And you fools make gun of Gore

Pot / Kettle
~S~

 

[flacaltenn]

I laugh and laugh and laugh.....

I'll make this simple , CC is all about science VS corporate polluters

So some corporate clown hires some enitty parading about as a scientist, and they write up their take on it all

And you fools make gun of Gore

Pot / Kettle
~S~

Not really. The insane clown posse that did all they could to scare you shitless and misinterpret the science have all left town. Show is basically over. Just waiting on the fat lady to sing. ALL of the original apocalyptic projections have been revised down until the "crisis" -- is really just another enviro problem in a SEA of enviro problems.

And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. No more than the breath you exhale. Or the water vapor portion of GHouse gases that DOMINATE the "thermal blanket" of the planet and keeps you from becoming a human popsicle.

Science STILL is not settled. Never was. Politics and science don't mix. Move on. Fix the OTHER pressing enviro problems like REAL pollution..

 

[sparky]

Science STILL is not settled. Never was.

Yes it is, and it's easily found
the world's science community is nearly unanimous with CC
the only debate is anthropogenics

Politics and science don't mix

More shill politicians discredit science for their chief benefaciaries, the kings of hydrocarbons oilocracy pays better than any green machine constituent.

Fix the OTHER pressing enviro problems like REAL pollution..

Beware the spectur of interconnectability .....>>

Approximately 40% of the lakes in America are too polluted for fishing, aquatic life, or swimming. Americans make up an estimated 5% of the world's population. However, the US uses 25% of the world's resources - burning up nearly 25% of the coal, 26% of the oil, and 27% of the world's natural gas.

Causes of Air pollution. 1. Burning of Fossil Fuels: Sulfur dioxide emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and other factory combustibles is one the major cause of air pollution. Pollution emitting from vehicles including trucks, jeeps, cars, trains, airplanes cause immense amount of pollution ..

Which countries pollute the most?
2015 list
Country Fossil fuel CO2 emissions (kt) in 2015 % Fossil fuel CO2 emissions by country
World 36,061,710 100%
China 10,641,789 29.51%
United States 5,172,336 14.34%
European Union 3,469,671 9.62%

 

[fncceo]

The American Chemical Society are some of my most frequent customers...

 

[sparky]

You folks using the new nasal narcan fncceo?

~S~

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes it is, and it's easily found
the world's science community is nearly unanimous with CC
the only debate is anthropogenics

There's over a HUNDRED critical questions about the science that need to be answered in order to get consensus on GW/CC. No ONE question is sufficient.

I have the surveys of Climate opinions. There is not unanimity on the MOST IMPORTANT questions. Including "How reliable are the Models" and "Are we seeing weather events today that can be attributed".

Anyone tells you that there is consensus as a whole as to the cause and future MAGNITUDE of GW/CC is lying about the science. Since modeling is the critical key to all of the scary, exaggerated predictions that HAVE FAILED or ARE FAILING --- this one example below in a survey OF climate scientists BY climate scientists -- refutes your claim of unanimity...

And just for good measure, the 2nd question (out of more than 70 in the poll) is whether these folks in the field believe the public has been warped by political agendas..

 

[flacaltenn]

More shill politicians discredit science for their chief benefaciaries, the kings of hydrocarbons oilocracy pays better than any green machine constituent.

The shill politicians are the ones who fed you the bullshit about CO2 being a pollutant and constantly conflated the terms "carbon pollution" with CO2.. They are ones screaming that the "science was settled".. And THEY are the ones that refuse to debate the details or even encourage intelligent discussion and debate.. There are your shills.

They made you stupid about what the "science" actually knows and can predict..

 

[Old Rocks]

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data.

What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.

We're not talking "short" time periods on a climate time line. 400 years is 5 times longer than our little temperature blip since the last solar minimum.

40 and 50 year events DO SHOW on high quality, high resolution LOCAL paleo-proxy studies. And they suggest that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods had similar rates and magnitudes of temperature variance to our CURRENT experience.

But the point is --- NONE of that was ever available on the GLOBAL "meta-studies" that produced all those hockey sticks. It was science maliciously and badly hyped for public consumption...

But not worldwide, such as we are experiencing right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a real scientists opinion, a scientist with a worldwide reputation, and much time studying in the Arctic;

 

[Old Rocks]

The American Chemical Society are some of my most frequent customers...

Is it normal to post selfies here?

 

[fncceo]

The American Chemical Society are some of my most frequent customers...

Is it normal to post selfies here?

Better living through chemistry.

 

[Olde Europe]

Some relevant facts have been completely omitted from the narratives given to the public. Such as the ability of ANY Global Temperature proxy study over the many past millenia to FIND the actual "short time variance" of temperature or CO2.. In short -- reading tree rings, or chemically analyzing mud bugs CAN NOT provide any useful information on the natural variation of climate over time scales shorter than 400 or 800 years. So in fact, no claims can be made that our tiny 0.6DegC temperature blip in YOUR lifetime is any kind of anomaly..

You are still running with that old canard? And you are doing it even though it's been explained to you quite a few times why your little theory doesn't hold water.

First, it's about 1°C, in just over a century. Moreover, that warming will remain with us for centuries, and pretty much no matter what we are doing. So, it's preposterous to speak about a "tiny ... blip." Lastly, the wild temperature fluctuation you claim could have happened just cannot, because it is, at its basis, an energy balance. There are few ways for energy to be retained in the earth's system, and there is only one way to get rid of this energy. A build-up of the magnitude you are alleging, and getting rid of that energy, radiating out into space, and both in just decades, is pretty much impossible, and would leave traces in the earth's memory, storing evidence of extraordinary events. No such evidence was found, and with that your theory is shown to be a wild fantasy.

Really, there is no meat on that bone you've been gnawing at for years. None whatsoever.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Global Proxy scam is busted. There is no variation EXPECTED in that data.

What natural physical process could cause a massive CO2 increase and plummet over a very short time scale?

Leave out extreme vulcanism, as that would leave telltale signs that aren't there.

If you're going to declare the oceans belched it up and gulped it back down just as quickly, explain how and why.

After you propose your theory, make some predictions from it, and propose how to test it.

That's science, putting forth a theory and testing it. You've skipped the first part, so what you're doing isn't science. The real scientists know better than to act like you. They know your "Well, you can't absolutely prove it's not magic, so it has to be magic!" is contrarianism crankery.

We're not talking "short" time periods on a climate time line. 400 years is 5 times longer than our little temperature blip since the last solar minimum.

40 and 50 year events DO SHOW on high quality, high resolution LOCAL paleo-proxy studies. And they suggest that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods had similar rates and magnitudes of temperature variance to our CURRENT experience.

But the point is --- NONE of that was ever available on the GLOBAL "meta-studies" that produced all those hockey sticks. It was science maliciously and badly hyped for public consumption...

But not worldwide, such as we are experiencing right now.

Not sure HOW worldwide it EVER was. In fact, there's no reason to suspect the climate change in general HAS to be a "world-wide" phenomena. So it's EXTRA stupid to CLAIM these are "world-wide" studies when in fact, the basic data sets for all the hockey stick graphs are based on the core 70 proxies. Covering the WORLD with 70 proxies heavily weighted to ICY areas and old growth N. Hemi forests is gonna pollute the "global" nature of ANY proxy study. There are lake and cave stalagmites studies from ALL OVER the planet showing larger variance than this quick mix of proxies shows. And many of the tropical LOCAL proxies were excluded because they there wasn't enough of their kind to get a coherent result.. But the historical variance is there in these local subtropical and tropical proxies as well..

Global averages is just a stupid way to understand climate mechanisms..