CDZ A science based discussion concerning climate change

[JoeMoma]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

That's what I was thinking after reading the report that millions of people world wide die every year from burning wood and other stuff.

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels

 

[Wyatt earp]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects one footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

You never answered it, it is a simple yes or no answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Can you please show us a single repeatable lab experiment that controls for tiny increments of CO2 between 280 and 400PPM?

Just one experiment

About 125 years ago a guy named Arrhenius conducted a number of laboratory experiments to determine the exact forcing potential of CO2. I could try and look them up for you. Of course there have been a number of others if they might suffice

125 years ago phrenology was cutting edge science. Did Arrhenius control of essentially a wisp of CO2, 120PPM? No, he did not

 

[Wyatt earp]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels

I know What it is and bull...

14C, 13C, 12C are all the same in the atmosphere, the only thing it affects is your bottom line.

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects one footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

You never answered it, it is a simple yes or no answer.

Science is not a yes or no proposition

Often to give an accurate answer one must offer an explanation as to why things are the way they are. Or thats how the educational process works. There are those people who don't want to be educated.

 

[JoeMoma]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

Do you realize that fossil fuels are bio fuels? It doesn't matter whether the CO2 is produced by old bio fuel (fossil fuel) or new bio fuel if it results in increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by the same amount.

 

[westwall]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

Bio diesel manufacture is far from carbon neutral. If that was your goal you are going about it the wrong way. How much of the global CO2 budget do you think man contributes?

 

[Boston1]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels

I know What it is and bull...

14C, 13C, 12C are all the same in the atmosphere, the only thing it affects is your bottom line.

Direct laboratory study can easily determine the isotopic mass balance of the atmosphere through a reasonable enough portion of the climate history to know that todays mass balance is wildly skewed due to the burning of fossil fuels. To the tune of virtually all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age.

 

[320 Years of History]

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

Well, now, there's a scientific and objective way to clearly identify the nature and extent of the flaws you've identified with the research papers you seemingly haven't even bothered to read.

 

[westwall]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.

You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects one footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.

I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.

You never answered it, it is a simple yes or no answer.

Science is not a yes or no proposition

Often to give an accurate answer one must offer an explanation as to why things are the way they are. Or thats how the educational process works. There are those people who don't want to be educated.

Actually it is. Bad science is not a yes or no proposition. But science concerns itself with facts. Facts are either yes or no. Equivocating is the realm of psychics, charlatans and climate "scientists".

 

[westwall]

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

Well, now, there's a scientific and objective way to clearly identify the nature and extent of the flaws you've identified with the research papers you seemingly haven't even bothered to read.

I have read it. What I find astonishing is the fact that you who know nothing about science refuse to learn anything about it. This is the reality about the computer models that you are so proud of. they suck. They more than suck. They use simple computer models (once again their words) to attempt to describe the most complex engine on this planet, namely the climate. It is no wonder they can't succeed at even the most basic of renderings.

The most complex computer models in existence on this planet are used by aircraft and racecar manufacturers. They are called computational fluid dynamic models and they cost tens of millions of dollars and they are run by up to a hundred people using the most advanced computers out there and their only job is to figure out the aerodynamics of a single part and how it will react to airflow. That's it. And they fail 90% of the time.

You think that your computer models which have a ZERO percent accuracy rate are somehow compelling to a scientist like me? Get real.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.

I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.

If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.

My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.

Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.

Its not much, but every little bit helps

Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?

I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.

He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.

Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels

Oops guess I was wrong...if your going to link real climate then I can link this



Biofuels Are Not a Green Alternative to Fossil Fuels | World Resources Institute


Burning biomass, whether directly as wood or in the form of ethanol or biodiesel, emits carbon dioxide just like burning fossil fuels. In fact, burning biomass directly emits a bit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels for the same amount of generated energy. But most calculations claiming that bioenergy reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to burning fossil fuels do not include the carbon dioxide released when biomass is burned. They exclude it based on the assumption that this release of carbon dioxide is matched and implicitly offset by the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants growing the biomass.

Yet if those plants were going to grow anyway, simply diverting them to bioenergy does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere and therefore does not offset the emissions from burning that biomass.



.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes. It is known that CO2 is a GHG. Well established. What has never been proven is that CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that exist in our atmosphere have any impact on global temperature. You are WAY off on the temperature increase possible with a doubling of the CO2 content. Where have you been? Even the IPCC has backed way off on their predictions and now only ascribe a one to two degree increase with a doubling of the CO2 content.

The computer models that you are so proud of are laughably bad. Here is just one of dozens of papers that have shown the AGW computer models to be so bad as to be worse than useless.

"We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This is hardly my first encounter with that paper by Anagnostopoulos et al. Time and time again I come by folks who push that paper on me. I wish I knew why; I don't. That paper is the "poster child" for the saying "bamboozle them with bullsh*t."

I cannot comment on the other papers you have in mind. Regarding the one you shared, David Huard wrote:

The main issue with the "A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data" (ACCM) paper is that it is based on a false premise, namely that the selected climate simulations predict (forecast) climate in a deterministic sense. Climate models may indeed be used in a weather forecasting mode, and this is one way of evaluating their sub-grid scale parameterization at the sub-daily time scale. (8.4.11 of Climate Models and Their Evaluation) Some are even used to “forecast” climate at the decadal scale (Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic Sector) using observed oceanic and atmospheric initial conditions, the oceanic inertia constraining the atmospheric model. However, these experiments are still considered highly experimental (Prospects for decadal climate prediction) and never claim to correlate with the interannual variability. Climate simulations included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s TAR and AR4 also make no pretence of predicting/forecasting weather or climate. As Doug Smith et al wrote in "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model," (2007)​

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability.
​

Evaluating climate models based on temporal correlations with observations is meaningful only if those models claim to forecast the year-to-year climate variations due to natural variability. The climate simulations analysed by ACCM make no such claim, and the paper’s main conclusion, that models are poor, is irrelevant.

ACCM expected individual models to show some skill in predicting multidecadal climate variations. They do, but their skill is limited to the small fraction of climate’s variability driven by external forcing. To evaluate model performance, it is fundamental to extract the model’s response to the external forcing from the background natural variability (Climate Models and Their Evaluation). Failing to do this, ACCM have merely shown that climate models display chaotic behaviour at small and long time scales, not that they are poor.

The ACCM paper received three evaluations. Reviewer A provided a solid review which identified unsubstantiated or false claims and methodological shortcomings. The evaluation included a comment on the general lack of rigour of the paper with a recommendation not to publish. Reviewer B rated the paper as “Very good to excellent” and made three superfi- cial suggestions for improvements. Reviewer C rated the paper as “Poor to fair” and specifically stated: “This paper is misleading as it is based on a wrong assumption related to the climate system predictability.” Reviewer C also criticized the methodology as inappropriate and recommended the paper be rejected outright.

Faced with these reviews, Dr Kundzewicz [editor of the journal that published the paper] in his decision letter writes he heeded advice from the late Stephen Schneider (editor of Climatic Change): “When I get a paper that generates controversy and splits reviewer advice, I look to be sure that it is mostly differing philosophy rather than technical errors that underlie the dispute.”

While I certainly agree with this guiding principle, reviewers A and C rejected the paper on technical and methodological grounds, not philosophy. Their review highlights a general lack of rigour, methodological issues and factual errors obvious to anyone familiar with climate science. Although there may be philosophical differences between AKCEM and the critics, this should not be an excuse to dismiss methodological issues. In my experience as author and reviewer, strong opposition to publication by two reviewers out of three generally leads either to rejection, or, if the editor feels the paper has merit, to an additional review. In this case, however, it seems that the critics were not taken seriously, or even understood. Indeed, the editorial piece​

Perhaps you care to cite someone's work imbued with intellectual/scientific rigor and wherein the authors at least bother to evaluate the claims a model makes rather than showing how a predictive model does not support claims it does not attempt to make?

 

[320 Years of History]

Climate science is based wholly on sound bites and computer models that have been proven to be worse than useless.

Do you often post remarks that consist of little more than your merely saying "such and such" is so? I have to ask because the one above is among several such remarks you've made of that nature in this thread.

I see the Stephen Schneider quote in your signature, but I know you aren't he because he died a lustrum or so ago. I looked at your profile to see if there were listed in the "Information" section some credentials and links to you own scholarly published works that show we should, however illogically, at least accept that you know what you are talking about. I didn't see any, so I'm truly just trying to understand why I should accept your assertion that "Climate science is based wholly on sound bites and computer models that have been proven to be worse than useless."

 

[westwall]

Climate science is based wholly on sound bites and computer models that have been proven to be worse than useless.

Do you often post remarks that consist of little more than your merely saying "such and such" is so? I have to ask because the one above is among several such remarks you've made of that nature in this thread.

I see the Stephen Schneider quote in your signature, but I know you aren't he because he died a lustrum or so ago. I looked at your profile to see if there were listed in the "Information" section some credentials and links to you own scholarly published works that show we should, however illogically, at least accept that you know what you are talking about. I didn't see any, so I'm truly just trying to understand why I should accept your assertion that "Climate science is based wholly on sound bites and computer models that have been proven to be worse than useless."

ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.

 

[Boston1]

The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.

Well, now, there's a scientific and objective way to clearly identify the nature and extent of the flaws you've identified with the research papers you seemingly haven't even bothered to read.

From what I can see there is no scientific discussion to be had with the majority of people who reject climate science. Since they are rejecting science as a whole.

This article contains the most basic science that clearly establishes just how we can be sure that virtually all the excess carbon in the atmosphere since the early 1800s comes from fossil fuel sources.

See
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...

It is extremely well researched, provided multiple citations and innumerable references to very well established science as well as depending on multiple published works.

But its cast aside as a "lie"

I don't think its really possible to discuss science with people who insist science is a "lie"

 

[320 Years of History]

ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.

Surely, if you follow the scientific method, to say nothing of understanding how to do so rigorously, you'd have noticed the thing being evaluated by the authors of the ACCM paper you cited isn't even something the creator of that thing claims it does. Or in other words, you'd have noticed that, allegorically speaking, the authors of the ACCM paper effectively "tested a bicycle, confirmed that it will not fly, and then spent a lot of effort showing why it won't fly. This, in spite of the bike's maker never having said it would fly."

I am certain the sentence highlighted in red has a typo in it. It should read, "However, I follow my own scientific method." You know what, you just keep following it. At least now I know.