It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:34 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7337
Location: On walkabout
Here’s an article that shows why Lindzen is not a credible source. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... scepticism

It’s like, his opinion man, and not backed by science.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 7912
I listened to an interesting discussion on NPR here in Arizona where one of the participants in writing the report spoke with local reporters. She is a professor at the U of A and shared that the expection on the part of the committee is we will "overshoot" the 2% threshold given the political environment and technical challenges involved in preventing it but believe it's likely at some point the effects will force action so that the resulting forced action will hopefully result in a stabilizing at a lower final average than 2% global average increase. So the policy concerns she discussed had to do with what agencies and government officials needed to plan for in order to deal with almost certain dangerous consequences as the overshoot can begin to correct back to something hopefully more livable. The takeaway being those in the know don't see us keeping the increase to even 2% let alone the 1.5% mark of the study.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7337
Location: On walkabout
Water Dog posted:

Quote:
What is the response to this?

Quote:
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001


Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which Water Dog deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.

So, Water Dog, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 7912
I feel like we've had the argument with Water Dog before.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 30#p863230

Yup.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:07 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Water Dog wrote:
I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever. If you want a lecture on WTF "forcing" is, among other things, watch this 4 part lecture.


Why Youtube videos?


Water Dog wrote:
And then I'd like DT to delve into earth response, how is carbon release due to warming factored in? Hint, it's not. But what I'd really like DT to do is explain the difference between inference and observation. IPCC determines that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in global temperature. How do they know that?
Well, they don't. It's all based on models, not empirical observation. The observations contradict their models, in fact.


You tell me in your own words dog. It is well established that more CO2 increases global temperatures. We can know by studying the history of earth's climate.


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:11 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Quote:
All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean....The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08 W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300- to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively. Here, we prefer to use the total energy change in the budget analyses rather than the linear trend because the change is not linear owing to the general increase in radiative forcing with time. The new reconstruction confirms the previous finding that the upper ocean experiences the most statistically significant warming, while the 0- to 2000-m layer contributes to the vast majority of the ocean warming since 1960


Cheng, Lijing, et al. "Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015." Science Advances 3.3 (2017): e1601545.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:16 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Water Dog wrote:
Quote:
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001


Well, you clearly didn't read the article.

Quote:
"Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts."


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:17 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Res Ipsa wrote:
Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which Water Dog deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.


Exactly! We are wasting our time with him.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:19 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12716
Res Ipsa wrote:
Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which Water Dog deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.

So, Water Dog, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?


LOL That is really bad dishonestly. What's worse is it is really stupid dishonesty. Did he not think someone would click on his link and read the abstract.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:19 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc


all right man! Jesus Christ!

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million))
Do you have more questions?


Doc?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:22 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Themis wrote:
LOL That is really bad dishonestly. What's worse is it is really stupid dishonesty. Did he not think someone would click on his link and read the abstract.


I am done with him!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7337
Location: On walkabout
Leaving out the last sentence and boldfacing the second to last sentence to change the meaning of the abstract is out and out fraud.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 16831
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

DT,

You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.

- Doc


all right man! Jesus Christ!

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million))
Do you have more questions?


- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3093
Res Ipsa wrote:
Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which Water Dog deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.

So, Water Dog, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?



In my experience, this is the point where Waterdog often abandons the conversation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7890
Location: What does the fox say?
Climate change denier are right up there with flat earthers and anti vaccination folk when it comes to actually examining the evidence. They have already formed their bias based conclusion, don't bother them with the evidence.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:51 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.[/color][/b]

- Doc


What statements? I just wanted to know if Dog was familiar with basic equations, that is all. αln(C/Co) is a simple equation to measure the change of energy in the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions. It is nothing more, it is just basic climate change science. I already explained the variables. I don't know what else you want me to demonstrate. Do you have a specific question?


Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:55 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Res Ipsa wrote:
Adding CO2 has the effect is slowing down the rate that radiation escapes.


Res Ipsa you seem to be a smart guy. Doc says I am not explaining the formula. Did I miss something?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:21 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2855
Doc? I am ready to go and I won't be available for many days. Last chance.

I will quote myself again

Quote:
What statements? I just wanted to know if Dog was familiar with basic equations, that is all. αln(C/Co) is a simple equation to measure the change of energy in the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions. It is nothing more, it is just basic climate change science. I already explained the variables. I don't know what else you want me to demonstrate. Do you have a specific question?

Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million))



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 16831
DT,

This is how my reasoning went:

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:
and please explain in your own words why Lindzen's arguments are so compelling.


Dude. You're the one that dropped that alphabet equation on us. Explain it. Otherwise you risk looking like a poseur.

- Doctrine & Camenants


You then claim you answered it when you posted your ppm question. That didn't answer the above original challenge to answer why Lindzen's arguments are so compelling because *equation*.

So, I wanted to explain what each part of the equation meant in context of the thread. You haven't done that. Instead you posted this bizarre breakdown of parts of the equation:

DoubtingThomas wrote:
C is CO2 in ppm

Co = 278 ppm

ln = learn it in 8th grade math.

Radiative forcing is the difference between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Radiative forcing is used to compare man-made and natural drivers of climate change . Can you tell me what is ln?


When I plugged your breakdown of the equation back into the equation it didn't make sense, hence my wtf does that even mean?

So, I wanted you to give an example of what each component of the equation means, and then I wanted to do the math explaining why you're inputting whatever metric into the equation in order to support my original challenge noted above.

1) input data into each component which illustrates your understanding of how the equation works

2) explain the data you're inputting into the equation

3) explain what each data point means and why you're doing it

4) demonstrate how that relates to your claim as to why it makes sense

Once you've demonstrated your grasp of the equation as it relates to this thread, then you can make an argument that whatever formula you provided to determine when we reach x-ppm we're going to experience y-thing.

In other words, I don't understand the practical use of the equation related to this thread, and since you're the one that posted it, in an attempt to teach those who're ignorant of whatever point you're attempting to make, the onus is on you to provide an example or two of the equation in use in order to make a point, which I'm hoping you actually do.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5589
Water Dog wrote:
canpakes wrote:
<Links>

I'm not sure how you are expecting me to respond? Lindzen is a credible guy that offers a compelling argument. Doesn't appear you read his lecture at all.

I did. However, based on many of your other posts, I’m not thinking that you have read it yourself except in the most cursory manner. You seem to be thinking you’ve found some sort of irrefutable counterargument to concerns over anthropogenic climate effects by presenting one curious statement:

Quote:
One of the points he makes, playing into his overall argument, that CO2 is plant food, is not in dispute. Your links don't dispute this simple truth, either.

So, “CO2 is plant food”. That’s nice. But, compelling? Hardly. Can you tell me what that has to do with CO2 having other adverse effects to, say, climate and sea level change? You know, the things that we’re actually discussing in this thread? Or did you lose focus?

Quote:
They attempt to argue excessive CO2 levels can be bad, but it's hardly a settled matter and merely a theory on their part. CO2 will give rise to weeds and such that will affect other plant growth in a negative way. So the theory goes. There isn't any kind of settled answer on how this would play out or when CO2 levels would become problematic.

OK, now you’re backsliding a bit and acknowledging that your heady optimism about CO2’s potential to make plants fat & happy might not work out as a net beneficial outcome to a given ecosystem anyway. That’s a start, at least. And it’s basically what I was pointing out with those links, earlier.

So, while I’m at it, I’d also like to point out a few other realities.

1. People generally don’t eat grasses and leaves. We eat the substantial, seed-y and fruity parts of plants, given that much of a plant’s mass isn’t directly digestible by our own systems. Don’t believe me? Go eat a log, then return and report. And the tasty parts of plants don’t increase in direct proportion to overall growth. So even if increased CO2 might make a plant slightly happier and more massive by, say, 10%, it does not follow that it necessarily produces 10% more edible food. That’s basic plant biology, there. Look it up.

2. ‘More food’ isn’t necessarily a magic bullet anyway. It takes more than just an increase in CO2 to guarantee better plant results. CO2 is just one component in a larger picture. The way you present this argument is no different than arguing that feeding a person 10 hot dogs a day is always better than feeding him 5. That ain’t how it works. Look it up.

3. A few other things are also good for plants. Stuff like the ____ that comes out of your ass, for example. In fact, it’s quite accurate to state that if you were to drop dead while tending your garden and no-one noticed for a long enough time that you began to decompose there, that the plants would react quite favorably to all of the ‘food’ that they were suddenly inundated with. Note that even though these things are good for plants, humans still find it wise and practical to, say, regulate where they dump their ____ and have taken to carefully processing it instead of mindlessly polluting their surroundings with it. And no-one that I know of sees the plant-human corpse relationship as beneficial to the human.

Which leads to the point. That being, that the argument over excess CO2 really has nothing to do with plants. No one is worried about your pet cactus. We don’t give a crap about the geraniums on the front porch. The argument has to do with people, and how they are affected. And having a 10% better yield of blueberries or avocados means very little to the 80% of humanity that lives close enough to the shorelines throughout the world to be vulnerable to the full range and cost of property loss, infrastructure destruction, and economic disruption that even a relatively mild rise in sea level can bring.

Seriously, please go find a real counterargument, if you feel you need to keep acting as a tool for the denialist cohort. Otherwise, the lame talking point that you’re relying upon now just sucks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New IPCC report is out
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7337
Location: On walkabout
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Adding CO2 has the effect is slowing down the rate that radiation escapes.


Res Ipsa you seem to be a smart guy. Doc says I am not explaining the formula. Did I miss something?


I don’t know about the smart part, but I’ve been following climate science for over 20 years and doing my best to understand it. I think you listed what the variables are, but I don’t think you explained what the equation means and what it represents in the real world. Some folks can just look at an equation and understand what it means in the real world. I am not one of those people. I need more than just a definition of the variables to really understand an equation. If I hadn’t understood what radiative forcing was already, I don’t think your explanation of the equation would have helped me.

Does that make sense?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], ludwigm, subgenius and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group