Are Natural Systems Smart

[Sallstrom]

Hey @Scrubber_steve im curious on your thoughts on how we, the humans, should proceed, in your opinion. Should we go on, business as usual, cause we can't effect the global temperature anyway or should we do something/try something?
Would be interesting to hear you thoughts.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Hey @Scrubber_steve im curious on your thoughts on how we, the humans, should proceed, in your opinion. Should we go on, business as usual, cause we can't effect the global temperature anyway or should we do something/try something?

Hey Sallstrom; I haven't said that we can't affect the global temperature. What I have said, is, any recent warming cannot be attributed to greenhouse gasses, or natural variability because there is no way to measure it to make the distinction. So, any claims that humans are responsible for most of the warming is NOT a scientific statement, but a political statement used to enforce policy for emissions reduction.

The mainstream science tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will increase radiative forcing by a maximum of 3.7w/m2, & this results in an increase in global average temperature of only 1C max.
The mainstream science bases warming on a doubling of CO2 because of its logarithmic effect. Meaning, every further doubling of CO2 is adding twice as much CO2 as the previous doubling for only an equal effect = 1C. So it just gets doubly harder to warm the atmosphere.
300ppm to 600ppm = 1C.
600ppm to 1200ppm = 1C.
1200ppm to 2400ppm = 1C.

Computer models give a range of projections for warming for a doubling of CO2 (equalibrium climate sensitivity). 1.5C to 4.5C. Great disagreement. The reason for the model spread, & why they are greater than 1C is due to 'hypothesised net positive feedback" of which is mainly hypothesised positive water vapour feedback, as the IPCC state that it is the strongest feedback by far. This and cloud feedback are responsible for model spread.
But, if water vapour feedback was in reality negative, not positive, there would likely be less than 1C of warming for a doubling of CO2 because net feedback would in reality be negative, not positive.

Measurement of atmospheric temperature & humidity at several altitudes, by radiosondes, & of temperature by the satellites has shown that the hypothesis of positive water vapour feedback is wrong, & appears to be negative. Mid/upper tropospheric water vapour content has not increased as the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis stipulates, but instead decreased.
The negative lapse rate, or greater rate of warming in the mid/upper troposphere than at the surface, that is also stipulated by the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis, is also the opposite. Warming has instead been greater at the surface than in the upper troposphere.

Most, but not all models also hypothesis positive cloud feedback. They have no evidence to back this up either.

Consider the following chart. There is no correlation between CO2 levels & global temperature. CO2 does not drive global temperature, if anything it the other way round due to ocean warming & cooling

Would be interesting to hear you thoughts.

The earth has greened, & food productionis at an all time high due to increased atmospheric CO2, plant fertiliser.

In any case, if the world wants to decrease CO2 emissions, use nuclear.

There's some of my thoughts

 

[Subsea]

Because I am a simple man, I will condense what I understood @Scrubber_steve to say, Dynamic Equilibrium is complex. Math models to interpret data are subject to error. I linked a research paper that demonstrated that carbon in the Redfield Ratio was not of the same ratio at differrent temperatures by a range of 195 - 78. That is a total increase of 250%. I would not risk much with that much margin of error.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide/

In my early days at the Texas Martime Academy in Galveston, one summer I took an advanced thermodynamics/heat transfer class from Rice University. After working a major problem for a week, my answer was 500% of the mark, yet the professor considered it OK. As an engineer, we build in large safety factors, then we fatigue test one million cycles to make sure we got it right.

With respect to climate change, I don’t trust academia much. Money is available for grants in specific areas. Without money, research projects don’t get done. Jobs are lost. For the last 25 years, big money has been available in “Climate Change”. In effect, if you wanted a job, climate change research had money for your project.

In current world events, if you want to know the Truth, then follow the money. So, who benefits economically from the cost to turn away from burning fossil fuels. That is the right question if you want to follow the Truth.

 

[Subsea]

Just trying to cut through some of the conspiracy theory nonsense that seems to be making its way into this thread. Sorry to offend!

Is this conspiracy theory nonsense?

https://www.whig.com/20180730/carbon-tax-a-wealth-redistribution-gimick#

We don't deny climate change; we question the likelihood of human-caused catastrophic climate change.

Many respected climatologists, meteorologists and geologists would love to debate the climate alarmists.

Unfortunately these dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed or even threatened with legal action when they challenge apocalyptic climate change predictions while the alarmists hide behind the claim of "settled science."

Any phenomena as complex as the changing climate, which is affected by everything from solar flares, sun spots, ocean currents, atmospheric gases, clouds and the wobble of the earth in orbit, to name a few, may never be reasonably predictable far into the future.

Unanswered questions and inconsistencies about this theory abound, but for a moment consider just one significant fact.

In geological time, during the late ordovician period, there was an ice age while CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm! If high CO2 levels are primarily causative of global warming as claimed, how could that be possible?



William J. Postle

Quincy

 

[biophilia]

Is this conspiracy theory nonsense?

https://www.whig.com/20180730/carbon-tax-a-wealth-redistribution-gimick#

We don't deny climate change; we question the likelihood of human-caused catastrophic climate change.

Many respected climatologists, meteorologists and geologists would love to debate the climate alarmists.

Unfortunately these dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed or even threatened with legal action when they challenge apocalyptic climate change predictions while the alarmists hide behind the claim of "settled science."

Any phenomena as complex as the changing climate, which is affected by everything from solar flares, sun spots, ocean currents, atmospheric gases, clouds and the wobble of the earth in orbit, to name a few, may never be reasonably predictable far into the future.

Unanswered questions and inconsistencies about this theory abound, but for a moment consider just one significant fact.

In geological time, during the late ordovician period, there was an ice age while CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm! If high CO2 levels are primarily causative of global warming as claimed, how could that be possible?



William J. Postle

Quincy

I don’t understand what a critique of a specific policy idea has to do with the validity of the underlying science behind the problem that policy is attempting to address. Would the op-ed you just posted by accepted as a primary source in an elementary school physical sciences essay? This is the question you need to be asking when reading something like that.

What’s conspiracy theory nonsense is suggesting that tens of thousands of independently-working PhD’s around the world are working in perfect tandem in some sort of shadowy plot to line the pocket books of renewable energy companies. Or to live large off of grant money. Do you know any climate scientists personally? The ones I know are driving used vehicles and living in modest single-story homes at best. If this is the gist of your argument, don’t waste my time.

 

[Subsea]

I don’t understand what a critique of a specific policy idea has to do with the validity of the underlying science behind the problem that policy is attempting to address. Would the op-ed you just posted by accepted as a primary source in an elementary school physical sciences essay? This is the question you need to be asking when reading something like that.

What’s conspiracy theory nonsense is suggesting that tens of thousands of independently-working PhD’s around the world are working in perfect tandem in some sort of shadowy plot to line the pocket books of renewable energy companies. Or to live large off of grant money. Do you know any climate scientists personally? The ones I know are driving used vehicles and living in modest single-story homes at best. If this is the gist of your argument, don’t waste my time.

The scientist are not working in perfect tandem of agreement. There is plenty of disagreement.

 

[User1]

I don’t understand what a critique of a specific policy idea has to do with the validity of the underlying science behind the problem that policy is attempting to address. Would the op-ed you just posted by accepted as a primary source in an elementary school physical sciences essay? This is the question you need to be asking when reading something like that.

What’s conspiracy theory nonsense is suggesting that tens of thousands of independently-working PhD’s around the world are working in perfect tandem in some sort of shadowy plot to line the pocket books of renewable energy companies. Or to live large off of grant money. Do you know any climate scientists personally? The ones I know are driving used vehicles and living in modest single-story homes at best. If this is the gist of your argument, don’t waste my time.

Maybe you don't know Al Gore...

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Alarmism is politically driven.

 

[biophilia]

The scientist are not working in perfect tandem of agreement. There is plenty of disagreement.

There is an enormous amount of disagreement about scope and specifics, but almost none concerning the basic fact that emissions of anthropogenic gasses are driving a large percentage of the warming reflected in the instrument record since 1950. Which is what we’re arguing here. I probably disagree with effectiveness of existing policy just as much as you do so I’m not really trying to get into that debate.

 

[biophilia]

Maybe you don't know Al Gore...

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? His opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? His opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

He made a mocumentary. It influenced some not very bright or honest people. Makes lots of money.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

There is an enormous amount of disagreement about scope and specifics, but almost none concerning the basic fact that emissions of anthropogenic gasses are driving a large percentage of the warming reflected in the instrument record since 1950. Which is what we’re arguing here. I probably disagree with effectiveness of existing policing just as much as you do so I’m not really trying to get into that debate.

Yes, there is huge disagreement about that.

 

[User1]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? His opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

He believes he is. I can add more pretentious names if it helps any. With anything just follow the money but alas this is getting off topic.

 

[Mortie31]

Jase, renewable energy is not viable. It is intermittent & expensive compared to coal & gas. This is why China & india are building hundreds of new coal fired power plants.
India wants its people out of poverty & it said renewables are too expensive.
You'll have no electricity from your solar panels from late afternoon till mid morning & cloudy days. So your still connected to the grid.
Battery backup??? huge cost, & environmentally damaging.
It takes somewhere from 5 to 7 years of intermittent wind turbine output to break even on saved carbon emissions just on the massive concrete slabs to mount these monstrosities on.

If renewables are the answer, & so cheap & reliebale, why isn't every country converting???

Because its a lie.

Buy a battery wall to store the energy generated during peak time... the conversion has started in a lot of countries, I still personally think we should just build more nuclear plants.__

 

[Subsea]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? His opinion means absolutely nothing to me.

I read Earth in the Balance and most of An Inconvieant Truth. I considered Earth in the Balance to be relevant and probably written by a climate scientist as ghost writer. An Inconvenient Truth is “Poppy ****” and unfortunately is in the curriculum of many elementary school earth science programs.

So, while Al Gore’s opinions mean little to me, his effect on policy effects me. That is why we are discussing this.

 

[User1]

Buy a battery wall to store the energy generated during peak time... the conversion has started in a lot of countries, I still personally think we should just build more nuclear plants.__

While I'm sure we both heard many gasp or sigh when reading this - nuclear power is actually, well, GREEN. Imagine that. Unfortunately we have this thing in the states called lobbyist

 

[Mortie31]

While I'm sure we both heard many gasp or sigh when reading this - nuclear power is actually, well, GREEN. Imagine that. Unfortunately we have this thing in the states called lobbyist

It’s something I’ve felt for years, and I just wonder where the technology for both nuclear and hydrogen generation would of been by now if it hadn’t been stifled by the petrochemical industry and there political power and the fact it’s financially propped up so many of the powerhouse countries up for so many years...

 

[Subsea]

It’s something I’ve felt for years, and I just wonder where the technology for both nuclear and hydrogen generation would of been by now if it hadn’t been stifled by the petrochemical industry and there political power and the fact it’s financially propped up so many of the powerhouse countries up for so many years...

Read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. The real players are the World Bank and the ones that use it for control, money and influence.

 

[User1]

It’s something I’ve felt for years, and I just wonder where the technology for both nuclear and hydrogen generation would of been by now if it hadn’t been stifled by the petrochemical industry and there political power and the fact it’s financially propped up so many of the powerhouse countries up for so many years...

I couldn't have said it better - I agree. Side note - beautiful tank you have. I just went through your build thread. I had the pleasure of visiting the UK over Easter. Not vacation, but work, but still was able to get out and about. I was bouncing between Reading and Newbury.

 

[Mortie31]

Read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. The real players are the World Bank and the ones that use it for control, money and influence.

But who controls the world bank?? Isn’t it all one and the same?