"Letting coral reefs die will cost us more than saving them".

[OriginalUserName]

I get that climate science has been politicized by people who wish to continue profiting from old energy sources but its baffling to see people that obsessively monitor their reef aquariums for tiny variations in PH etc. decide that changes to the larger climate aren't an issue.

Brb, going to out a CO2 scrubber on my skimmer while laughing off the idea that elevated CO2 can be a problem for wild reefs.

Atmospheric co2 levels were 20 times higher than at present when life as we know it developed.

This is just about the most irrelevant thing I've ever read. Yes, life was alive at those levels. That literally tells us nothing about what elevated levels will do to the life we have now.

I'm happy to read this. SCUBA diving in the GBR as a 15 year old was a life-changing event for me. It's probably why I'm here on this forum and gluing animals to rocks like some sort of crazy person today!

Don't get too excited because its probably not true.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

The industrial revolution? I'd love to see peer-reviewed research to the contrary, though!

No; co2 emissions were negligible till after WW2.

As I said, the IPCC only considers warming from the 1950's to be attributable to rising co2 -
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
So the warming up into the 1940's is not contributable to co2, and the warming since probably isn't either!
Considering there's been a 160% increase in CH4, and chloroflurocarbons, an anthropogenic gas which absorbs out going longwave radiation at a wavelength no naturally occuring gas does, has also been addaed to the atmosphere, all we have is a few tenths of a degree C of warming, which is debatable because thats a relic of a hopelessly flawed, & tweaked, graound based thermometer record.

Even if the IPCC wants to blame all the warming on humans, it still doesn't add up to anything near a crisis.

It wasn't. Where on earth are you getting this information? You seem to be confusing localized temperature in the northern latitudes with global mean temperature which is a reflection of the overall energy balance of the earth system itself. That graph shows Antarctic temperature changes taken from oxygen isotopes in the EPICA ice core, not global mean surface temps. I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research to the contrary, though!

The holocene maximum is named that because it was the warmest period during this interglacial. And paleoclimate studies have shown that during this 4,000 year period global average temperature were not only warmer, with a far lower co2 concentration, but at times up to 5C warmer than present.
The ice core records provide an indication of global mean temps going back back four ice ages, & the data shows that all were warmer than the holocene, fact!

I have no idea. I'm not a climate scientist.

Yes, I guessed that.

I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research that supports the argument that anthropogenic forcing is not behind the majority of the warming seen during the last few decades of the Holocene. Do you have any?

I'd assume that some of the warming, from the 1950's on, could be attributable to increases in co2. I could ask you for some "peer review" articles concerning that most of the warming is attributable to increases in co2, but, that would mean nothing. peer review is nothing more that a couple of un-named people involved in a field of study checking some basics of a paper. "peer review" is not in any way proof that the conclusions of a paper are correct. There have been numerous peer reviewed papers that have been either retracted, especially in the medical sciences, because their conclusions were incorrect, or have theories that later were proved incorrect.
And in any one of the many fields of science that now includes itself amongst the wider group labelled climate science, where your like minded, and grant seeking compatriots are the ones doing the peer review, well, no wonder there's so much corruption.

Climate sensitivity as it relates to tropospheric water vapor may not be entirely understood, but the GCM models sure seem to be aligning with real-world temperature rise so far

Um, No!

Obviously Tyndall's assumptions have been revised. They were made 170 years ago. The Venus example was meant as a very simple example of the greenhouse effect of CO2 gas, not an exact analogue for Earth. Again, you're making some serious claims that, if backed with empirical evidence, would likely earn you or the cited researchers a Nobel prize. Do you have any peer-reviewed research which might shed some more insight? I'd love to read it!

Look, there's plenty of "peer reviewed" papers that conclude that co2 is not a problem. But in a politically driven argument no paper will achieve anything.

Its a matter of - create a concept & reality leaves the room!

Whats the concept?
That co2 will cause dangerous global warming, not a little warming, but dangerous warming.
This is based on strong net positive feedback, but the data shows this theory to be totally wrong.

Ahhh, but any warming will be bad, even a little warming. All the same catastrophies that warming is predicted to cause are the same catastrophies predicted back in the 1970's cooling scare, which was also incorrectly blamed on humans. It's a concept that suggests that we live in some goldie locks climate, where if it gets a little bit warmer, or a little bit colder, we're all gonna die.

The Earth is greening as a direct consequence of increasing co2. This, & a warmer climate at altitude & latitude is resulting in record crop yields.
far more people die from cold climate than warm climate.

Where do most humans prefer to live?
In the equatorial regions.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I get that climate science has been politicized by people who wish to continue profiting from old energy sources

As opposed to people wanting to profit from so called renewable energy sources - that are expensive & unreliable & rely on tax payer subsidies to keep them viable.

]Yeh, subsidising renewables using the tax payers money, while also taxing the old, cheap & reliable energy sources to make them falsly expensive.

but its baffling to see people that obsessively monitor their reef aquariums for tiny variations in PH etc. decide that changes to the larger climate aren't an issue.

Brb, going to out a CO2 scrubber on my skimmer while laughing off the idea that elevated CO2 can be a problem for wild reefs.

LOL, comparing a glass box full of water to the natural processes of the open ocean.

This is just about the most irrelevant thing I've ever read. Yes, life was alive at those levels. That literally tells us nothing about what elevated levels will do to the life we have now..

During the time of the dinosaurs co2 levels were at least 5 times higher than now.
The Earth was not in an iceage. There was no ice at either pole, all the land was tropical & sub-tropical.
And the global average temperature was up to 16C above present.

The dinos thrived until a meteor hit.

 

[biophilia]

No; co2 emissions were negligible till after WW2.

As I said, the IPCC only considers warming from the 1950's to be attributable to rising co2 -
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
So the warming up into the 1940's is not contributable to co2, and the warming since probably isn't either!
Considering there's been a 160% increase in CH4, and chloroflurocarbons, an anthropogenic gas which absorbs out going longwave radiation at a wavelength no naturally occuring gas does, has also been addaed to the atmosphere, all we have is a few tenths of a degree C of warming, which is debatable because thats a relic of a hopelessly flawed, & tweaked, graound based thermometer record.

Even if the IPCC wants to blame all the warming on humans, it still doesn't add up to anything near a crisis.


The holocene maximum is named that because it was the warmest period during this interglacial. And paleoclimate studies have shown that during this 4,000 year period global average temperature were not only warmer, with a far lower co2 concentration, but at times up to 5C warmer than present.
The ice core records provide an indication of global mean temps going back back four ice ages, & the data shows that all were warmer than the holocene, fact!



Yes, I guessed that.




I'd assume that some of the warming, from the 1950's on, could be attributable to increases in co2. I could ask you for some "peer review" articles concerning that most of the warming is attributable to increases in co2, but, that would mean nothing. peer review is nothing more that a couple of un-named people involved in a field of study checking some basics of a paper. "peer review" is not in any way proof that the conclusions of a paper are correct. There have been numerous peer reviewed papers that have been either retracted, especially in the medical sciences, because their conclusions were incorrect, or have theories that later were proved incorrect.
And in any one of the many fields of science that now includes itself amongst the wider group labelled climate science, where your like minded, and grant seeking compatriots are the ones doing the peer review, well, no wonder there's so much corruption.





Um, No!

Look, there's plenty of "peer reviewed" papers that conclude that co2 is not a problem. But in a politically driven argument no paper will achieve anything.

Its a matter of - create a concept & reality leaves the room!

Whats the concept?
That co2 will cause dangerous global warming, not a little warming, but dangerous warming.
This is based on strong net positive feedback, but the data shows this theory to be totally wrong.

Ahhh, but any warming will be bad, even a little warming. All the same catastrophies that warming is predicted to cause are the same catastrophies predicted back in the 1970's cooling scare, which was also incorrectly blamed on humans. It's a concept that suggests that we live in some goldie locks climate, where if it gets a little bit warmer, or a little bit colder, we're all gonna die.

The Earth is greening as a direct consequence of increasing co2. This, & a warmer climate at altitude & latitude is resulting in record crop yields.
far more people die from cold climate than warm climate.

Where do most humans prefer to live?
In the equatorial regions.

So, to summarize:

You refuse to provide even a single peer-reviewed source and suggest that the peer review process is essentially meaningless and a massive global conspiracy while suggesting, of course, that you have "plenty that would show it". You just choose not to. Because there's no point because it's all politics anyway. Got it.

You continue to maintain that the Holocene maximum saw global mean temps of 5C above present which is demonstrably false and can literally be disproved with a 3 second google search or any introductory climate science textbook. Got it.

You shamelessly dug up one of the John Christy's incredibly misleading and dishonest representations of models vs. temp (please see this analysis for the many reasons why even the words "cherry picked" don't do it justice: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...orite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems )
Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's GISS posted a detailed commentary on it here as well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Carbon Brief has done a great analysis of the many GCMs vs. observed global mean temps here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

This discussion is beginning to have a whiff of deliberate deception to it so I'll bow out and not waste any more time.

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

So from reading this, it breaks my heart that humans as a species always find excuses to shift blame. I’m a scientist, I’m a residental Doctor and have done my fair share of research. What people don’t understand is, it’s not just heat, it’s everything as well. Trash, chemicals, humans destroying it, ships plowing into them, you name it. If it makes people happy they can blame me for all the problems we have in nature, at least someone has taking the blame.

As much as they are trying to save the Great Barrier Reef, I wish they would do more. We as a species (yes me to, I’m as much to blame) literally destroy Mother Nature to suite our own needs. We have to this or that and all we do is destroy the environment. But, who is willing to give up their way of life to save our only home. People say I don’t care, I’ll be dead by then, well maybe all of us will.

There is too much focus on politics, this party does that, this one does that, let’s blame them this time around. Since when did they ever just stop fighting and focus on our planet and all of us who live here together?

The news makes me sick, because all they talk about is Trump, or the Kardashians, or what’s face biebie who ever he is. But, it’s all fake news, what makes it fake? Has anyone actually proven them wrong, other than the person they report about? Do people make mistakes, yes we are human,
We all do, and I have made so many mistakes. But I try to learn from them to be a better person, to help those in need.

I have a reef in my home because I love the ocean, I love the life it gives us. It’s so simple, it’s so pure and it’s been around longer than us. Some day after all we do is talk like we normally do, the reefs will be exhausted, gone wiped off this planet. We will have no one to blame but us, everyone of us. Do some of us try yes, but for every inch we make ahead we get pushed back 90 feet. Because money always seems to be the issue. We have to much greed, all we care about is the now and how much money it makes us. (Used generally)

Do we have good people yes, are all of us good people yes, but then if there is sooo many of us, why aren’t we doing more? Some day if I have children, (and I’m scared to because of how society is), I want to take them to see the reefs, all of them. Yet, I’m afraid they won’t be there, along with the rain forests, along with tigers, and other precious life forms. We do what we can to preserve, but other humans poach them, or ruin what little effort we have made.

Things will never change, because most people don’t like change, and it’s really sad. I have loved reefs since I was just a little girl, and always will. I have done tons of research on them, and for those people who think global warming is fake news come join these teams. Come see the destruction up close and personal and see what you think afterwards.

I adore everyone on here, every one is my friend, but to here people constantly deny there is a problem, or shift blame is just heart breaking. One day the only reefs left will be the ones in our homes. Then because of politics, they will probably seize them. After that, they will try and fix the problem and probably kill everything we have grown. Mother Nature has been wonderful to us, but have we been wonderful to her?

(As you throw eggs at me, remember I’m saying this to the human population in general, not to anyone specific here in this thread or on this forum. This isn’t about our own country it’s about the whole world). There comes a time we just need to set differences aside and fix our only planet.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

So, to summarize:

You refuse to provide even a single peer-reviewed source and suggest that the peer review process is essentially meaningless and a massive global conspiracy while suggesting, of course, that you have "plenty that would show it". You just choose not to. Because there's no point because it's all politics anyway. Got it.

You continue to maintain that the Holocene maximum saw global mean temps of 5C above present which is demonstrably false and can literally be disproved with a 3 second google search or any introductory climate science textbook. Got it.

You shamelessly dug up one of the John Christy's incredibly misleading and dishonest representations of models vs. temp (please see this analysis for the many reasons why even the words "cherry picked" don't do it justice: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...orite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems )
Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's GISS posted a detailed commentary on it here as well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Carbon Brief has done a great analysis of the many GCMs vs. observed global mean temps here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

This discussion is beginning to have a whiff of deliberate deception to it so I'll bow out and not waste any more time.

Ok, firstly, John Christy's chart comparing model projections to satellite data is factual & accurate. The Guardian, a left wing publication, exists to defame any & every scientist who disgarees with the climate crisis industry.
Another climate projection by Hanson, thirty years ago, also shows just how wrong the alarmist activist scientists have got it!

The satellite data, the most accurate we have, shows how little warming we have seen in the last 21 years -

just two tenths of 1 degree C, in 21 years, (and only because of the 2015/16 El) nino and you cannot prove that any of that is attributable to CO2!

Your other links are from real climate, a site created & maintained by pro climate change activists, whose corrupt actions were caught out by the revelation of the climate gate emails,
and Carbon Brief, another group of climate crisis industry activist zeolots.

The holocene
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo 2013 Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
Yair Rosenthal,1 * Braddock K. Linsley,2 Delia W. Oppo3

We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 T 0.4°C and 1.5 T 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century.
The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby supporting the idea that the HTM, MWP, and LIA were global events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes.

http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
The hottest time in the Holocene occurred in the Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, it is called the Holocene Maximum.
It is assumed that the average temperature was 2-3 degrees higher than today's. This is supported by the fact that plants such as mistletoe and the subtropical aquatic plant Trapa natans grew widespread in south Scandinavia.
most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present;
Some studies indicate that the sea surface temperature of the world's oceans was up to 5 degrees higher than today's surface temperature (Darby, 2001).


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003744

Holocene temperature variations at a high-altitude site in the Eastern Alps: a chironomid record from Schwarzsee ob Sölden, Austria
the most notable feature of the Holocene climate at SOS is a well-defined early-Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) between ca 10 000 and 8600 cal yr BP, when chironomid-inferred temperature was 7.0–8.5 °C, i.e. up to ca 4.5 °C warmer than at present


Watervapor feedback.
IPCC
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback.
Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.

So, what this means is, the stronger the hypothesised positive water vapor feedback is, the stronger the negative lapse rate feedback.
Positive water vapor feedback dictates that water vapor must increase specifically in the mid tropical troposphere. this results in a much faster rate of warming in the mid tropical troposphere than at the earths surface (negative lapse rate feedback).

RSS satellite data, collected since 1978, shows that the rate of warming is not faster in the tropical mid tropospher than it is at the surface.

Temperature trend Lower Tropospher is 0.150K/decade

Temperature trend Mid Tropospher is only 0.142K/decade

This is the opposite to model projections because mid tropospheric water vapor is not increasing.

UAH satellite data, also collected since 1978, also shows that the rate of warming is not faster in the tropical mid tropospher than it is at the surface.

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
rate of warming in the tropical Lower Troposphere is 0.12 K/decade

Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
rate of warming in the tropical Mid Troposphere is only 0.08 K/decade

Tyhis is the opposite of the promoted hypothesis, & the opposite of climate models.
Based on IPCC theory, the real world satellite data shows negative water vapor feedback, & this means net negative feedback to increasing co2, & this translates to an
equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 to be less thans co2's direct effect of a maximum of 1C for a doubling.

Climate crisis over.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

So, to summarize:

You refuse to provide even a single peer-reviewed source

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series

Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.

Note. The missing tropospheric “hot spot” in satellite temperature trends is potentially related to water vapor feedback. One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback signature in the satellite temperature trends is an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in nature.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01592922
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer

It is found that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration increases the temperature near the ground by approximately one-half of one degree if clouds are absent. A sevenfold increase of the present normal carbon dioxide concentration increases the temperature near the ground by approximately one degree. Temperature profiles resulting from presently observed carbon dioxide concentration and convective cloudiness of 50% or less are compared with those resulting from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations and the same amounts of cloud cover. Again, it is found that a doubling of carbon dioxide increases the temperature in the lower boundary layer by about one-half of one degree.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Abstract
Estimates of the atmospheric temperature changes due to a doubling of CO2 concentrations have been with a static radiative flux model. They yield temperature changes >0.25 K. It appears that the much larger changes predicted by other models arise from additional water vapor evaporated into the atmosphere and not from the CO2 itself.

https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v23/n1/p1-9/
Revised 21st century temperature projections

ABSTRACT: Temperature projections for the 21st century made in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate a rise of 1.4 to 5.8°C for 1990-2100. However, several independent lines of evidence suggest that the projections at the upper end of this range are not well supported. Since the publication of the TAR, several findings have appeared in the scientific literature that challenge many of the assumptions that generated the TAR temperature range. Incorporating new findings on the radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) aerosols, the magnitude of the climate sensitivity, and the strength of the climate/carbon cycle feedbacks into a simple upwelling diffusion/energy balance model similar to the one that was used in the TAR, we find that the range of projected warming for the 1990-2100 period is reduced to 1.1-2.8°C.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications

We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985–1999) and CERES (2000–2008) satellite instruments.

We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero feedback response thus implying negative feedback.


I could go on & on biophilia

 

[OriginalUserName]

As opposed to people wanting to profit from so called renewable energy sources - that are expensive & unreliable & rely on tax payer subsidies to keep them viable.

]Yeh, subsidising renewables using the tax payers money, while also taxing the old, cheap & reliable energy sources to make them falsly expensive.



LOL, comparing a glass box full of water to the natural processes of the open ocean.



During the time of the dinosaurs co2 levels were at least 5 times higher than now.
The Earth was not in an iceage. There was no ice at either pole, all the land was tropical & sub-tropical.
And the global average temperature was up to 16C above present.

The dinos thrived until a meteor hit.

The only LOL part here is your cognitive dissonance around basic chemistry. You really believe that excess CO2 will mess up your aquarium...but not the ocean. K. The rest is incredibly inaccurate. Fossil fuels have been and are heavily subsidized. And as far as the dinosaurs, really? Why don't you go look at a map of the Earth back then and let me know what the water levels look like compared to now. Not to mention that just because animal A did well in environment X, there is no reason to think that animal B would also. In fact the opposite is probably true.

 

[themcfreak]

I think it is safe to say that there are many papers and scientists that believe Climate Change is real, and there are many papers and scientists that believe Climate Change is fake. We keep trying to say 'keep politics out of it' but the fact of the matter is, politics is deeply embedded in the science at this point. Left wing will fund scientists reports that indicate it is real. Right wing will fund scientists to prove it is fake. While all of that is happening, the 'neutral' scientists are being ignored.

Personally, I vote to do what we can to reverse our carbon emissions (or at least slow them down). Maybe they aren't hurting, but it definitely isn't natural. Whether the true global warming is man made is true or not, we are emitting CO2 everywhere, that didn't used to get emitted naturally. And, as @OriginalUserName points out, so many of us seek to control CO2 in our reefs (yes, its a tiny scale), because we know it can hurt our reefs if it gets too high in our closed box. Well, isn't the Earth just 1 closed box also? On a much larger scale, yes, but it is still a closed box. And the CO2 humans are pumping out still affect closed boxes. Maybe on a smaller scale, but we all know how easy it is to change the parameters of our aquariums with such a small change.

 

[biophilia]

The satellite data, the most accurate we have, shows how little warming we have seen in the last 21 years -

Just replying so that anybody viewing this is able to see how dangerous cherry-picking is and how easy it is to pick specific points out of any data set to meet per-determined conclusions:

The above (which is the Univ. of Alabama Hunstville 6.0 beta temperature dataset) has been deliberately displayed by Scrubber_steve with a starting date of 1997. Starting from the 97-98 El Nino is an extremely common tool used by people who want to misrepresent the warming trend because it conveniently flattens the graph in a way that starting from literally any other year does not.

Here's what UAH 6.0 looks like in its entirety: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend

And what it looks like if he had picked another random starting point in the last 20 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:1999/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend

And an example to show that if I wanted to cherry-pick another starting point I could make it appear that the temperature is rising really fast!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend

And here's every single land, satellite, and argo float temp dataset overlayed with one another for an even clearer picture of the overall trend going back 150 years or so:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem...d/from:1800/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend


This stuff matters. And it breaks my heart to see people working so hard to undermine the hard work of all of those who have been studying this issue for so long. We are losing the battle to save what's left of wild earth and the millions of invaluable species who share this place with us. In-fighting and cherry-picking for political reasons is not how we should be spending what may be the only decade during which we still have a chance to reverse course.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

The only LOL part here is your cognitive dissonance around basic chemistry. You really believe that excess CO2 will mess up your aquarium...but not the ocean.

I have no problem with co2 in my aquarium. The algae scrubber takes care of any build up in my home.
Of course co2 levels in the family home can get way above any future projections for co2 in our atmosphere.
And all alarmist projections for future decline in ocean pH levels are minor compared to the daily pH swings on many reefs right now, & the corals do just fine.

 

[OriginalUserName]

Just replying so that anybody viewing this is able to see how dangerous cherry-picking is and how easy it is to pick specific points out of any data set to meet per-determined conclusions:

The above (which is the Univ. of Alabama Hunstville 6.0 beta temperature dataset) has been deliberately displayed by Scrubber_steve with a starting date of 1997. Starting from the 97-98 El Nino is an extremely common tool used by people who want to misrepresent the warming trend because it conveniently flattens the graph in a way that starting from literally any other year does not.

Here's what UAH 6.0 looks like in its entirety: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend

And what it looks like if he had picked another random starting point in the last 20 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:1999/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend

And an example to show that if I wanted to cherry-pick another starting point I could make it appear that the temperature is rising really fast!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend

And here's every single land, satellite, and argo float temp dataset overlayed with one another for an even clearer picture of the overall trend going back 150 years or so:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem...d/from:1800/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend


This stuff matters. And it breaks my heart to see people working so hard to undermine the hard work of all of those who have been studying this issue for so long. We are losing the battle to save what's left of wild earth and the millions of invaluable species who share this place with us. In-fighting and cherry-picking for political reasons is not how we should be spending what may be the only decade during which we still have a chance to reverse course.

Framing pollution and climate change issues as something that should align to our general political views has been a masterful stroke of propaganda.

It's not that our best and brightest believe we are causing problems, its because of some liberal conspiracy to make us live in the stone age because of the NWO or pizzagate or some nonsense. Pollution isn't a problem! Fossil fuels aren't limited! We can't hurt the environment! Global warming isn't a thing because it was cold here last week and also one time other animals were alive so therefore our current animals will be fine.

 

[OriginalUserName]

Just replying so that anybody viewing this is able to see how dangerous cherry-picking is and how easy it is to pick specific points out of any data set to meet per-determined conclusions:

The above (which is the Univ. of Alabama Hunstville 6.0 beta temperature dataset) has been deliberately displayed by Scrubber_steve with a starting date of 1997. Starting from the 97-98 El Nino is an extremely common tool used by people who want to misrepresent the warming trend because it conveniently flattens the graph in a way that starting from literally any other year does not.

Here's what UAH 6.0 looks like in its entirety: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend

And what it looks like if he had picked another random starting point in the last 20 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:1999/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend

And an example to show that if I wanted to cherry-pick another starting point I could make it appear that the temperature is rising really fast!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend

And here's every single land, satellite, and argo float temp dataset overlayed with one another for an even clearer picture of the overall trend going back 150 years or so:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem...d/from:1800/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/trend


This stuff matters. And it breaks my heart to see people working so hard to undermine the hard work of all of those who have been studying this issue for so long. We are losing the battle to save what's left of wild earth and the millions of invaluable species who share this place with us. In-fighting and cherry-picking for political reasons is not how we should be spending what may be the only decade during which we still have a chance to reverse course.

Framing pollution and climate change issues as something that should align to our general political views has been a masterful stroke of propaganda.

It's not that our best and brightest believe we are causing problems, its because of some liberal conspiracy to make us live in the stone age because of the NWO or pizzagate or some nonsense. Pollution isn't a problem! Fossil fuels aren't limited! We can't hurt the environment! Global warming isn't a thing because it was cold here last week and also one time other animals were alive so therefore our current animals will be fine.

 

[WVNed]

Bad science proves nothing. It also disproves nothing.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Just replying so that anybody viewing this is able to see how dangerous cherry-picking is and how easy it is to pick specific points out of any data set to meet per-determined conclusions:

The above (which is the Univ. of Alabama Hunstville 6.0 beta temperature dataset) has been deliberately displayed by Scrubber_steve with a starting date of 1997. Starting from the 97-98 El Nino is an extremely common tool used by people who want to misrepresent the warming trend because it conveniently flattens the graph in a way that starting from literally any other year does not.

LOL; I started it from 1997 to include the 1998 el nino as the temperature jumped from that time on because of it, not global warming. Since then the temperature has plateaued, plateaued for 21 years.

Lets look at the full UAH record, unmanipulated by biophilia using 'Mean samples to the value of 12, giving the graph a steeper slant (aren't we getting snarkey)

Five tenths of one degree in fourty years. And no proof it is anything but natural.
But lets pretend that entire 0.5C is all the fault of the 80ppm rise in co2 during that 40 year period. Because of the logarithmic effect of increasing co2 we would have to add another 160ppm, not 80ppm, to get another 0.5C increase in temp.

Of course humans are adding co2 to the atmosphere, & a doubling of co2 could potentially increase average temp by 1C. But dangerous global warming & climate change are totally reliant on the hypothised positive water vapor feedback & that hypothesis is totally disproven.

THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
Ferenc M. Miskolczi
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements.


Miskolczi theory for the stationary atmospheric greenhouse gas optical thickness is that the relatively large increase in atmospheric co2 has been offset by a relatively tiny decrease in mid tropospheric water vapor.

This isn't hard to understand for a self regulating system where co2 makes up only 5% of the greenhouse gasses, & water vapor 90%.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

A letter from the Brown University Dept of Geological Sciences has been forwarded to the President of the United States concerning dangerous climate change.
The warnings on dangerous climate change from mainstream scientists must be taken seriously, & serious action must be taken, no matter the cost to the economies of nations,
or to the people of the world.
The Earth must be saved.

LOL

 

[OriginalUserName]

A letter from the Brown University Dept of Geological Sciences has been forwarded to the President of the United States concerning dangerous climate change.
The warnings on dangerous climate change from mainstream scientists must be taken seriously, & serious action must be taken, no matter the cost to the economies of nations,
or to the people of the world.
The Earth must be saved.

LOL

You are literally saying "science was wrong one time so now we should assume it's always wrong".

It's very unfortunate that the climate became politicized. There was no mystery cabal of sneaky liberals out there funding scientists, quite the opposite. Just like any other threat to an industry, you see a minority of hacks or shills that are backed by legacy money because of the huge profits that are at risk. We saw the same thing with cigarette smoking, DDT, mercury, lead paint/gas, asbestos etc.

 

[Scooter90254]

We all need to hold hands and not give garbage articles like this any run.

Its proven that coral bleaching is not caused by warming water. (In fact if you place frag on a bleached out part the reef the frag grows fine. Why is that fact never mentioned? Shouldn't take a PhD to realize tis not temperature.) This article takes away from the productive conversations revolving coral bleaching and climate change. Most people agree we should study the effects we have on the planet and try to correct the issues.

Articles like this are so blatantly bad that there is no way to defend climate change as anything more then a money grab. Constantly crying wolf will cause the whole thing to be ignored which it basically is at this point. Its a real shame.

 

[biophilia]

LOL; I started it from 1997 to include the 1998 el nino as the temperature jumped from that time on because of it, not global warming. Since then the temperature has plateaued, plateaued for 21 years.

Lets look at the full UAH record, unmanipulated by biophilia using 'Mean samples to the value of 12, giving the graph a steeper slant (aren't we getting snarkey)

Five tenths of one degree in fourty years. And no proof it is anything but natural.
But lets pretend that entire 0.5C is all the fault of the 80ppm rise in co2 during that 40 year period. Because of the logarithmic effect of increasing co2 we would have to add another 160ppm, not 80ppm, to get another 0.5C increase in temp.

Of course humans are adding co2 to the atmosphere, & a doubling of co2 could potentially increase average temp by 1C. But dangerous global warming & climate change are totally reliant on the hypothised positive water vapor feedback & that hypothesis is totally disproven.

THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
Ferenc M. Miskolczi
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements.


Miskolczi theory for the stationary atmospheric greenhouse gas optical thickness is that the relatively large increase in atmospheric co2 has been offset by a relatively tiny decrease in mid tropospheric water vapor.

This isn't hard to understand for a self regulating system where co2 makes up only 5% of the greenhouse gasses, & water vapor 90%.

Twelve month boxcar smoothing is standard practice for removing high frequency changes. This is how every single global mean temp record is typically analyzed. No need to accuse me of manipulation. Even removing the smoothing, you just showed a graph with very clear and continued temperature rise proceeded by the statement "since then the temperature has plateaued... for 21 years". This is demonstrably false. You're continuing to make statements that aren't in any way backed up by the data. This is dishonest behavior.

A 0.5C rise in average temperature in only 40 years (0.8C over the century) is fairly alarming considering a total rise of 1.5-2.0C is generally considered to be the point at which additional feedbacks may make slowing down the inertia of the warming no longer possible and a certain amount of aditional warming is baked in even if drastically cut carbon emissions. Nobody is claiming all of the observed warming is due to CO2. It's likely due to a variety of greenhouse gases (water vapor included). The point here is that the best available evidence (and endorsed by all 200+ national science academies on earth) points to humans being behind the majority of the warming seen in the past century. You can squirm around this fact any way you wish, but that's what the evidence shows. And even if there's some level of doubt about specific feedbacks, it's only pragmatic to err on the side of caution and address the issue. If the global scientific community is wrong, we halt just a small fraction of the warming and transition away from fossil fuel resource extraction and lower PM2.5 particulates which are the cause of so much human conflict and unnecessary mortality. If those who deny the science are wrong, we potentially lose everything. This is not a gamble a reasonable person should ever argue in favor of.


That Miskolczi paper is widely considered to be problematic -- even by the climate change denier community itself.

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf

Prominent climate skeptic Roy Spencer on the mistakes in the Miskolczi paper:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

 

[Scrubber_steve]

You are literally saying "science was wrong one time so now we should assume it's always wrong".

One time you say?

watch 'How did we survive the 1970s'