VOLCANO MADNESS: Re: [Geology2] Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age

Responses embedded within below..... NOTE: typing lots of words is not tantamount to having much to say.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:22 PM, MEM mstreman53@yahoo.com [geology2] <geology2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hey Kimmer and llst

As it happens here in the iced-in Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania I had some time very recently to do some catch up reviewing of developments in science which interests me. I have recently spent 30+ hours listening to testimony before congress via Youtube, then listened to other programs such as the BBC produced " The Great Warming Swindle" and another 10 hours of interviews with climatologist, nobel winners etc. Then 94 minutes reviewing Al Gore's movie ICT. I tried to bring myself current in as much as is possible. My public playlist on Youtube Climate associated with my email account has most of the sources cited. I especially liked the series 50 to 1* for its rational approach to placing the arguments into perspective. I don't think of much of what i said as "claims" but passing along other information that challenges mindless chicken-little claims by showing the existence of other observed data other than the hysterical "claim" that the sky is falling. Remember the original humor was Chicken-Little's assumption that the sky was falling was based on an erroneous conclusion of a partially observed event -- to wit she was hit on the head by an acorn. I would have interpreted it as a reaffirmation of the law of gravity.

The problem with your argument above is you make a broad and sweeping statement short of any details... it is merely an assertion of opinion and you seem to have approached this from the standpoint of starting with an opinion and then you seem to have sought out confirmation and validation of same. The lens through which your mind processes this matter is skewed from the get-go and you only can see what seems to you to be confirmation and validation of what you already are convinced is true. Whereas some of the more strident Climate Change militants are indeed guilty of breathless and hysterical Chicken Little antics, those on your side of the argument are often grossly guilty of being ostriches sticking your collective heads in the sand while ignoring the obvious.... you can't see the forest for the trees. There is NOTHING being "partially observed" here except by the deniers like you who are quite selective in what you all choose to allow yourselves to see let alone in how you choose to process that information and to what conclusion you reach.

There are two 97% consensus "sensations"/memes in the "dogma" and it wasn't the consensus as much has how the surveys were asked and of whom they were asked and boundless assumptions to what the listeners and politicians tried to make them say.

Do Not speak in tongues! That sentence gets a failing grade... rephrase that sentence so it makes more sense!

Look at the statement again-- based on probability alone ( meaning that there is even a 0.000001 chance) most of the 37k scientist surveyed( in a statistically sound manner) think humans contribute to climate change-- period. No explanation as to how or how much: human waste, livestock, urban islands, paved roads, pumping sequestered water from ancient acquifers, damming rivers yada, yada.

Are you stroking out on me or are you smoking crack? That part of your comments makes even less sense than the part before it. From whence do you derive your "0.000001 [%] chance"? As for the rest of that part of your statement, you seem to not grasp that the question framed was an either/or question so orders of magnitude of human culpability do not matter in the context of that question as that is not what it is about.

Frankly this is the Apple Pie argument, I could ask a question and get a smilier consensus if I asked 100,000 teachers if they believed children are learning correctly. In the climate survey case, the sheeple make a faulty logic jump to assuming the question was "do you believe that human released CO^2 is causing global warming" Big difference in meaning but the way quasi- statistical tricks are used to promote agendas.

???? You fail to convince there is anything nefarious or inappropriate in the way the poll was conducted.... a poll which was a brief mention in a large article to which you are ignoring in favor of focusing on a small phrase in parenthesis in said article. Let's get back to the article and my question about it shall we?

It was the followon question which was left out of the summaries in a "classic statistical trick of misdirection" by omitting it in the press releases: If so (AGL) then how significant is it? Most of the 97% felt it was insignificant to minimal. My statement was meant to say that none of the authorities which i follow disagree that climate is changing or that in whatever manner the existence of humans on the planet all play parts (even if it is lost in the nose level of statistical margins of error) --as yet identified, in climate change.

You continue to focus on a poll briefly mentioned in parenthesis which was a minor element in a larger article from which your focus is diverting attention away.... how come? You are not addressing my questions but rather you are wasting my time reading all kinds of useless words which obfuscate the truth.

( NOTE: I do follow a few wacko groups like Wretch Fossil who believes that he sees blood vessels and neurons in everything he sees in photos from Mars but not for his expertise in physics or geology).

?????????

But these statistically-probable, broadly-inclusive beliefs are not beliefs that have complex caveats.

WTF?

If a possibility exists in statistics then it is "not impossible"even if it is highly improbable.

You certainly have penchant for stating the obvious!

Statistically we are all going to die not withstanding religious belief. That is a 100% certainty. When we die is for the most part a 100% uncertainty. In real life, there are rarely mathematical certainties, if something is a scientific/statistical certainty or uncertainty, it means that the probability of either occurring is well beyond the realm of reality ( probable vs possible) in a given number of lifetimes--so long as certain conditions remain relatively unchanged if technology does not change the conditions deliberately.

You do realize you have gotten completely lost in the weeds... this is classic obfuscation!

in reviewing "peer reviewed" studies and their proponents one has to parse what they really said as well as what they did not say. Holds for politicians as well--I did NOT ave sex with THAT woman. Depends on what the "meaning of "is is" ad nauseium !

...... which of course has absolutely nothing to do with my question or this article which inspired it... please get back on track here!

As I recall, the other original oft misquoted "97%" was a graduate student who sent out a "stacked deck survey" ( i.e. intellectually dishonest technique to skew results and insure the survey yields the advertising answer desired e.g 9 out of 10 doctors surveyed recommend Crest --all 10 of the doctors were paid and one was paid to not respond) It was sent to only who he suspected would answer his survey with a yes. It was a sample size of 3,000(?) He got back maybe 100-120 questionnaires and 75% were tv weather personalities.

You have so thoroughly beaten this dead horse that I am reporting you to the SPCA.

This was the battle cry of the IPCC until the cited work was reviewed and debunked.

You utterly ignore the impressive plethora of undebunked and undebunkable peer-reviewed and cited scholarship and science on the matter in favor of focusing on one single incident of a researcher being more guilty of poor choice of words so much than actual fraud, quite contrary to the urban legend promulgated by the Right and their Oil Industry hacks.

Re; The "800 year lag"--I believe the data as reported seems valid. The lag varies between 200-and 1000 years with a weighted average of 800 years. The "800 year lag" was by plotting 2 things: isotope ratios in the Antarctic ice sheet record as a proxy for temperature** ( 400,000 years,with an additional 250,000 yet to be analyzed). AND CO^2 concentrations in the same sample sections of ice. Because they move in opposite directions, as plotted they appear divergent. When you flip one and overlay it on the other you see that they are perfectly in sync only with an average lag of CO^2 trailing temperatures. That is in one of the videos i saved in my playlist.

Which video? What is their bias? What is the context in which they apply the numbers above which you claim you derived from said Youtube video? You do realize that Youtube videos are not generally considered scholarly sources, right?

The alarmist-skeptics players of course, debate this back and forth on the net challenging each other but much is done by ignoring the data and arguing red herrings such as volcanic activity, solar orbits etc.

Ignoring what data? The observable changes in the natural environment are the data the Climate Change deniers are ignoring! For every Climate Change Alarmist there is a Climate Change Ostrich or two.

The study was not looking for any CAUSE-- it was looking for relationships. As plotted, one fact that is derived is, for whatever the "causes of temperature changes", it isn't CO^2 concentrations. Something which has not happened cannot influence what has already happened.

You knuckle-head, there ARE CO2 concentrations and they have had an effect with lag being taken into effect... IN FACT, the Climate Change Chicken Little's to which you have referred are more prone to talk about the lag than you Climate Change Ostriches!

On the other hand "what has happened may or may not influence what will happen". What we know about gas dissolution in liquids, the warmer the liquid the less dissolved gas it can hold in solution ad the colder the liquid the more gas it can dissolve. The data at hand is very consistent with physics. It also doesn't need to draw any conclusions as to ultimate source of CO^2 other than that 99% of the CO^2 in the system moves back and forth from ocean to atmosphere to ocean based on saturation envelopes which are driven by partial pressure laws and Brownian motion/particle theory/particle transport in fluids--aka fluid mechanics.

None of which addresses my central question nor does it refute Climate Change other than in your own addled mind! I am getting annoyed at your learned tone while you ignore essential details of this matter such as the fact that we already know the natural carbon is in relative balance in the natural world and the natural world absorbs part of the man-released carbon but a great part of that remains unabsorbed and is building up in the atmosphere and this correlates with the heating even as past heatings have also correlated with increased carbon in the atmosphere. You keep sanctimoniously obfuscating in hopes of muddling the discussion to the point that people, especially less educated ones, will be confused and assume you know what you are talking about here and that you are correct in your criticism of the reality of climate change which is something that is thus far not working.

As to cooling now and for 2 more decades-- even the IPCC now acknowledges we have been in a cooling trend since 1998--there are at least 52 explanations as to why, and historically tracking back Sunspot measurements since Galileo along with recorded temperatures show roughly 40 year cycles.

Show me where the IPCC acknowledges a cooling trend since 1998. Explain to me the announcements this week from three different peer-reviewed sources that 2015 was the hottest year yet in the current warming period?

One of the researchers in the playlist noted yes to the cooling leg we are in and it is likely to last 2 more decades ( based on plotted cycles in the past).

Again, prove this cooling trend exists from a peer-reviewed and respectable source!

Actually human addition to the CO^2 reservoir is around 3% of the annual addition to the atmosphere--be it remembered that the carbon content of the world was once ALL atmospheric.

More obfuscation on your part... this does not address the question nor does it refute the existence of the actual ongoing climate change!

Fossil fuel burning moves it from one location to another--but the take away from all else is that CO^2 is barely in the ball park of forcers and that wattage of energy per meter is the value which has to be broken down into the component contributors.

I Googled the word "obfuscation" and it gave me your sentence above! Burning fossil fuels does indeed move carbon... you have a penchant for understatement.... however, a cascading effect is now underway and more and more carbon and methane are being released into the atmosphere coming from out of the ground and from under the oceans as temps warm.

CO^2 is inert as a energy generator. it is its ability to absorb wavelengths of one type and reemit as an infra-red molecule which is absorbed by other molecules which vibrate more energetically and increases Brownian motion causing more collisions raising the temperature of gas. Only it doesn't behave in the wild as it does in a bell jar in the lab.

That is perhaps the most useless and irrelevant information you have posted here yet!

Cloud cover and cosmic rays. It is a newer theory than CO^2 caused global warming and involved changing --however slightly the reflectivity of the earth driving temperatures downward.( less radiation reaching the ground) http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf. My comment was that cosmic ray cloud formation correlation seems on the face more positive than the CO^2 causing temperature change claims. One deals with solar output being causative, the later deals with a disconnect in the data there seems to be a correlation of temperature drop and solar output increase and cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere. The mechanism is ray absorption increasing Brownian motion kicking more water molecules into the air where they rise to form high level clouds. It is a subset of the water cycle as a newly recognized component. Rays do not make clouds form as they pass through the upper atmosphere, they cause more clouds to form when, on a global scale, they change the balance and move the partial pressure envelope up a few notches. There is however a new area of research that is looking into a new theory. Cosmic rays are suspected in causing ionization of aerosols causing them to become seeing nuclei for water droplets to form causing more rain.

First off, thanks for sharing that interesting paper which has nothing to do with rising temperatures but rather addresses something that might be causing the Earth to cool which it is not. Other than that, that cosmic ray thing is barely a hypothesis and far from being proved, but rather is an idea being proposed in that paper. However, one cannot use and does not need what that suggests to account for what is already being observed which makes it nearly useless aside from being mildly interesting and an academic exercise. The very first sentence of it says "The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth's climate is highly uncertain." What is definitely certain is the warming earth and the past and present relationship between atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels and atmospheric temperatures.

Regards,
Eman

* 50to1.net Proposition. it would cost 50 times the amount to fight "global climate change" that to invest in adaptation. Things like it would take the entire wealth of the world 33 years including absolutely no heating nor driving of cars etc to meet 1 year of carbon reduction to achieve a .00002 degree reduction of CO^2 into the atmosphere target--in this case 33 years of savings to reach each years cartoon caps. It would be more effective to kill off 5 billion people--any volunteers?

In those comments you reveal your position to be based on a political and cultural perspective, not a scientific one and use utilize hyperbole and a quasi-strawman argument. You also don't offer the source of your statistics nor is their actual useful, if any at all, plainly apparent. Benjamin Disraeli once said, "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" and Andrew Lang once said, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts... for support rather than for illumination." Needless to say, you are giving me all sorts of red flags suggesting red herrings here.

** Oxygen isotopes 16,17,and 18 are sorted by a physical mechanism based density which is dependent on temperature of the environment. Those temperatures are derived by determining their ratios in water vapor which in this case has been consolidated into snow which became ice.

I'm well aware of the nature of Oxygen isoptes... I'm taking a Nuclear Science class at my university right now! What is your point?