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.
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. 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. 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.
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. ( 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. If a possibility exists in statistics then it is "not impossible"even if it is highly improbable. 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. 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 !
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. This was the battle cry of the IPCC until the cited work was reviewed and debunked.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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).
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. 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. 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.
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.
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?
** 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.
From: "Kim Noyes kimnoyes@gmail.com [geology2]" <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
To: Geology2 <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age
Eman,
By way of explanation and caveat, be it known I am equally skeptical of all claims, and that must include your claims.
From whence comes your underlying claim "No scientist I follow claims that man does not affect climate, however the consensus by most say it is insignificant as in a few thousands of one percent. (The true 97% consists of some 37,000 scientist surveyed )." Where are these people? The consensus based on all the poll data I have seen is very different form what you claim. Only natural resource scientists have any significant trend away from the consensus view and even that is still a minority of natural resource scientists but simply a larger minority than in other fields.
Where do you get this 800-year lag idea? I have not seen any climatologist mention it.
When you say "we are in for 2 more decades of cooling", from whence do you get the information we are cooling?
The earth is in relative balance as far as the carbon cycle is concerned, but what Mankind adds, which isn't huge, is nonetheless consistent and has endured and continues to accumulate, Only a portion of human-generated carbon is absorbed by the oceans and continents leaving a surplus that seems problematic.
What proof do you have that the clouds are caused by cosmic rays, not by what science seems to show is the "water cycle"?
I have heard some very intelligent people make compelling arguments that the current solar activity does NOT explain the rising temperatures seen on the Earth in recent time.
In closing, where I come down on this is somewhere between the hysteric-ism of some and the skepticism of others. The two poles of thought on this matter have deeply entrenched emotional investment and culture context to their views. I just want to know the truth of things apart form culture and politics and personality.
Kimmer
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:14 AM, MEM mstreman53@yahoo.com [geology2] <geology2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Observed data: carbon dioxide levels/vectors lag behind temp by about 800 years-- ergo, temp rises, warm/heat oceans which release disolved CO2. --basic high school physics on disolve gas partial pressures. Ergo one pillar of the 1980s greenhouse gas forcer theory has crumbled.Temp , cosmic rays, and sunspot activity track near perfectly but inversely less than a decade lag. . As solar activity rises so do temps.As activity decreases temps fall. It is far easier and quicker to trigger an ice house than steam house Earth.The water vapor amplifier which is modeled at 2/3s of temp rise is absent from both satellite datasets plus direct measurement by radiosonds. Pillar 2 crumbles. Even the IPCC in fine print disclaims any predictive value for direction and amount of temp change.No scientist I follow claims that man does not affect climate, however the consensus by most say it is insignificant as in a few thousands of one percent. (The true 97% consists of some 37,000 scientist surveyed )Science says look at observed data. Religion says ignore the data --trust usI am vindicated in that I said the real driver of climate is a medium sized star at the center of our solar system, whose variability in output swings as much as 10%.Following historical measurements coorelating sum spots and temp change we are in for 2 more decades of cooling. There seems a high coorelating that higher solar activities/ winds sweep away cosmic rays. Cosmic rays that reach the surface energize water molecules forcing vapor into the atmosphere produce more clouds increasing earth's albedo reflecing more solar radiation driving temps colder. Conversely, fewer cosmic rays -fewer clouds -- higher temps.Atmospheric Carbon dioxide is a product of temp rise, not vice versa. This observed data (solar) fits temp fluctuations precisely with very little lag. Via ice core measured CO2 / isotope (derived temp )lags temp by 800 years. Weigh the two ensembles of data and see which theory of warming/ cooling/ change is best supported by empirical data.So the headline may be generally right but for the wrong reason.EmanPS: historical CO2 levels are at or above 3000 ppm. We presently are give or take 400 ppm.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment