1 of 6
1
What’s with the scientific fixation on the Carbon Theory?
Posted: 26 June 2017 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

Doug I’m splitting this off from another thread to focus on the physics behind the scientific consensus regarding manmade global warming.

JohnH - 24 June 2017 09:48 PM

I’m certainly not convinced that science has demonstrated with any certainty that the current (Milankovitch) cycle is any different.

Actually there is nothing different about the current cycle.  It’s the Atmospheric Insulation that’s sky rocketing. 
I don’t have the time to do your homework but a couple minutes with Google will reveal scientists have studied the Milankovitch cycle and other ‘natural’ drivers of Earth’s climate to exquisite detail.

The claim is they don’t have enough ____?
Can anyone define what’s lacking?

JohnH - 24 June 2017 09:48 PM

...I’d certainly feel more confident if some scientists and politicians were looking rather more critically at the carbon theory.
[/size]

The implication is that scientists are overlooking stuff.
Making such claims, one should be able to support them with a simple list of examples.
What stuff are scientists over-looking?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2017 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

Well surprise surprise,
ask the Trump supporters to support something important, such as their remarks supposing the “atmospheric carbon theory” isn’t rock solid,
and it’s blank faces and minds all around.

But I’m the bad guy because such frauds disgust me more and more and I’m wiling to call them on their lies.  cool smirk  LOL  vampire
Here’s something mind expanding for you guys:

When a child of the intellectual enlightenment, such as myself, is confronted with critiques, or corrections, or challenges
we embrace the opportunity as both a learning and teaching moment.

When libertarians or tea-partiers, or the likes of John or Mike are confronted with such innocent intellectual challenges,
they can only see ATTACK, ENEMY, etc, along with other filthy nonsense.
But what else can be expected from folks who are shackled to their own dogmas rather that the realities of life on this particular planet Earth,
and our ever evolving understanding.

You talk about climate, but from your words it’s clear you don’t know the first thing about it, except you believe in certain headlines you were handed.

You want to pretend that Climate Models are the Holy Grail - but just like the Holy Grail, it’s bullshit -
the truth is right in front of you all the time.

Climate models aren’t going to have any greater impact on planning so long as the planners continue possessing absolute self-certainty,
when they reject the very notion of learning from observations and facts.  That is where Trump has brought our country. 
And I’m afraid those forces of fabricate alternate-realities and such insanities continue gaining momentum like the killer Blob of childhood horror movies.

The Climate Models are only one part of the full understanding.  But you don’t care to learn about all that.

Anyone who has a mediocre understanding of climate science can see the tell-tale signs of your lack of substantive understanding and real interest.
Fraud is as fraud does.

[ Edited: 27 June 2017 09:53 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2017 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

Excuse me I do try to be nicer.  But the fraud is too disgusting to hide away all the time.

I suspect there will be no taker to explain what’s wrong with the carbon theory.

But they’ll still run around telling everyone gullible enough to listen that the
scientists and their endless hours of serious study and their painstakingly accumulating
store of understanding is not to be trusted, just for the political hell of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2017 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4253
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 28 June 2017 10:10 PM

Excuse me I do try to be nicer.  But the fraud is too disgusting to hide away all the time.

I suspect there will be no taker to explain what’s wrong with the carbon theory.

But they’ll still run around telling everyone gullible enough to listen that the
scientists and their endless hours of serious study and their painstakingly accumulating
store of understanding is not to be trusted, just for the political hell of it.

It’s mostly to prevent anyone from claiming it might interfere with raping the earth and making short-term profits from it.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 June 2017 09:51 PM

Well surprise surprise,
ask the Trump supporters to support something important, such as their remarks supposing the “atmospheric carbon theory” isn’t rock solid,
and it’s blank faces and minds all around.

But I’m the bad guy because such frauds disgust me more and more and I’m wiling to call them on their lies.  cool smirk  LOL  vampire
Here’s something mind expanding for you guys:

When a child of the intellectual enlightenment, such as myself, is confronted with critiques, or corrections, or challenges
we embrace the opportunity as both a learning and teaching moment.

When libertarians or tea-partiers, or the likes of John or Mike are confronted with such innocent intellectual challenges,
they can only see ATTACK, ENEMY, etc, along with other filthy nonsense.
But what else can be expected from folks who are shackled to their own dogmas rather that the realities of life on this particular planet Earth,
and our ever evolving understanding.

You talk about climate, but from your words it’s clear you don’t know the first thing about it, except you believe in certain headlines you were handed.

You want to pretend that Climate Models are the Holy Grail - but just like the Holy Grail, it’s bullshit -
the truth is right in front of you all the time.

Climate models aren’t going to have any greater impact on planning so long as the planners continue possessing absolute self-certainty,
when they reject the very notion of learning from observations and facts.  That is where Trump has brought our country. 
And I’m afraid those forces of fabricate alternate-realities and such insanities continue gaining momentum like the killer Blob of childhood horror movies.

The Climate Models are only one part of the full understanding.  But you don’t care to learn about all that.

Anyone who has a mediocre understanding of climate science can see the tell-tale signs of your lack of substantive understanding and real interest.
Fraud is as fraud does.

Hey, what is stopping you from moving forward without the climate models?
Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you that you must do anything at all with the climate models.
There has been no authority given to the IPCC. It is made up of scientists from around the world. And you don’t even have to be a scientist to contribute. 
IPCC report.  https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant (see Box 6.1).

All of this, and still no agreement for the Carbon Lag. The scientist have went from 5-800 years of lag time to 5,000 years of lag time. Then to 200 to zero years of lag time. Myself, I don’t know. I would like to know. I seem to favor the 2008 hypothesis the atmosphere temperature controls the CO2 levels in the natural cycle. Will the controls of the natural cycle start reducing the manmade carbon once it reaches a certain level? Again, we don’t know. The answer to that is in understand the history of Carbon Lag.

We really don’t know a lot about the Jumps and Lags. Computer models should be able to figure that out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 30 June 2017 03:04 PM

We really don’t know a lot about the Jumps and Lags. Computer models should be able to figure that out.

Besides grossly misstating the evolving science - Your “lag time” doesn’t make one bit of difference except for understanding ancient history.

When we put extra CO2 into our atmosphere today - THERE IS NO LAG IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO START REACTING TO INFRARED RADIATION.
As for the lag time between increasing concentrations and their impact permeating the climate system, I’ve heard 30 years mentioned, but more study is being done, at least till the GOP/Trump/Oligarch cut backs stop the research.

Oh and thanks for your sarcastic suggestion, but I can’t do anything,
I’m an impotent little sod, stuck watching this insane grand self-destruction play itself out.
Did you actually say you thought human population would triple?

But I can point out bullshit arguments.  Arguments intent of wasting precious time, distracting attention and confusing people.

Oh and this thread is supposed to be specifically about the Carbon Theory.
Your “lag-time” is a juvenile diversion, it’s the physics I’m intent on.

[ Edited: 30 June 2017 10:55 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 10:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

I wonder how many climate science skeptics know about the 40s, 50s, 60s Air Force intensive atmospheric research program?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

Climate science ‘skeptics’ are cowards who run from all serious debates.

Come on fishy fishy fishy, defend your disrespect for the scientific consensus.

Please explain to us, why greenhouse gases aren’t the cause of dangerously rapid global warming.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 09:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

This is old, old science, you may as well believe in the flat Earth as believe that carbon dioxide doesn’t play a central role in moderating the Earth’s temperature.

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth’s atmosphere acts to raise the planet’s temperature.

“As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.” Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2
), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth’s atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth’s surface and warms it up, why doesn’t the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier’s answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. He lacked the theoretical tools to calculate just how the balance places the Earth at its present temperature. But with a leap of physical intuition, he realized that the planet would be significantly colder if it lacked an atmosphere. (Later in the century, when the effect could be calculated, it was found that a bare rock at Earth’s distance from the Sun would be well below freezing temperature.)

John Tyndall explained exactly what it is that warms the Earth more than 150 year ago.

 

What Tyndall had demonstrated for the first time was that gases in the atmosphere absorb heat to very different degrees; he had discovered the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect.

Its existence had been surmised by earlier generations of scientists, notably Joseph Fourier, who wrote in 1824: “The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.”

What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.

It was even calculated more than 100 years ago what would happen if we somehow significantly increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

And as CC says the US Airforce did exhaustive studies of the absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere to develop heat seeking missiles sensors, it fully confirmed that carbon dioxide absorbs heat and traps it warming the Earth. There’s is virtually no doubt that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the wavelength emitted by the Earth’s surface.

And we have modern measurements and evidence that fully supports the science that goes back almost two centuries.

The rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 is well documented and is entirely consistent with human emission of the gas that now total in the billions of tons a year.

The timing of the seasons has changed.

Temperature profile in the atmosphere has changed in agreement with the theory.

Ice is melting worldwide.

The oceans are rising.

Extreme weather events especially heat wave are becoming much more common.

There is a measured increase in surface radiation in the wavelengths absorbed and re-emitted by carbon dioxide. The more of it in the atmosphere the more outgoing infrared is intercepted and re-directed back to the Earth’s surface and more.

There is virtually no doubt that carbon dioxide is in fact the most important gas in the atmosphere for regulating the surface temperature average of Earth. Water vapour does not qualify because it is a vapour not a gas and if you removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere within a few decades all the water vapour would also be gone and the Earth would be a ball of ice.

Deniers are paid to deny the science, nothing more. They do no real research, all they do is look for ways to create the most confusion to delay any action that might have a financially negative impact on the people paying the deniers. This includes corporations like Exxon Mobil and individuals like the Koch brothers.

couldn’t include the links due to spamblock

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 09:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

Deniers are paid a hell of a lot of money to quash any real discussion of this almost anywhere, we see it here with people like Yohe.

https:// http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called “dark money,” or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

They got their playbook from big tobacco which made an unholy alliance with King coal and the rest to try and extend their kill zone, millions of smokers a year apparently wasn’t enough, they now want to kill most life on Earth.

https:// http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.

Sound familiar, that is the mantra of Yohe here, just how “inconclusive” the science on climate change is.

Anyone who is claiming that global warming and climate change isn’t happening, isn’t caused by us or isn’t one of the most serious issues we as a species have ever faced is being paid to lie or passing on the message of some of the most destructive con artists in history.

spamblock line

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

The current US president is also a climate change denier.

- He appointed the former head of Exxon Mobil as his secretary of state.

- His head of the EPA has sued it multiple times to prevent it from regulating the emissions of CO2.

- Openly promotes the continued burning of coal.

- Pulled America out of the Paris Accord on climate change mitigation.

Nice to know that the leader of the US is on the side of the people who want to kill us all for a few bucks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 03 July 2017 09:44 PM

The current US president is also a climate change denier.

- He appointed the former head of Exxon Mobil as his secretary of state.

- His head of the EPA has sued it multiple times to prevent it from regulating the emissions of CO2.

- Openly promotes the continued burning of coal.

- Pulled America out of the Paris Accord on climate change mitigation.

Nice to know that the leader of the US is on the side of the people who want to kill us all for a few bucks.

Yup and most Americans went along with it, not giving it a second thought.

Then they wonder why I’m disgusted with my generation and all though who were so convinced they were so smart,
yet we allowed this to happen.  It’s going to become one ugly ride - all because we worship greed above all.

The problem and the solutions have been understood a half century, if in broad outline, it was still an accurate outline,
(as the continuing global weather reports remind all who are brave enough to keep up with them).

It’s still going to play itself out over generations. - so much more reason to be rational and thoughtful, but that boat sure left the dock.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2017 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 July 2017 10:17 PM

Yup and most Americans went along with it, not giving it a second thought.

Then they wonder why I’m disgusted with my generation and all though who were so convinced they were so smart,
yet we allowed this to happen.  It’s going to become one ugly ride - all because we worship greed above all.

The problem and the solutions have been understood a half century, if in broad outline, it was still an accurate outline,
(as the continuing global weather reports remind all who are brave enough to keep up with them).

It’s still going to play itself out over generations. - so much more reason to be rational and thoughtful, but that boat sure left the dock.

It’s the American dream turned into a nightmare.

So many people go along because they believe this myth that if they buy into the religion of greed then one day they too will be standing at the top of mountain pissing down on everybody else.

The game is rigged to exploit the worst of human nature not encourage the best, and we are well on the way to killing not just ourselves but most life on the planet.

There will be no winners, just endless wasteland for millions of years until nature eventually heals itself from our madness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2017 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 June 2017 10:52 PM
MikeYohe - 30 June 2017 03:04 PM

We really don’t know a lot about the Jumps and Lags. Computer models should be able to figure that out.

Besides grossly misstating the evolving science - Your “lag time” doesn’t make one bit of difference except for understanding ancient history.

When we put extra CO2 into our atmosphere today - THERE IS NO LAG IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO START REACTING TO INFRARED RADIATION.
As for the lag time between increasing concentrations and their impact permeating the climate system, I’ve heard 30 years mentioned, but more study is being done, at least till the GOP/Trump/Oligarch cut backs stop the research.

Our unfamiliarity with climate is a prime example. It’s not the average warming set forth in climate projections that are used as the basis for policy by consensus organizations that broadly summarize the science, it’s the extremes. It’s not a distant problem for future generations, it’s happening now. Simply reducing or even halting emissions is not the solution as even the best case scenario of 80 percent reduction by 2050 allows double to triple the warming already endured–in just 35 to 45 years. Most importantly, it’s the lag in impacts from the time of emissions that critical.
https://climatediscovery.org

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2017 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 04 July 2017 11:12 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 June 2017 10:52 PM
MikeYohe - 30 June 2017 03:04 PM

We really don’t know a lot about the Jumps and Lags. Computer models should be able to figure that out.

Besides grossly misstating the evolving science - Your “lag time” doesn’t make one bit of difference except for understanding ancient history.

When we put extra CO2 into our atmosphere today - THERE IS NO LAG IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO START REACTING TO INFRARED RADIATION.
As for the lag time between increasing concentrations and their impact permeating the climate system, I’ve heard 30 years mentioned, but more study is being done, at least till the GOP/Trump/Oligarch cut backs stop the research.

Our unfamiliarity with climate is a prime example. It’s not the average warming set forth in climate projections that are used as the basis for policy by consensus organizations that broadly summarize the science, it’s the extremes. It’s not a distant problem for future generations, it’s happening now. Simply reducing or even halting emissions is not the solution as even the best case scenario of 80 percent reduction by 2050 allows double to triple the warming already endured–in just 35 to 45 years. Most importantly, it’s the lag in impacts from the time of emissions that critical.
https://climatediscovery.org

Not sure why you tossed in that link.  If you just wanted to share what appears to be a cool informative general information website - cool.
If you were trying to use it to support your case, then you should do more than point at the whole damned book.

I’ll give it to you “lag in impacts” is much better than my clunky verbiage.

Doing a quick search to find information that actually looks into the topic I was surprised to find it apparently that lag in impact is much shorter than assumed.

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira
Published 2 December 2014 • © 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, Number 12
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002

Open Access, you can read the whole thing.

Abstract
It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming
following a particular CO2 emission. Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013),
we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.
We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia.

If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains.
Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. Our results indicate that benefit from
avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission.
While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations. ...

there’s much more - check it out

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2017 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2016-12-24

Still none of that addresses the matter of why scientists are so sure about greenhouse gases.
That would be the “Carbon Theory”.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 6
1