Global Warming Makes Weather In Boreal Summer More Persistent

[donsutherland1]

41 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What about ocean currents?  What about global cloud cover? What about global convection? You left off a bunch of stuff. That is why they invoke the use of climate models. But these models don't handle said clouds or convection explicitly. So it is a leap of faith to believe them....

Coupled climate models consider ocean currents and circulations. But even excluding the other variables, the natural forcings don’t explain the observed warming, but inclusion of greenhouse gases does. Even if one set aside the dynamic models and just did a pure statistical analysis, one would find that the natural forcings and ENSO would do a poor job replicating what has happened since 1950. In contrast, just a straight analysis of moving averages of CO2 (as a proxy for greenhouse gases) as the independent variable and the moving average global temperature would have an extremely close fit. The coefficient of determination would be well above +0.9. 

Accepting the physical basis for the warming based on the long understood properties of the greenhouse gases and changes in atmospheric content and seeing observations in line with those expectations does not require a leap of faith. Dismissing the overwhelming body of evidence and hoping that there is some hidden mystery variable that could explain the divergence between natural forcings and temperatures requires the leap of faith. Leaps of faith, of course, are not science.

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Really, try 4 times the state of SC for solar farms and wind energy. Green energy companies downplay bird deaths to make a money. They are just like any other big corporations. Solar farms same thing. Why not have panels on people's homes and buildings?  Because there would be no grid to sell you power.  The "green" corporate folks are looking to cash in on this exaggerated climate change predictions. You think they really care about the environment? Naive.   Any who the heck do you think you are?  I have explained to you dozens of times that CO2 does not drive climate and you don't listen. You say I am propagating lies? I could say the same thing about you. But I am not stooping to your level.  This is unfair and malicious of you. I continue to try to get you removed from this forum. This forum has no place for climate activists that are abusive and offensive to others. People like you are shutting down science. I hope I am successful in getting you removed. Maybe you can start you own forum and I won't be on it. 

 

 

Again. This is a lie. Solar generates 1 gigawatt per 2.8 acres. The us consumes 4.1 million gigawatts. 4.1*2.5*million = 10.25 million acres. The area of South Carolina is 20.5 million acres. You lied and said 4 times the state, when in reality it is half the state to go 100% solar.  And this is the calculation to go 100% solar which nobody is suggesting. A reasonable plan would be to go 15% solar and 45% wind and 20% natural gas 10% hydro and nuclear. So you only need 1.5 million acres of solar. Half of this goes on roofs. Then you Only need  less than 1 million acres of solar farms. The area of South Carolina is 20 times more. There are 100s of millions of acres of cattle ranches and monoculture agricultural full of pesticides that could be used to cite this 1 million acre solar farms.

Did you just make up your "4X the state of SC" number? Because I can't find a single source to corroborate it. Every source I've looked at confirms my math above. If you made it up, shame on you. Otherwise please post a reference.

 

Environmentalist don’t downplay bird deaths. They don’t have to. The numbers speak for themselves. Wind turbines kill 400k per year. While cats and house windows kill billions. What about this don’t you understand? Why are you hypocritically criticizing wind but not house windows, domestic cats and communication towers which kill 100 times more? Should we paint our windows black? Kill our cats? Knock down our communication  towers? Where is your fake outrage on these pressing issues for birds?

 

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/lossetal2013windfacilities.pdf

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Coupled climate models consider ocean currents and circulations. But even excluding the other variables, the natural forcings don’t explain the observed warming, but inclusion of greenhouse gases does. Even if one set aside the dynamic models and just did a pure statistical analysis, one would find that the natural forcings and ENSO would do a poor job replicating what has happened since 1950. In contrast, just a straight analysis of moving averages of CO2 (as a proxy for greenhouse gases) as the independent variable and the moving average global temperature would have an extremely close fit. The coefficient of determination would be well above +0.9. 

Accepting the physical basis for the warming based on the long understood properties of the greenhouse gases and changes in atmospheric content and seeing observations in line with those expectations does not require a leap of faith. Dismissing the overwhelming body of evidence and hoping that there is some hidden mystery variable that could explain the divergence between natural forcings and temperatures requires the leap of faith. Leaps of faith, of course, are not science.

So from roughly 950 AD to 1350 AD there was 4 centuries of warming culminating in the Medieval Warm Period globally. What natural factors caused that? What natural factors caused the Little Ice Age? What about the Dark Age cold period, the roman warm period? There is about a 1000 year or so cycle. What natural factors caused that?  We just don't know enough about natural forcings to make such bold statements. Overwhelming body of evidence? What evidence? Its climate models. That's not evidence.  Estimating all the energy flows with such certainty?   This is junk science in my opinion.

[donsutherland1]

53 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

So from roughly 950 AD to 1350 AD there was 4 centuries of warming culminating in the Medieval Warm Period globally. What natural factors caused that? What natural factors caused the Little Ice Age? What about the Dark Age cold period, the roman warm period? There is about a 1000 year or so cycle. What natural factors caused that?  We just don't know enough about natural forcings to make such bold statements. Overwhelming body of evidence? What evidence? Its climate models. That's not evidence.  Estimating all the energy flows with such certainty?   This is junk science in my opinion.

There are numerous paleoclimate proxies that can allow researchers to construct temperature records (sediments, coral, ice cores, leaf wax, tree rings, etc.).

For some basic information:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/nature’s-archives-piecing-together-12000-years-earth’s-climate-story

Whether one uses temperature records constructed from the proxies or the instrument record, the recent warmth exceeds that of at least the past 1,000 years globally and the increase in temperatures has been exceptional. While the natural forcings do well in reproducing the temperature record prior to 1950, only the addition of greenhouse gases allows for the reproduction of the temperature record subsequent to 1950. The physical properties of those gases are also known. The probability that global temperatures would be rising consistent with increasing greenhouse gas forcing, can be replicated very well only with the inclusion of such forcing, and are behaving as expected based on understanding of physics, but would have little or nothing to do with such gases is extremely remote at best.

[blizzard1024]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

There are numerous paleoclimate proxies that can allow researchers to construct temperature records (sediments, coral, ice cores, leaf wax, tree rings, etc.).

For some basic information:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/nature’s-archives-piecing-together-12000-years-earth’s-climate-story

Whether one uses temperature records constructed from the proxies or the instrument record, the recent warmth exceeds that of at least the past 1,000 years globally and the increase in temperatures has been exceptional. While the natural forcings do well in reproducing the temperature record prior to 1950, only the addition of greenhouse gases allows for the reproduction of the temperature record subsequent to 1950. The physical properties of those gases are also known. The probability that global temperatures would be rising consistent with increasing greenhouse gas forcing, can be replicated very well only with the inclusion of such forcing, and are behaving as expected based on understanding of physics, but would have little or nothing to do with such gases is extremely remote at best.

Yeah stitching together coarse sparse proxy data set with much higher resolution actual measurements works really well. / sarc.    Greenhouse gases only are significant if there is a positive water vapor feedback and this is very much uncertain from scientists that are objective. 

 

 

[the ghost of leroy]

lol

[donsutherland1]

23 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yeah stitching together coarse sparse proxy data set with much higher resolution actual measurements works really well. / sarc.    Greenhouse gases only are significant if there is a positive water vapor feedback and this is very much uncertain from scientists that are objective. 

 

 

No one expects that proxy data would be as precise as the instrument data. But the agreement among the proxies gives one confidence that they provide reasonable insight into past climate regimes.

Below is a chart of the forcings (1980-2011):

Source: IPCC

The anthropogenic greenhouse gases explain most of the energy imbalance and warming that has occurred since 1980. Solar irradiance had a net negative (cooling) contribution.

Finally, scientists are in strong consensus about the role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving the energy imbalance and warming. Uncertainties about feedbacks and other details exist, but there is strong (95% confidence in the last IPCC report and likely to be 99%-100% confidence in the upcoming one) about the primary cause of those developments.

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yeah stitching together coarse sparse proxy data set with much higher resolution actual measurements works really well. / sarc.    Greenhouse gases only are significant if there is a positive water vapor feedback and this is very much uncertain from scientists that are objective. 

 

 

The differences in resolution are well appreciated in the literature. Your sarcasm again reveals a lack of humility. these are all issues that people much smarter and more experienced than you have discussed and debated at great length. The conclusions that the current warming is faster and warmer than previous warnings is well supported by the mathematical uncertainty calculations that relate the difference datasets of different resolution. It’s like you just discovered that thermometers and proxies have different resolution yesterday. Go read a book jeez. Again with the lack of humbleness and respect for those that have spent lifetimes on the data and math to draw these conclusions. You read a few internet blog posts and a couple peer reviewed abstracts and you think you are an expert.

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Again. This is a lie. Solar generates 1 gigawatt per 2.8 acres. The us consumes 4.1 million gigawatts. 4.1*2.5*million = 10.25 million acres. The area of South Carolina is 20.5 million acres. You lied and said 4 times the state, when in reality it is half the state to go 100% solar.  And this is the calculation to go 100% solar which nobody is suggesting. A reasonable plan would be to go 15% solar and 45% wind and 20% natural gas 10% hydro and nuclear. So you only need 1.5 million acres of solar. Half of this goes on roofs. Then you Only need  less than 1 million acres of solar farms. The area of South Carolina is 20 times more. There are 100s of millions of acres of cattle ranches and monoculture agricultural full of pesticides that could be used to cite this 1 million acre solar farms.

Did you just make up your "4X the state of SC" number? Because I can't find a single source to corroborate it. Every source I've looked at confirms my math above. If you made it up, shame on you. Otherwise please post a reference.

 

Environmentalist don’t downplay bird deaths. They don’t have to. The numbers speak for themselves. Wind turbines kill 400k per year. While cats and house windows kill billions. What about this don’t you understand? Why are you hypocritically criticizing wind but not house windows, domestic cats and communication towers which kill 100 times more? Should we paint our windows black? Kill our cats? Knock down our communication  towers? Where is your fake outrage on these pressing issues for birds?

 

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/lossetal2013windfacilities.pdf

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf

So are you going to stop telling your lies about wind and solar or just ignore this blizzard? Again evidence you are not here in good faith to learn but just spout off your opinions and ignore fact based correction of your mistakes.

[Bhs1975]

So are you going to stop telling your lies about wind and solar or just ignore this blizzard? Again evidence you are not here in good faith to learn but just spout off your opinions and ignore fact based correction of your mistakes.

I know right? WTF is your problem dude?Don has corrected you over and over and over again and I am getting sick of it. STFU with your nonsense.

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

No one expects that proxy data would be as precise as the instrument data. But the agreement among the proxies gives one confidence that they provide reasonable insight into past climate regimes.

Below is a chart of the forcings (1980-2011):

Source: IPCC

The anthropogenic greenhouse gases explain most of the energy imbalance and warming that has occurred since 1980. Solar irradiance had a net negative (cooling) contribution.

Finally, scientists are in strong consensus about the role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving the energy imbalance and warming. Uncertainties about feedbacks and other details exist, but there is strong (95% confidence in the last IPCC report and likely to be 99%-100% confidence in the upcoming one) about the primary cause of those developments.

Where is tropospheric water vapor in all this?  That is the PRIMARY GHG.  Everyone knows that. And don't tell me it is a feedback. That is a cop out. Plus the Earth cools a substantial amount from convection. If the Earth didn't have convection, the Earth's Greenhouse effect would be a 75C instead of 33C. This goes all the way back to Manabe and Strickler (1964).  So convective air currents and weather, reduce the Greenhouse effect by 42C. So it is weather and convection that ultimately controls the natural greenhouse effect. Precipitation is a sink of water vapor if you think of it.  

 

 

 

[bluewave]

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

 

Earth absorbs energy from sunlight, but as the surface warms, it also emits energy in the form of infrared radiation (which we know of as heat) out into space. Water vapor and CO2, however, act like a cap, making it more difficult for Earth to get rid of this energy. Without gases like these to absorb the energy, our planet’s average surface temperature would have been near zero degrees Fahrenheit.

About 99 percent of the atmosphere is made of oxygen and nitrogen, which cannot absorb the infrared radiation the Earth emits. Of the remaining 1 percent, the main molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are CO2 and water vapor, because their atoms are able to vibrate in just the right way to absorb the energy that the Earth gives off. After these gases absorb the energy, they emit half of it back to Earth and half of it into space, trapping some of the heat within the atmosphere. This trapping of heat is what we call the greenhouse effect. Because of the greenhouse effect created by these trace gases, the average temperature of the Earth is around 15˚C, or 59˚F, which allows for life to exist.

CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has “windows” that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.

The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius. We are already increasing the amount of energy that bounces back to the Earth. Because of the greenhouse effect, this is causing global warming with its many destructive impacts.

Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.

 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Where is tropospheric water vapor in all this?  That is the PRIMARY GHG.  Everyone knows that. And don't tell me it is a feedback. That is a cop out. Plus the Earth cools a substantial amount from convection. If the Earth didn't have convection, the Earth's Greenhouse effect would be a 75C instead of 33C. This goes all the way back to Manabe and Strickler (1964).  So convective air currents and weather, reduce the Greenhouse effect by 42C. So it is weather and convection that ultimately controls the natural greenhouse effect. Precipitation is a sink of water vapor if you think of it.  

 

 

 

The chart displayed radiative forcing. Atmospheric methane leads to a modest increase in stratospheric water vapor via oxidation.

The maximum amount of tropospheric water vapor is a function of temperature. It increases at roughly 7% for every 1 degree C rise in temperature. Climate models incorporate changes in water vapor, so water vapor is not ignored. This increase in water vapor is one reason why climate scientists have correctly projected an increase in intense precipitation events. But, by definition, that is a feedback and it is one that amplifies the warming. Stating that it is a feedback is a fact, not a “cop out.” 

If one wants to argue that the increase in tropospheric water vapor is the equivalent of an indirect anthropogenic forcing, that’s not far-fetched, as its observed increase is the result of a temperature rise. In turn, that temperature rise is predominantly the result of rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not natural forcings or other natural processes.

[bdgwx]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:03 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Where is tropospheric water vapor in all this?

It is an amplifying feedback only. Since it does not force the climate I believe its amplifying effect is included in the C per W/m^2 part.

The best analogy here are audio amplifiers. There are many agents that can catalyze a sound: drummer, guitarist, vocalist, etc. Each agent has their effect amplified by the same fixed amount, but the amplifier does not catalyze a sound on its own. The final noise level is a product of all individually amplified agents. Like with climate forcing agents it is convenient to quantify each noise forcing agent's contribution to the final sound output with the amplification factor already included. 

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

And don't tell me it is a feedback. That is a cop out. 

 

 

 

Contrary to empirical observation, theoretical physics, massive amounts of peer reviewed literature and in your fairly uneducated opinion. Sure.

[bdgwx]

I was going through my Parametrization Schemes book by David Stensrud to try and better understand how GCMs handle water vapor. It's pretty complicated. Quite frankly...over my head. But I do see that many of the physics modules use the Clausius-Clapeyron and other relationships. I think if there was anything wrong with our understanding of the thermodynamic nature of water vapor and associated feedbacks then it would have had an impairing effect on weather forecasts and would have been noticed long ago. 

[donsutherland1]

35 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Contrary to empirical observation, theoretical physics, massive amounts of peer reviewed literature and in your fairly uneducated opinion. Sure.

What one is witnessing in this thread, unless I am somehow misreading things, is a general unwillingness to consider evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs and unflinching support for those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence (including numerous peer-reviewed papers) and the case made to demonstrate that such beliefs are flawed. In contrast, the alternative to AGW has virtually no support in the literature (and none that I could find in the recent literature) and it cannot explain the warming that has taken place since 1950, and especially from the late 20th century onward. Nevertheless, all that is largely ignored or dismissed. Those approaches of maintaining flawed belief in spite of the evidence are more consistent with dogma than science.

Science is based on evidence and it is responsive to new empirical information (conclusions can and do change when there is sufficient credible evidence to justify such changes). This responsiveness to better information/discovery is what has allowed science to advance in a way that has expanded human understanding/knowledge and made possible much of the human progress that has been achieved.

[LibertyBell]

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

What one is witnessing in this thread, unless I am somehow misreading things, is a general unwillingness to consider evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs and unflinching support for those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence (including numerous peer-reviewed papers) and the case made to demonstrate that such beliefs are flawed. In contrast, the alternative to AGW has virtually no support in the literature (and none that I could find in the recent literature) and it cannot explain the warming that has taken place since 1950, and especially from the late 20th century onward. Nevertheless, all that is largely ignored or dismissed. Those approaches of maintaining flawed belief in spite of the evidence are more consistent with dogma than science.

Science is based on evidence and it is responsive to new empirical information (conclusions can and do change when there is sufficient credible evidence to justify such changes). This responsiveness to better information/discovery is what has allowed science to advance in a way that has expanded human understanding/knowledge and made possible much of the human progress that has been achieved.

Don it is interesting if one substitutes the available evidence into some other field of science in an analogous way then the evidence is readily accepted by everyone outside of the extreme fringe (whom we label "flat earthers" and the like.)  I have to think that there is effective propaganda that is corrupting the minds of those who would otherwise be more objective about this.

 

Just looking at the new data coming in on how fast sea level is rising is quite sobering- it's as bad as the worst case scenario models said it would be.

But I still have hope.....Europe seems to be closing the era on fossil fuel powered vehicles:

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/21/2020 at 11:38 AM, skierinvermont said:

As I've explained 4 times now, the bird deaths from wind are negligible. House cats kill far more birds. House windows kill far more birds. Should we all kill our cats and paint our windows black? Wind is almost entirely done on already very disrupted habitats already primarily on monoculture pesticide herbicide corn and soybean farms. 

The amount of land solar would require to power the entire U.S. takes up is less than .1% of agricultural land in the U.S. Should we get rid of all the farms that are 1000X more expansive? Solar can also be done on roofs and deserts, unlike agricultural land.

What is your problem? I have explained this 4 times now and you keep repeating the same brainwashed nonsense. Lies will never persuade anybody. You post these lies, I will correct them every single time, and you will lose credibility. And I will continue keeping track of how many times you repeat the same lie (4 for this particular lie). Either change your tune, or go post on some other forum where people are interested in your lies.

we're building 300 miles of windfarms offshore in NY and NJ...... I have read an indepth analysis of them and they do not increase bird deaths, because they use good AI algorithms that allow them to shut off a section of the windfarm when birds are approaching.  They are quite effective.  Many more bird deaths occur when birds slam into windows than windfarms.  In addition to that, these coastal windfarms may lower the energy of oncoming TC's (somewhat).

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/21/2020 at 11:07 AM, bdgwx said:

How do you know General Relativity is correct? It is but a model of gravity. I believe that model is correct because it makes predictions of the precession of Mercury, time dilation of the GPS satellites, etc. that match observations within a reasonable margin of error. It is the same with the consensus theory of climate change. We believe the models are correct because they makes predictions that match observations within a reasonable margin of error.

The natural-only or natural-mostly hypothesis makes predictions that deviate from observations by an unacceptable amount. The predictions are bad enough that they are off by an order of magnitude in predicting the EEI at least after 1950. In fact, they are so bad that they often cannot even predict the sign of the temperature change.

Ya know...I'm skeptical of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Between the two they make what is often called the worst prediction in all of science regarding the cosmological constant.  One or both of them is wrong by an amount so astonishing that we cannot even fathom it. But I still think QM and GR are useful and they are certainly better than nothing. The same can be said for the consensus theory of climate change. The models deployed are not perfect. They never will be. But they are undeniably useful and represent the best of what we have.

It is okay to advocate for natural-only or natural-mostly models for the post WWII era. But to convince cranky skeptics like me to use them in favor of what is already available you have to demonstrate that 1) they are testable, 2) they make useful predictions,  and 3) that they match reality better and/or are simpler in answering certain questions than what we already have. 

astrophysics, I love it ;-)  the cosmological constant may be better explained if we have a multiverse and a cyclic big bounce universe via black hole cosmology ala Poplawski's conjecture with a CC that's slowly winding down (as indicated by some supercomputer simulations).  But that is way OT lol.

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

we're building 300 miles of windfarms offshore in NY and NJ...... I have read an indepth analysis of them and they do not increase bird deaths, because they use good AI algorithms that allow them to shut off a section of the windfarm when birds are approaching.  They are quite effective.  Many more bird deaths occur when birds slam into windows than windfarms.  In addition to that, these coastal windfarms may lower the energy of oncoming TC's (somewhat).

 

This will be a disaster for seabirds. How can they tell how many are killed when they drop to the bottom of the ocean.   Wind farm lower the energy of incoming TCs?  Smh. 

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

What one is witnessing in this thread, unless I am somehow misreading things, is a general unwillingness to consider evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs and unflinching support for those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence (including numerous peer-reviewed papers) and the case made to demonstrate that such beliefs are flawed. In contrast, the alternative to AGW has virtually no support in the literature (and none that I could find in the recent literature) and it cannot explain the warming that has taken place since 1950, and especially from the late 20th century onward. Nevertheless, all that is largely ignored or dismissed. Those approaches of maintaining flawed belief in spite of the evidence are more consistent with dogma than science.

Science is based on evidence and it is responsive to new empirical information (conclusions can and do change when there is sufficient credible evidence to justify such changes). This responsiveness to better information/discovery is what has allowed science to advance in a way that has expanded human understanding/knowledge and made possible much of the human progress that has been achieved.

 

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

[skierinvermont]

6 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This will be a disaster for seabirds. How can they tell how many are killed when they drop to the bottom of the ocean.   Wind farm lower the energy of incoming TCs?  Smh. 

As I’ve explained, with citations, 5 times now, wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds. House windows, communication towers, and domestic cats kill hundreds of times more. Should we kill our cats, paint our windows black and tear dow communication towers?

[blizzard1024]

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

As I’ve explained, with citations, 5 times now, wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds. House windows, communication towers, and domestic cats kill hundreds of times more. Should we kill our cats, paint our windows black and tear dow communication towers?

How do you know that? Keep cats indoors don't kill them. Keep screens on your windows.  Comms tower use white strobe lights instead of red lights. There are many things. But dotting the landscape with turbines is going to be an environmental disaster not to mention the aesthetics. Plus where do you get the energy to build them and solar panels...fossil fuels. But solar panels have a lot of hazardous materials that will have to go somewhere when the panels need to be replaced. This whole thing is dangerous to the environment right now. We are not ready for a wholescale overhaul of our energy infrastructure especially with such an uncertain science.  

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

What one is witnessing in this thread, unless I am somehow misreading things, is a general unwillingness to consider evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs and unflinching support for those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence (including numerous peer-reviewed papers) and the case made to demonstrate that such beliefs are flawed. In contrast, the alternative to AGW has virtually no support in the literature (and none that I could find in the recent literature) and it cannot explain the warming that has taken place since 1950, and especially from the late 20th century onward. Nevertheless, all that is largely ignored or dismissed. Those approaches of maintaining flawed belief in spite of the evidence are more consistent with dogma than science.

Science is based on evidence and it is responsive to new empirical information (conclusions can and do change when there is sufficient credible evidence to justify such changes). This responsiveness to better information/discovery is what has allowed science to advance in a way that has expanded human understanding/knowledge and made possible much of the human progress that has been achieved.

So what did the ancient people think when there was tremendous periods of warming and cooling? How can you explain these century plus long warming or cooling periods. CO2 didn't have anything to do with this variability. We could easily be naturally warming with some added effect from CO2.  see graph below which is for Greenland ice core data but overall reflects rapid warming and cooling periods of the planet. And yes this is peer reviewed. It is Richard Alleys work. 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

How do you know that? Keep cats indoors don't kill them. Keep screens on your windows.  Comms tower use white strobe lights instead of red lights. There are many things. But dotting the landscape with turbines is going to be an environmental disaster not to mention the aesthetics. Plus where do you get the energy to build them and solar panels...fossil fuels. But solar panels have a lot of hazardous materials that will have to go somewhere when the panels need to be replaced. This whole thing is dangerous to the environment right now. We are not ready for a wholescale overhaul of our energy infrastructure especially with such an uncertain science.  

The energy required to build a wind turbine is negligible compared to the energy it produces over its life. All you are doing is repeating right wing talking points which are unpersuasive and show your lack of critical thinking. I’m glad to hear you are equally concerned about domestic cats, house windows, and communication towers but in reality you should be 100 times more concerned since they kill hundreds of times more birds. I love birds and bird watching and I am not remotely concerned about wind turbines.

 

screens cannot be put on all windows. Strobe lights on comm towers don’t solve anything unless you put lights on every inch of every pole, beam, and support wire, but if they did why couldn’t we also just put them on windmills lol. I guess strobe lights in your magical thinking world only can be placed on communication towers which are way taller and have invisible support wires and beams that migratory birds have no chance of seeing. You really are one of the biggest hypocrites I hvae ever encountered. BTW, you have the entire politics forum laughing at you now too for your blatant hypocrisy. The only solution is to knock down all the towers and paint windows black.

 

The oil industry kills 500k to a 1 million birds in the U.S. each year in oil waste pits. It kills million more in spills for which they are no longer legally liable.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

So what did the ancient people think when there was tremendous periods of warming and cooling? How can you explain these century plus long warming or cooling periods. CO2 didn't have anything to do with this variability. We could easily be naturally warming with some added effect from CO2.  see graph below which is for Greenland ice core data but overall reflects rapid warming and cooling periods of the planet. And yes this is peer reviewed. It is Richard Alleys work. 

The Younger Dryas cooling may have been kicked off by a comet or asteroid impact. One paper that assesses that hypothesis is below:

https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Younger-Dryas-impact-hypothesis-a-critical-review.pdf

It should also be noted that the data is for central Greenland, not the world. In addition, the graph ends at 1855. 

[skierinvermont]

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

Lindzen has taken fossil fuel money his whole career. Besides the whole paper is flawed and reads as though a high school senior wrote it. His whole argument is premised that there was 3w/m2 of forcing by 2010, he based this off of nothing. No evidence was provided and I’ve read the whole paper. The actual figure is only 2.3. Then he does some magic without any evidence to convert forcing into temperature based off hypothesized climate sensitivity without any any serious consideration of how oceans absorbing the heat slow the warming down. It’s a bunch of hand waving and radical oversimplification written by a senile old man trying to collect his last check from the Koch brothers.

 

It also had no formal peer review. And I’ve never seen a paper where the authors toot their own horn so much. 
 

The Judith curry paper - despite its flaws - was infinitely better than this one and comes to a much higher estimate of sensitivity with a central estimate of 1.55. Lindzen comes up with a hard maximum of 1.5 and a central estimate of like 1. But all his hand waving, false assumptions, oversimplification etc are all that really separates this from the Judith curry paper. It’s the same basic method of estimating climate sensitivity from current temp trends, he just has no attention to detail or getting the numbers correct. At least curry tried to appear scientific and didn’t just make stuff up in her paper.

 

Its sort of funny but also quite sad that you think this is brilliant science

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

So what did the ancient people think when there was tremendous periods of warming and cooling? How can you explain these century plus long warming or cooling periods. CO2 didn't have anything to do with this variability. We could easily be naturally warming with some added effect from CO2.  see graph below which is for Greenland ice core data but overall reflects rapid warming and cooling periods of the planet. And yes this is peer reviewed. It is Richard Alleys work. 

Here is Dr. Alley's data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Notice that the rate of warming today is unprecedented during the Holocene per Dr. Alley. The warming rate is so high today that it smashes the record from that noticeable blip from 8210-7820 that admittedly looks pretty robust at first glance. The problem is that the x-axis on this specific graph has non-linear scaling (who does that?) and it is missing the contemporary warming era. This graph ends in 1855...a full 165 years in the past. If you stich on the last 165 years of warming we are at least close to the peaks of the Minoan warm period and Holocene climate optimum in the best case and may have already popped the bounds of the y-axis in the worst case.

BTW...here's a good lecture by Dr. Alley if you want to hear his take on the science. 

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

That is a flawed paper.

1. It comes with a statement of principle that constrains objectivity right from the start. Credible scientific work does not constrain itself with political assumptions. Nevertheless that paper contained the following disclaimer on its opening page:

The CO2 Coalition of climate scientists and energy economists informs the public (1) about the net beneficial impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the atmosphere, land and oceans, and (2) the net negative impact on the economy, living standards and life expectancy of reducing these emissions by restricting access to energy.

2. It builds its case from a flawed foundation including the Shaviv (2008) paper in which the inability to attribute energy absorbed/emitted by the oceans to changes in solar irradiance led the researchers not to acknowledge the dominant role greenhouse gases were playing even then in the earth’s energy imbalance, but to speculate that there was an unknown amplifying factor. That, to be kind, is an irrational conclusion. It is illogical, because the earth’s energy budget and its imbalance have been calculated. It is unscientific, because it avoids scientific understanding related to radiative forcing.

3. The paper was not peer reviewed.

Not surprisingly, that paper’s conclusions did not stand the test of time. That paper was an outlier at the time it was written when it came to estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Subsequent research, including some newly published papers, have narrowed the range attributable to ECS. This new information has further undermined the above paper’s conclusions.