Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 111   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 49154 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #720 on: September 01, 2019, 09:16:46 pm »

Weird use of probabilities. The chance of global warming in the case we do nothing is why it is. What changes is the chance that we accurately assess that probability and also the chance that we can influence the chance of global warming if we take action. The 97% (or whatever yuur favourite number is) is kit the chance of GW, it's the likelihood that we currently correctly assess the likelihood of GW.

I recommend you think of another theory :-)
In 2008, 97% of economists thought the economy was just fine.  They weren't looking at the data that showed housing was way overpriced.  There was a huge bubble that either wasn't seen or ignored by the 97%.  But there it was.  A few people saw it and made loads of money selling mortgage instruments short.  But the collapse was going to happen even though 97% said it wouldn;t. 

If 97% of climatologists think that CO2 is going to raise the earth's temperature let;s say 3 degrees, but they missed an important criteria just as the economists did, the earth isn't going up the three degrees.  In effect, it is what it is.  Errors made in calculation, whether by  race handicappers, economists or climatologists will not change the actual odds and final results.  Belief does not affect outcomes; even beliefs at 97% confidence.   

Actually, the handicappers and economists can predict better than the climatologists.  The first two have some past results they can compare too to draw some confidence in their formulas.  The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with.  It's never been tested.  It's all based on hope and faith they're right.  Sounds like a religious experience.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #721 on: September 02, 2019, 12:50:03 am »

Screw global warming 70 years from now.  I hope the climatologists are accurate that Hurricane Dorian is going to turn north before it slams into West Palm Beach area and north of there.  They're running out of time and I have family and friends who live down there in FLorida where the storm is currently aiming.  Watching the news right now that the turn north will happen is losing confidence.  They're recommending that people get up early to check the news to see if the predictions are wrong!!! Now they're talking that residents should think about moving out and going further west just in case.  Are they serious?  A million people to leave now right before the storm arrives?    There's maybe two roads that go east to west in that area.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #722 on: September 02, 2019, 03:37:24 am »

Belief does not affect outcomes; even beliefs at 97% confidence.   

Correct. And nobody suggested that it does. Another straw man.

Quote
Actually, the handicappers and economists can predict better than the climatologists.  The first two have some past results they can compare too to draw some confidence in their formulas.  The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with.  It's never been tested.
The origin of the co2 does not have any bearing on the prediction so this is a weird thing to say,

Quote
It's all based on hope and faith they're right.  Sounds like a religious experience.
It may sound like that to you but that's only because you don't understand it.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14533
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #723 on: September 02, 2019, 09:20:08 am »

There are two kinds of people who claim to understand long-term climate change and how to control, or at least modify it. There are those silly enough to believe what they’re saying. These people are earnest and in a hurry to convince you that their analyses are correct and their solutions effective. Then there are the politicians, distrustful of the panic prosecuted by the earnest believers, but unwilling to let a crisis – even a synthetic one -- go to waste. These are the ones who will try to convince you that government can solve the problem; that government can solve any problem, especially if the government follows their plan.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #724 on: September 02, 2019, 10:02:42 am »

Correct. And nobody suggested that it does. Another straw man.
The origin of the co2 does not have any bearing on the prediction so this is a weird thing to say,
It may sound like that to you but that's only because you don't understand it.
Your point is in conflict with your sides argument about climate change.  The whole prediction for global warming is that it is due to man-made increase of CO2 caused by our burning of fossil fuels.  Are you now denying this is the prediction?

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #725 on: September 02, 2019, 10:12:52 am »

Your point is in conflict with your sides argument about climate change.  The whole prediction for global warming is that it is due to man-made increase of CO2 caused by our burning of fossil fuels.  Are you now denying this is the prediction?

No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #726 on: September 02, 2019, 10:44:39 am »

No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.

OK.  So I didn't understand.  Please clarify what you meant.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #727 on: September 02, 2019, 10:58:20 am »

OK.  So I didn't understand.  Please clarify what you meant.

I was responding to your statement The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with. 

The link between climate and CO2 exists (or doesn't) regardless of whether the experience is man made or not (for example if a huge volcano had piped out the same CO2 as man, and the climate did or didn't warm, that would be a test).
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #728 on: September 02, 2019, 11:17:07 am »

I was responding to your statement The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with. 

The link between climate and CO2 exists (or doesn't) regardless of whether the experience is man made or not (for example if a huge volcano had piped out the same CO2 as man, and the climate did or didn't warm, that would be a test).
There are different things going on between volcanoes and man producing CO2. Other elements, methane, etc.  They may or may not be similar or causal in the same ways.  Knowing what volcanoes in the past did would be a good predictor of what volcanoes would do in the future.  But since we never had man produce CO2 before as we are now, there are no predictors regarding the current situation.  We would have to wait 50-100 years or more to test the theories. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16931
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #729 on: September 02, 2019, 12:28:26 pm »

No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.

Or that you didn't write it carefully enough (i.e., less open to misunderstanding) ;)

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #730 on: September 02, 2019, 12:31:24 pm »

There are different things going on between volcanoes and man producing CO2. Other elements, methane, etc.  They may or may not be similar or causal in the same ways.  Knowing what volcanoes in the past did would be a good predictor of what volcanoes would do in the future.  But since we never had man produce CO2 before as we are now, there are no predictors regarding the current situation.  We would have to wait 50-100 years or more to test the theories.

CO2 is CO2
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #731 on: September 02, 2019, 01:56:54 pm »

CO2 is CO2

Correct, and its (Greenhouse Gas) properties have never changed.

Alan K. may be misinterpreting the fact that it is possible to differentiate between the origins of the CO2 by looking at its Carbon isotopes. But those Carbon isotopes do not materially change the (greenhouse) properties of the CO2 gas.

It remains a greenhouse gas that is relatively transparent for visible light wavelengths coming from the sun, but relatively opaque for reflected sunlight coming from the earth that has longer wavelengths. So the direct sunlight enters the atmosphere and the reflected sunlight is blocked, warming up the atmosphere.

Methane (CH4) is another Greenhouse gas, much more effective at blocking the reflected energy than CO2, but it breaks down in the atmosphere faster.

Hydrogen (H) gas is another Greenhouse gas, much more of it is present compared to CO2, but it is relatively short-lived as a Greenhouse gas because it will come down as precipitation when it condensates.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9942
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #732 on: September 02, 2019, 02:55:10 pm »

You both totallyand deliberately ignored my points.   
I need to get on with my life. Have a nice day.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #733 on: September 02, 2019, 05:13:57 pm »

I need to get on with my life.

Let's see how long that lasts, eh?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10275
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #734 on: September 03, 2019, 04:50:07 am »

The link between climate and CO2 exists (or doesn't) regardless of whether the experience is man made or not (for example if a huge volcano had piped out the same CO2 as man, and the climate did or didn't warm, that would be a test).

That seems a rather flawed example because volcanoes do not emit only CO2. Volcanic ash or dust released into the atmosphere during an eruption will shade sunlight and cause a temporary cooling in the region. The sulphur dioxide emitted by volcanoes produces an even more significant cooling, and its effect lasts longer and is more wide-spread. The sulphur dioxide moves into the upper atmosphere where it combines with water to produce sulphuric acid which forms into a haze of tiny droplets reflecting incoming solar radiation.

If the volcanic activity is massive enough, this cooling effect could continue for a several years causing an expansion of the ice cover at the poles which results in a greater 'albedo' area, which reflects yet more incoming solar radiation, and prolongs the cool period.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168

"Here we present precisely dated records of ice‐cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89813/satellite-catalogs-volcanic-sulfur-emissions

“Many people may not realize that volcanoes are continuously releasing quite large amounts of gas, and may do so for decades or even centuries,” said Michigan Technological University volcanologist Simon Carn, the lead author of the study. “Because the daily emissions are smaller than a big eruption, the effect of a single plume may not seem noticeable. But the cumulative effect of all volcanoes can be significant. In fact, on average, volcanoes release most of their gas when they are not erupting.”

Apparently natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the same carbon isotopic fingerprint. This makes it impossible to determine how much of the current, elevated CO2 levels are due to the burning of fossil fuels, and how much are due to volcanic activity.

Alarmist will of course claim that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to volcanoes is relatively small, despite the obvious fact that it is not known how many volcanoes on land and sea are continuously emitting CO2, whether the volcanoes are erupting or not. How scientific of them!  ;D ;D  One has to admit these alarmists have a firm grasp on the methodology of science.  ;D ;D

Here's an article linking recent research on volcanic CO2 emissions. However, if you are an alarmist, you must not read this scientific research because it must be junk science. Any research that casts doubt on the validity of the 97% consensus, cannot be true because 'the science is settled'. You've been warned!  ;D ;D

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory



Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #735 on: September 03, 2019, 06:16:25 am »

That seems a rather flawed example because volcanoes do not emit only CO2.

Yes you are right. It was the first example of a non man-made co2 source that came into my head. Thanks for the links anyway.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #736 on: September 03, 2019, 06:20:52 am »

Again, folks determinedly miss the point: whether it's Mama Nature farting in her sleep or a few zillion cows imitating her in their fields or sheds, volcanoes demonstrating their temper tantrums, the fact remains that mankind itself must do its bit to help keep down such emissions.

That is the simple fact of the matter. Measure until you grow old and feeble, but that fact remains: you, the general broader you, as a responsible - and perhaps sensible human - must also do your bit. Maths tells you so: the less you add, the lower the total; the more you subtract, the lower the total; and guess what: the more you add the higher the total.

What's to dispute, unless you do so for the helluva it, in which case you are contributing to more wasted energy and rising temperatures.

;-(

« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 07:28:44 am by Rob C »
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3919
    • advantica blog
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #737 on: September 03, 2019, 07:55:56 am »

Again, folks determinedly miss the point: whether it's Mama Nature farting in her sleep or a few zillion cows imitating her in their fields or sheds, volcanoes demonstrating their temper tantrums, the fact remains that mankind itself must do its bit to help keep down such emissions.

That is the simple fact of the matter. Measure until you grow old and feeble, but that fact remains: you, the general broader you, as a responsible - and perhaps sensible human - must also do your bit. Maths tells you so: the less you add, the lower the total; the more you subtract, the lower the total; and guess what: the more you add the higher the total.

What's to dispute, unless you do so for the helluva it, in which case you are contributing to more wasted energy and rising temperatures.

Well said, that's common sense. Who would argue with that?

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #738 on: September 03, 2019, 08:02:29 am »

Apparently natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the same carbon isotopic fingerprint.

No they don't, and it's not the only way we know that.

In short, 12-C is more common in plant material, 13-C is the most common variant overall (including in volcano emissions), and 14-C has a relatively (in geological terms) short halftime, so it won't be found in really old sources. The fingerprint of the rising CO2 levels points to a balance that increases the 12-C more than the other isotopes of carbon, and is very low in 14-C. Hence the source is predominantly old plant-based materials, and not molten or weathering rock. The isotope ratios do provide a 'fingerprint'.

Quote
This makes it impossible to determine how much of the current, elevated CO2 levels are due to the burning of fossil fuels, and how much are due to volcanic activity.

Not true, as explained above.

I'm sorry that I apparently have to repost this link, a concise explanation by Prof. Richard Alley:
The chemistry of the added CO2 reveals its source: it's humans burning fossil fuels, and not volcanoes or the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&feature=youtu.be
It's the simplest explanation I could find. Too bad that the manmade origin of the excess CO2 emission levels is still denied.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #739 on: September 03, 2019, 08:19:35 am »

And here is a more detailed explanation (10 main lines of evidence to be considered) of the same process of determining the man-made origin, i.e. from burning fossil fuel:
Climate change cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

And here's more evidence of the CO2 isotope ratios telling us a clear tale:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html

A falling amount of 13-C, and an absence of  14-C, is caused by a net increase of 12-C (coming from very old plantbased material).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 08:28:34 am by Bart_van_der_Wolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 111   Go Up