| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So because of Charles Keeling's pedigree, it is absolutely impossible for him to be wrong? Not even a little bit, on any of the assumptions?
I wonder if he gets any grants as a result of his findings/assumptions?
Why haven't I heard a good clear definition of what normal climate is supposed to be, not pollution, just normal climate?
Couldn't "normal climate" fit w/in a range of average temperatures going up and down over time?
If not, then what's the normal temperature per region?
Simple questions that never get answered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nit wit, without actually reading anything that was posted, says:
| Quote: | | So because of Charles Keeling's pedigree, it is absolutely impossible for him to be wrong? Not even a little bit, on any of the assumptions? |
Let me say it slowly. It is not his pedigree. It is his work habits and review by others. I guess I know why science scares you--you have no idea what it looks like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you look at techno link ? It says there are 115 different models they are working with.
Keeling might be proven wrong on many or most of them .
The deniers are working with only one premise.
I am not sure about global warming but I recognize hard science from partisan journalism. Many others can't seem to tell the difference.
No person here said Keeling was entirely right. That came from you.
It is usual among Talk Radio conservatives to exaggerate libs ideas until they make no sense, then challenge them because they make no sense.
That and assigning exaggerated opinions to libs accounts for most of the program.
I used to listen. Why do you guys?
Gets you confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool, I didn't really think I'd get any answers to my simple questions from you two.
mac, resorting to name calling again, it hurts your cred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Simple questions? You didn't even understand my post, much less look at any of the links. Nit wit. You earned it. Your so-called simple questions show such a profound lack of any understanding of anything that has been written about climate change. Try a physics course. Better yet, try to understand a posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | mac, resorting to name calling again, it hurts your cred. |
Not at this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not that I believe that NW will actually read my response, try to understand it, or even try to understand how wildly he misinterpreted my post, I will provide a rebuttal. He said, and insinuated:
| Quote: | 1. So because of Charles Keeling's pedigree, it is absolutely impossible for him to be wrong? Not even a little bit, on any of the assumptions?
2. I wonder if he gets any grants as a result of his findings/assumptions?
3. Why haven't I heard a good clear definition of what normal climate is supposed to be, not pollution, just normal climate? ...
Couldn't "normal climate" fit w/in a range of average temperatures going up and down over time?
If not, then what's the normal temperature per region?
Simple questions that never get answered.
|
Responding in order,
1. Every scientist is wrong. The scientific process entails making a hypothesis, developing experiments to test the hypothesis, and almost always, adjusting the hypothesis. We have known about the physics of global warming for a long time, and it did not depend on Keeling’s work. Here is a simple explanation of how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.
| Quote: | Fossil fuels such as gasoline, methane and propane contain mostly carbon. When these fuels are burned, they react with oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.
Because of our heavy use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution. The destruction of forests which use carbon dioxide also contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide.
Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.
So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.
Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of about one part per million per year. If this continues, some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius. This doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding. http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html |
This source is from 1994; CO2 has been accumulating more rapidly than 1 part per million per year.
Continuing on point 1. This understanding did not derive just from Keeling’s work, nor did Keeling’s work lead immediately to the hypothesis that increased CO2 would lead to climate change. Here from the Scripps site:
| Quote: | | Keeling was a world leader in research on the carbon cycle and the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, known as the greenhouse effect, which may lead to changes in the global climate. He was the first to confirm the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 by very precise measurements that produced a data set now known widely as the Keeling Curve. Prior to these investigations, it was commonly held that the oceans would readily absorb any excess CO2 from the atmosphere produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial activities. He also constructed a model of the carbon cycle into which future man-made CO2 can be introduced to predict concentration levels in the air and water well into the next century. |
A bit later it notes:
| Quote: | The work for which Keeling is rightfully most famous then ensued. In 1958 with the support of Harry Wexler of the U.S. Weather Service and Roger Revelle of Scripps, Keeling began an extensive survey of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in background air, including air-borne and ship-board measurements, and measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory and other land stations- measurements which have continued to this day under his guidance. This work was motivated by the suggestion, originally made by Svante Arrhenius, that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might be increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels with potential consequences for global climate. At that time, however, the suggestion was controversial, in part because it was unclear to what extent the oceans might be buffering the atmospheric CO2 increase. Within a few years of measurements, the Mauna Loa record had changed the notion of the atmospheric CO2increase from a matter of theory to matter of fact. This was an achievement of tremendous social and political importance, and within the scientific community stimulated the involvement of climate researchers such as Suki Manabe to quantify more precisely the impact of rising CO2 on global climate. The Mauna Loa record, or "Keeling Curve", as it is sometimes called, has become a standard icon symbolizing the impact of humans on the planet.
With dogged persistance, Keeling managed to sustain his program of atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements through time, thereby producing an extensive chemical climatology of immense value. In the late 1970's, Keeling arranged, through a close collaboration with Willem Mook of Gronigen, to have the isotopic composition of CO2 measured regularly on his samples, as he recognized that knowing the isotopic composition would help distinguish the influences of land plants and the oceans on the CO2 trends. His CO2 concentration records, along with the isotopic records, have formed the basis for a series of discoveries on the impacts of climate on the global carbon cycle. |
So Keeling’s work started in 1958, and what he demonstrated, was that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere rather than readily being absorbed into sea water. Of course, substantial heat and CO2 is also being absorbed by the oceans.
Responding to point 2. Of course Dr. Keeling has passed, and his work was done before the denier industry, which clearly has conflicts of interest, began claiming that peer reviewed scientists were working on global warming to obtain grants. NW’s suggestion, and slur about the integrity of University researchers, also shows a dramatic change in the values of our society with the rise of the screaming righties.
When I was young, most people in the United States valued basic research. Most people understood that most corporations could not afford to fund basic research, and the secrecy associated with corporate research and the cost of using technology patented slowed down the development of technology. So the Federal government invested in basic research, with people understanding that corporations would take that research and develop it into useful products and inventions. Many of us believe that this investment in basic research was what made the United States exceptional in the world economy.
In 1965, nearly 70% of basic research and development spending came from the Federal government—that has dropped to just over 30%. It would be nice to think that this is because corporations have seen the value of research. While they spend a great deal on applied research, the sad fact is that less and less of the discretionary Federal budget is spent on non-defense related research. In 1967—the year I graduated from high school—25% of discretionary Federal spending was research. Now it about 10%. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/BudgetDISC.jpg
Response 3. Why? You weren’t listening. Dozens of explanations, on this site and throughout any non-Koch funded journalism, make an effort to explain that climate change is the change in average temperature, over time. There are certainly great variations—day to day, over the seasons, year to year, and from short term phenomena like sunspots and El Nino’s that are, in NW’s words, normal. It is only with careful measurements over a time scale in decades that we can detect climate change. Asked and answered, again and again on this thread—but much of what NW posts show he hasn’t bothered to read what he is responding to. If you had bothered to read even a small fraction of the material on the thread you started you would understand this.
And then finally, your response on Keeling's credentials. Techno asked a this question:
| Quote: | | I also wonder why "climate scientists" are the only credible experts on global warming, especially regarding the effects of CO2? Isn't there anyone else on the globe with the knowledge to offer up an expert opinion? |
My response pointed out that Keeling--a chemist--indeed essentially stood the science of his time on its head. It doesn't take a climatologist--but it does take someone who will familiarize themselves with the literature, and work with teams of scientists, in the recognized peer-review process that is at the heart of science.
You and Techno and Isobars keep posting things that you think are gotchas. They come from people who aren't scientists (Lord Freakin' Monckton!!!), haven't studied the literature, and wouldn't know peer review if they were sitting on it. You've earned the sobriquet Nit Wit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW,
There is no normal.
Climate is a moving target that is certainly getting warmer as somemodels predicted. There isn't enough data to be sure of the cause but letting the human race die over partisan politics is not a wise course of action.
That lack of data leaves me with doubts.
Things you see on Conservative news do not have anything to do with the debate, so leave me with no doubts from that source.
They are put there by lobbyists to fool conservatives.
The whole subject has nothing to do with partisan politics,but the fake news will allow it to be nothing else.
I find it amusing that otherwise smart people think there is an endless pool of funding from some secret source that will make zillions if conservatives believed in GW.
The best way to get a grant is to prove that GW is not true. There is a not secret source of funding from carbon companies that make a lot of money by polluting and plan to continue. If you really have data that CO2 is not warming tne Earth a whole lot of climate scientists would like to see it right away.
Real scientists. And Talk Show hosts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keycocker wrote: | NW,
There is no normal.
Climate is a moving target that is certainly getting warmer as somemodels predicted. There isn't enough data to be sure of the cause but letting the human race die over partisan politics is not a wise course of action.
That lack of data leaves me with doubts.
|
Good it should leave you with some doubts, but you lost me with "letting the human race die over partisan politics is not a wise course of action".
I really don't see our kids, grand kids, or great great great great grand kids dieing over partisan politics or climate change.
Sorry, I just can't get worked up with that kind of a superficial threat like that.
The threat of an ice age, like the one we were worried about in the early 70's could still happen, the threat of that is close to equal in my mind.
But either way it goes, warmer or colder, it won't be instant, and people won't be dropping over dead, we adapt, always have, always will.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
I seem to have to repeat myself about every 30 or 40 pages on this thread.
No biggie, I'm as stuck IMO as everyone else on this thread, so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the history of the Earth were compressed into 1 year. All of mankind from the Mayans up would happen in the last 4 seconds of that year.
There is no doubt the Earth and Sun will win in the end, but there is no doubt man can affect life here. Just look at all the extinctions, the fish populations, the de-forestation, the fires, everything is being effected by man. We can change this planet (and have) in no time if desired. I know every single tree in Wisconsin has been forested at least once. There are no virgin forests left. The redwoods are down to just 1 or 2%. From a plane traveling across the midwest, every single square inch is maintained by man in a nice grid of rectangles.
In the end, Earth wins and the continents are re-digested into the Earth through plate tectonics. In the short run? My money is on Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
