Global Warming, eh?

[DrVolin]

If this thread is to be saved, it needs an injection of civility.

[wintler2]

It is hard to be civil in the face of repeated deceit and insult.

-

Just in case any passing mad person is reading this thread and thinks BenD & slimmouse might be onto something with their sun talk, rest assured that the influence of the sun's [actually pretty tiny] variation has occurred to simply everyone, thats why it gets its own section in every IPCC Assessment Report.

And what does the evidence on solar variation say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
No correlation.

Deniers still like the sun focus because its a long long way from the polluters who are really responsible, and the abundant inconvenient evidence is easy to omit if you own as much of the media as the AGW deniers do.

[tazmic]

...melting ice cannot do anything but raise the Earth's waters. This is not hypothetical. It is a fact.

But that is not an obvious fact, given that melting ice doesn't normally change the (equivalent) water level.

From:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html

Based on:

It is shown that the melting of ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about 2.6 per cent greater than that of the originally displaced sea water. The melting of floating ice in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4cm. The sliding of grounded ice into the sea, however, produces a mean water level rise in two parts; some of the rise is delayed. The first part, while the ice floats, is equal to the volume of displaced sea water. The second part, equal to 2.6 per cent of the first, is contributed as it melts. These effects result from the difference in volume of equal weights of fresh and salt water. This component of sea rise is apparently unrecognized in the literature to date, although it can be interpreted as a form of halosteric sea level change by regarding the displaced salt water and the meltwater (even before melting) as a unit. Although salinity changes are known to affect sea level, all existing analyses omit our calculated volume change.

Noerdlinger and Brower (2007)

And the 2007 objection to the long time 'settled science':

Contrary to popular belief, the melting of floating ice (in the form of ice shelves, icebergs and sea ice) may have a non-zero impact on sea level. This is because the melting process cools and dilutes the oceans on average, and unless these opposing effects exactly balance each other there will be a net change in the ocean density. We discuss how these subtle effects can be quantified and put bounds on the potential sea level rise associated with melting of the ice masses that are currently afloat in the world's oceans.

Jenkins and Holland (2007)

With a 2010 conclusion:

According to this 743 km3/yr floating ice was lost in average between 1994 and 2004. They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice.

Shepherd et al 2010

[Elihu]

doesn't frozen water occupy greater volume than liquid water? hence bursting pipes and six-packs left in the freezer? if it melted wouldn't sea levels fall? i guess because it's "piled up" at the poles, it would come "un-piled" in liquid form. sorry professor, didn't raise my hand.

[tazmic]

doesn't frozen water occupy greater volume than liquid water? hence bursting pipes and six-packs left in the freezer? if it melted wouldn't sea levels fall? i guess because it's "piled up" at the poles, it would come "un-piled" in liquid form. sorry professor, didn't raise my hand.

If you pushed all the sticky out bits under the water first (raising the water level, incidentally) and let it melt, then you would be right.

Timeout Quiz:

1) You have a boat full of bricks floating in a large swimming pool, as you throw the bricks into the pool what happens to the water level?

2) The last brick unplugs a hole in the bottom of the boat and it sinks. What happens to the water level?

[Simulist]

Given how our biases can affect us more than we might sometimes realize, this may be interesting — perhaps even significant — although I'm sure Ben D has disclosed this before, and I've obviously missed it.

It was 1978, I was located in Jakarta working on Indonesia's newly operational domestic satellite communication system and the contract was running out, so I sent my resume to a number of oil companies thinking that maybe one or more of them would want to update their com. systems using the satellite. I received a invitation from Mobil Oil to go to their field in northern Sumatra for a interview. While there, I was at a drilling rig when my Mobil host said to me, "Ben, if we had a blowout on this rig tomorrow, we would be in big trouble communications wise trying to organize the specialist teams and put it out, that's why we want to go satellite.

That same day (Saturday), I flew back to Jakarta. On the Monday morning I was listening to the radio news when it was announced that a Mobil oil rig in Sumatra had a blow out and was on fire. Within days I received a call from Mobil offering me the job of getting a Satellite terminal installed asap.

Oh,.. and I took up the offer...and nah, I'm quite sure it wasn't MIHOP, the cost to put it out was huge and took three months.

I'd suspected, but hadn't known — until just this morning, when I finally read this — that Ben D had done work for the oil industry, at least at one time.

[brainpanhandler]

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

Ok, so you read the article? What then do you think of Lean's analysis of the relative effects of increased solar irradiance as compared with the anthropogenic greenhouse gas component?

I've already replied to that question.

Well yes, I suppose you did when you wrote:

Yes, it's good to see bright people like Judith Lean taking up the challenge to show that solar irradiance variations is a real factor to an improved understanding of climate change.

But I was hoping you might be so kind as to elaborate a bit more so thank you for the following:

(If you were not aware, yes of course there are scientists who study the Sun and its influence on global climate and who think that Solar irradiance has a bigger contribution than CO2,...)

If I'm reading Lean correctly they believe that it is much more probable that anthropogenic causes have a much greater impact than solar irradiance variations. See Lean quote below. See article at link: http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

Bph, no doubt Judith Lean has done lots of research and has published many papers, but the post in which I referenced her work that slim commented on is the extent of my knowledge and interest for now.

I can well understand that when Lean writes things like:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as
70% of the recent global warming (based in part
on the attribution of radiometric trends to real solar
irradiance changes49) presents fundamental puzzles. It
requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the
past century than at any time in the past millennium,
including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct
space-based observations. And it requires, as well,
that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured
increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is
excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness
changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the
simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global
warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the
Sun.

in the article I posted a link to.

Here's the link again if you change your mind about wanting to understand the thoughts of the sources you cite:

http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

And speaking of Judith Lean, this is the last poster from Judith Lean's presentation at Nagoya University...

About that... when I blow up that poster so I can read it there is an update which reads:

[UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made - and maybe as much as "70 percent" due to human intervention.

Dr. Bruce West is the source of the quote in the thought bubble in the poster.

[Simulist]

Interesting stuff, BPH — especially the "Update" from Dr. Bruce West.

[slimmouse]

Interesting stuff, BPH — especially the "Update" from Dr. Bruce West.

I have to say at this point, Im leaning towards the conclusion that Anthromowhatever Global Warming is real.

So, if that is the case , how do we escape the clutches of the reptillians, who still, from where Im sat control both sides of the debate ? Or perhaps thats a crass assessment LOL.

There are of course a few solutions in the mix, but naturally ( IMO )Wintler and co are too busy focusing their attentions on arguing why we should be saving the planet ( via various data) than addressing how we can actually achieve it, other than of course sacrificing our souls so to speak. I mean, you seem to understand how the war on terror lie works and a host of other said lies.

What say you, Wintler ?

One of the strangest things Ive noticed about you, is that for all your criticism of the Reptiles who control this ponzi debate, youve never once entertained the idea that these very same folks could be interfering with any serious attempts ( through alternative technologies) to actually improve things.

Instead, all that you, and a few of your minions have ever actually done is scream " it would never work", or "show me the proof"

Despite repeated efforts to show you the proof, and suggest that the billions levied in the ongoing ponzi scheme might be better addressed at some serious effort to assist in the development of exotic technology, Ive never once heard you speak in favour of such an idea.

Cutting to the quick here, this whole "Wintler supports the idea of AGW in his effort to save the planet" sounds to me like a bullshit cry from a bullshit salesman

There is, meanwhile, and Ive no doubt it surely hasnt escaped youre attention, an entire thread devoted to such suggestions of where our AGW taxes may be spent productively, instead of on wind farms and wave technology controlled by the usual assholes (which is where those taxes apparently go) You, of course, "mysteriously" have declined to address it.

Imagine my shock.

[Ben D]

in the article I posted a link to.
Here's the link again if you change your mind about wanting to understand the thoughts of the sources you cite:
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

You are cherry picking bph, here is what she had to say on her introduction to your referenced article,....check it out yourself...

The attribution of present-day climate change, interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative understanding of how,
when, where, and why natural variability, including by the Sun, may exceed,
obscure or mitigate anthropogenic changes .

Now look up in the right hand corner of her presentation...
You see this,...it's her personal message for all the delegates at the Nagoya workshop to consider...
It's a given that Judith Lean aligns herself with the AGW skeptics. Get over it already and stop wasting my time and obfuscating the facts...

What is it about dark brooders,...seething with repressed hate,... they are just so transparent...can't stand even their own company..

[wintler2]

naturally ( IMO )Wintler and co are too busy focusing their attentions on arguing why we should be saving the planet ( via various data) than addressing how we can actually achieve it, other than of course sacrificing our souls so to speak. ..
What say you, Wintler ?
One of the strangest things Ive noticed about you, is that for all your criticism of the Reptiles who control this ponzi debate, youve never once entertained the idea that these very same folks could be interfering with any serious attempts ( through alternative technologies) to actually improve things.

Instead, all that you, and a few of your minions have ever actually done is scream " it would never work", or "show me the proof"

Despite repeated efforts to show you the proof, and suggest that the billions levied in the ongoing ponzi scheme might be better addressed at some serious effort to assist in the development of exotic technology, Ive never once heard you speak in favour of such an idea.

Cutting to the quick here, this whole "Wintler supports the idea of AGW in his effort to save the planet" sounds to me like a bullshit cry from a bullshit salesman

There is, meanwhile, and Ive no doubt it surely hasnt escaped youre attention, an entire thread devoted to such suggestions of where our AGW taxes may be spent productively, instead of on wind farms and wave technology controlled by the usual assholes (which is where those taxes apparently go) You, of course, "mysteriously" have declined to address it.

Imagine my shock.

Imagine my shock at being smeared by slimmouse,

Here he is doing it in 2007, in 2008, 2009, etc etc.


If slimmouse was addressing the topic rather than just launching another diversion via personal attack, completely unsubstantiated at that, he might be more convincing.

[Simulist]

What say you, Wintler ?

One of the strangest things Ive noticed about you, is that for all your criticism of the Reptiles who control this ponzi debate, youve never once entertained the idea that these very same folks could be interfering with any serious attempts ( through alternative technologies) to actually improve things.

Wintler has been criticizing "the Reptiles"?

Instead, all that you, and a few of your minions have ever actually done is scream " it would never work", or "show me the proof"

Wintler has "minions"?

Cutting to the quick here, this whole "Wintler supports the idea of AGW in his effort to save the planet" sounds to me like a bullshit cry from a bullshit salesman

You fail to recognize the sound of bullshit salesmen when you actually hear one (David Icke), but you think you hear them even where there is no bullshit salesman (Wintler).

Get your hearing checked.

[wintler2]

..What is it about dark brooders,...seething with repressed hate,... they are just so transparent...can't stand even their own company..

What is it about anthropo-genic (human-caused) global warming deniers, why can't they ever fight clean?

[Ben D]

And what does the evidence on solar variation say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
No correlation.

Oh yes, a pro AGW site tells its readers that there is no correlation, give me a break.

RI readers can make up there own mind. And importantly, readers can at least see that that the validity of Solar Irradiance graph below from Judith Lean is supported by actual real data..link below!



Data Source....http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

The science is far from settled, which is understandable when one considers the difficulty involved in trying to understand the actual respective contribution of all the various factors influencing global climate....and the fact that this change is a relatively mere 0.8 of a degree C over 130 years.

[Ben D]

I'd suspected, but hadn't known — until just this morning, when I finally read this — that Ben D had done work for the oil industry, at least at one time.

A man had to make a living for myself and family (4 of us),..and I had a plan to retire at age 45 to be free to ponder the bigger picture of what and who I was in the context of Universal Existence (but that's another story).

But you misunderstand where I'm coming from Simulist, I don't really see any evidence that the 0.8 degree C of global warming over 130 years is anything extraordinary in the context of the billions of years of 'life' of our Planetary host.

And what's more, I'm not one who identifies with my material body and the material environment in which it physically lives as to the be all and end all of what and who I really am. Therefore the only reason why I pay attention to the CAGW/AGW scam is that karma associated with lies always ends up badly, and in this case the lie is so egregious that I suspect that the consequences has drawn in Cosmic authority that the materialist minded perpetrators and their deceived followers do not believe exist, and a severe culling of the planetary population on the basis of Cosmic worthiness is coming soon.

namaste...