Climate Change Anyone?

WrongHanded

Active member
What I have heard is mostly anecdotal. But consider... the Pacific is a giant nursery for millions of tons of vegetation. When that vegetation dies & sinks it's subject to anaerobic decomposition which yields large amounts of methane. Those plants that are eaten by fish yield manure that also decomposes yielding methane. Granted most of that methane is trapped in complex hydrates but common sense will show a percentage of that methane will be released. Truthfully the point is moot as the process has been going on since life developed in the oceans and would have been present during glaciation as well the carboniferous period.

I will look into this more. But from what I recall on cattle and the methane they produce, I seem to remember that by volume, methane is far less efficient at blocking heat radiation than carbon dioxide. If that is correct, I can understand how large volumes of methane may not have as great an effect as smaller volumes of CO2.

As you say, if it's been happening for millions of years (which it surely must have been), I would say the effects are accounted for. I'm sure climate scientists are aware of it, and are probably measuring it in some way. Just like they're measuring all sorts of other potentially influential factors.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I will look into this more. But from what I recall on cattle and the methane they produce, I seem to remember that by volume, methane is far less efficient at blocking heat radiation than carbon dioxide. If that is correct, I can understand how large volumes of methane may not have as great an effect as smaller volumes of CO2.

@Selena I was totally wrong about this. Methane is far worse than CO2. But that's just where the trouble may start with oceanic methane. https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor... the methane,This is called aerobic oxidation.
 

Selena

Member
by an order of 12 IIRC. And while aerobic oxidation may be present (keep in mind my experience is with digestors for cattle manure) the by-product of such oxidation would be... CO2. Making it a difference that makes no difference.

Now, I am convinced that manmade global warming is a fraud. The basis of this opinion comes from the "settled science" argument leading to "denier" status. Quite frankly it reminds me too much of Galileo being jailed for the heliocentric theory rather than science which the art of constant proof. The models have failed to predict performance which means the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be discarded.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Now, I am convinced that manmade global warming is a fraud. The basis of this opinion comes from the "settled science" argument leading to "denier" status. Quite frankly it reminds me too much of Galileo being jailed for the heliocentric theory rather than science which the art of constant proof. The models have failed to predict performance which means the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be discarded.

The claim that it's "settled science" comes more from politician than scientists though, doesn't it?

I can imagine that the models may have been pushed out at the demand of politicians rather than the scientists themselves being so confident. I think most scientists would tell you that the history of scientific discovery is full of errors and mistakes. That's how they find the truth. It's a rather new area of expertise, and I assume modelling the entire atmospheric system and the solar effects upon it, is rather difficult. But a failed model does not mean the hypothesis is flawed. There are other reasons, such as factors that were either ignored or unseen.

So I agree that there should never have been any claim about the science being settled. Far too divisive. But I can't see the logic in denying the possibility simply because someone else labelled you a "denier" for not believing.

ETA: Here's some info about what models have got right.

How good are the models now?
Source: Barton Paul Levenson

"Let’s review the successful predictions of the models."

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
The expanded range of hurricanes and cyclones--a year before Cyclone Catarina showed up off the coast of Brazil, something which had never happened before.
"Looks like a pretty good track record to me. Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong."

From here: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-models
 
Last edited:

Selena

Member
However, the "hockey stick" that is the basis for the New Green Deal is still very much lacking. As for the others... the raw data is still unavailable (or was last time I tried) As far as the Antarctic warming, I seem to recall a ship studying the effects of the warming getting stuck in the ice far beyond the normal reach of the ice. And finally, what other possible causes than civilization have been considered? I had one post grad that during an infection of "redneck philosophy" here at the farm give a complicated equation with my dad dealing with frequencies of solar radiation. Since the math was light years over my head I use it only as an example there may be other causes. Man made GW is the easy answer, much like phlogiston in the 18th century. Lavoisier and his oxidation theory did not have a receptive and the followers of Stahl were relieved when Marat had Lavoisier sent to the guillotine.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Ah, my partial posts keep disappearing when I go looking for links. So I'll start again.

The "hockey stick" was a horrible and over-simplified representation. "Up is bad! It's going UP see?!" Without context, it's just a funny looking line.

But it's not very logical to say "There's Ice, and there shouldn't be. Therefore man made climate change isn't happening." Anomalies happen sometimes. Global Warming does not mean it will be warmer everywhere on the planet ALL of the time.

Regarding the sun's effect, I trust NASA. This is particularly interesting. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/...l-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
 

WrongHanded

Active member
My personal belief is that we don't yet understand Earth's climate. Anything beyond that is little more than a political Rorschach test.

I think the community of climate scientists understand it far better than you realize. Most of us don't seek out the information, or even watch documentaries that can dumb it down enough for us laymen to comprehend. But that doesn't mean the information does not exist; it just means WE don't know about it.

Ignorance is bliss. But knowledge is power.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I don't. I think that community, like nearly all of humanity, defaults to overconfidence.

Interestingly, the scientific community, when left to it's own devices, doesn't default to overconfidence. They just look for evidence. The scientific method is well established and rigid. Science is not about making data for predetermined "facts", it's about finding the truth.
 

Selena

Member
Interestingly, the scientific community, when left to it's own devices, doesn't default to overconfidence. They just look for evidence. The scientific method is well established and rigid. Science is not about making data for predetermined "facts", it's about finding the truth.
Except when the research grants are tied to the "settled truth."
 

Magnum

Well-known member
So, are you suggesting that the research is a lie? Or that the data collected is false?
The data is presented in a way that fits a narrative , if the data contradicts whatever agenda is being pushed it's likely the funding will disappear. That's why you can find equal data to support either side of this topic.
 

Selena

Member
One of the tenets of the scientific method is reproductivity. How many statistical "proofs" have been presented over the years that have refused to show the source data making a separate analysis of the data possible. Whether the research from said data is a lie or not is open to question, however, by hiding the raw data denying a separate study it is not science. Science is based on proof not faith.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
The data is presented in a way that fits a narrative , if the data contradicts whatever agenda is being pushed it's likely the funding will disappear. That's why you can find equal data to support either side of this topic.

There's another very obvious reason you can't find equal data to support either side of the argument. One side is the true, and therefore the other isn't.

You'd think with all the profits that have come from fossil fuel corporations in the past decades, they might have just enough to conduct independent studies. But they don't seem to do that. They just funnel their money through lobbyists and pay for propaganda advertising. Why is that exactly?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
One of the tenets of the scientific method is reproductivity. How many statistical "proofs" have been presented over the years that have refused to show the source data making a separate analysis of the data possible. Whether the research from said data is a lie or not is open to question, however, by hiding the raw data denying a separate study it is not science. Science is based on proof not faith.

How many sets of raw data do we have where the methodology is represented clearly? Have you asked for the raw data and an explanation of the methodology from those who have performed the studies? Or are you trusting what someone else told you about how "they" won't give it up? I bet if you contacted some of the scientists involved, they'd be happy to share it with you. They might even point you to a web address where you could download their entire study.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
There's another very obvious reason you can't find equal data to support either side of the argument.
You misread, you can find equal data to support any position you like on the environment. Science is verifiable, repeatable and predictable. The climate and the science that studies it are none of those things, if I'm wrong please show me evidence that I'm wrong.

You'd think with all the profits that have come from fossil fuel corporations in the past decades, they might have just enough to conduct independent studies. But they don't seem to do that. They just funnel their money through lobbyists and pay for propaganda advertising. Why is that exactly?
Because they're in the energy business, not climate studies.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
You misread, you can find equal data to support any position you like on the environment. Science is verifiable, repeatable and predictable. The climate and the science that studies it are none of those things, if I'm wrong please show me evidence that I'm wrong.


Because they're in the energy business, not climate studies.

You want me to show you evidence that there's not equal evidence to support both sides? Can't prove a negative. But if you want to show me legitimate evidence that climate change isn't happening or isn't man made, go for it. I've disproved everything you've provided so far. Strange though that President Trump doesn't believe in it, but NASA still says it's happening. You'd think he'd be able to get that taken off of any government funded website, if it's not the truth.

The fossil fuel industry is the richest entity under threat of losing their business should everyone get on board with reducing carbon emissions. So it's only logical to assume they'd want to prove climate change isn't from the carbon dioxide made by burning the fuels they sell. The only reason to move away from plentiful carbon based energy sources is climate change being man made. It's their biggest threat. If they could prove it wasn't real, surely they would. Nothing yet though. Only adds about oil and natural gas jobs and about how "clean" they are.
 
Top