Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:14 am

Fyyr wrote:"No, I said we've eliminated all of the other known reasons for climate change, such as changes in the Sun or in the Earth's orbit."

You have removed the Sun from its effects on the Earth's climate?
Read it again: We've eliminated changes in the orbit as a possibility.

And yes, we can measure the Earth's orbit and tilt very accurately, and have been able to for centuries.

In modern times we can also measure solar parameters, such as number of sunspots and radiation level, very accurately, and rule them out as a possibility.

Image

Solar output is now at a minimum, possibly even heading to an extended downturn, and if that were the only operative variable, our climate should have been getting colder, yet we continue to have some of the warmest years on record (globally, not necessarily in your home town).

So I ask you again, since you still haven't answered: what is your theory to explain the recent changes in climate, and where is your data and experimental evidence to back it up?

I know it's easier to throw up your hands and say "duh, it's just natural!", but this is functionally equivalent to a Christian throwing up his hands and saying "duh, 'god' did it!" It's religion, not science.
Fyyr wrote:Really? Weather scientists can't predict if it will rain tomorrow or now, but they have removed all the Sun variables from their climate predictions and experiments.
Weather scientists can't predict if it will rain in your home town on a specific day, which is a very complex prediction and has nothing to at all to do with global trends in climate, which are the real issue.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Zute » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:30 am

Actually, I think weather forecasters have gotten pretty accurate over the last couple of decades. I remember the weather *never* matching up with what they said it would do, then lately I've noticed it almost always does. For what little weather we actually have where I live. :lol:
Formerly known as Panamah

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:16 am

I know it's easier to throw up your hands and say "duh, it's just natural!",
Who has said that?

Everything 'natural' needs to be understood. Your conclusion is silly.

Earthquakes and volcanos are natural, they need to be predicted. The weather needs accuracy with prediction.

And on and on and on. What kind of Luddite doesn't want to know the natural world, explain it, and predict it? Do you know anyone like that?

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:43 pm

Fyyr wrote:What kind of Luddite doesn't want to know the natural world, explain it, and predict it? Do you know anyone like that?
You, perhaps?

I'm still waiting for your explanation for global warming.

I'll even go for a bare hypothesis at this point. Worry about the data and experiments later.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr » Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:53 am

The globe, the Earth, warms and cools because of its relative distance and location to the Sun. And by the rotation of the globe about its axis, and the degree of tilt of the axis in relation to the Sun.

And by changes in the variable output of energy from the Sun over any given time.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:52 am

Fyyr wrote:The globe, the Earth, warms and cools because of its relative distance and location to the Sun.
The slow changes in Earth's eccentricity have very little effect on total solar radiation, and the effect it does have is to change the relative length of the seasons in each hemisphere. (In North America, the Earth is currently furthest from the Sun during summer.)
And by the rotation of the globe about its axis
Yes, we have day and night, but that's a 24-hour cycle, and has nothing to do with gradual global warming.
and the degree of tilt of the axis in relation to the Sun.
The Earth is now about mid-way through its tilt cycle, and will continue to reduce its tilt very slowly for thousands of years until reaching the minimum and going back again. All other things being equal, this should producing a global cooling effect as the poles receive less solar radiation.
And by changes in the variable output of energy from the Sun over any given time.
Look at the graph above. The Sun's output is now at the minimum value and the cycles can't explain a gradual warming effect. Not to mention, the variations are too small to explain the magnitude of the effect.

You're basically describing crude bits and pieces of Milankovitch's theory, which might explain some climate changes over thousands of years, but cannot explain the large rise in temperatures over such a short period of time. (Not only is the theory flawed because it conflicts with other data, but it also suggests we should be experiencing global cooling and entering another ice age.)

Your hypothesis has already been proven wrong.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr » Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:05 am

Your hypothesis has already been proven wrong.
The Sun does not warm the globe?
The Sun does not vary its output of energy?
The distance in the varying elliptical orbit of the globe, from the sun, which is not at the center if the ellipse, does not make the globe warmer and cooler?
And the relative axis angle and rotation of the globe about that axis does not provide cyclical warming and cooling of the globe?

You're kidding right?

I have no problem with you denying me that local climate makes up global climate; that all data readings must be taken locally, or of a local area.

But for you to deny the very seasons, the night, and the day? That is unboundless (unimaginable is probably more accurate) absurdity and defies all reason and human experience. We have nothing further to discuss; if you deny the day we have no point of reference in common with one another. This could have made an interesting discourse, but I will pass at this time. Have a good nothing(or whatever it is that you call this absence of day that is or is not occuring as I write this).

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:19 pm

Fyyr wrote:The Sun does not warm the globe?
The Sun does not vary its output of energy?
The distance in the varying elliptical orbit of the globe, from the sun, which is not at the center if the ellipse, does not make the globe warmer and cooler?
And the relative axis angle and rotation of the globe about that axis does not provide cyclical warming and cooling of the globe?
Didn't I just get through explaining to you how all of this does happen (see Milankovitch) but cannot explain the current trend in global warming?

But I suppose for you, it's more comforting to attack ridiculous straw men arguments than to face the actual data that proves your theory is dead wrong.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:11 pm

More data for Fyyr. It even discusses planetary orbit changes and the ice age cycles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
CO2 'drove end to last ice age'

A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals.

Details of the research have been reported in Nature journal.

The Harvard University-led team says the work further strengthens ideas about global warming.

"At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead researcher Dr Jeremy Shakun.

"So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate."

The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.

This was the time when the planet was emerging from its last deep chill, when the great ice sheets known to cover parts of the Northern Hemisphere were in retreat.

The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature.

This runs contrary to the record obtained solely from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores which had indicated the opposite - that temperature elevation in the southern polar region actually preceded (or at least ran concurrent to) the climb in CO2.

This observation has frequently been used by some people who are sceptical of global warming to challenge its scientific underpinnings; to claim that the warming link between the atmospheric gas and global temperature is grossly overstated.

But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent.

By contrast, their new climate history encompasses data from all around the world to provide a much fuller picture of what was happening on a global scale.

This data incorporates additional information contained in ices drilled from Greenland, and in sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes.

These provide a range of indicators. Air bubbles trapped in ice, for example, will record the past CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Past temperatures can also be inferred from ancient planktonic marine organisms buried in the sediments. That is because the amount of magnesium they would use to build their skeletons and shells was dependent on the warmth of the water in which they swam.

"Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun.

"You put these two points together - the correlation of global temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 - and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the ice age," he told BBC News.

Dr Shakun's team has now constructed a narrative to explain both what was happening on Antarctica and what was happening globally:

* This starts with a subtle change in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as a Milankovitch "wobble", which increases the amount of light reaching northern latitudes and triggers the collapse of the hemisphere's great ice sheets
* This in turn produces vast amounts of fresh water that enter the North Atlantic to upset ocean circulation
* Heat at the equator that would normally be distributed northwards then backs up, raising temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere
* This initiates further changes to atmospheric and ocean circulation, resulting in the Southern Ocean releasing CO2 from its waters
* The rise in CO2 sets in train a global rise in temperature that pulls the whole Earth out of its glaciated state

Prof Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey was the chief scientist on the longest Antarctic ice core, which was drilled at Dome Concordia in 2001/2002. This core records eight ice ages, not just the most recent, stretching back some 800,000 years.

He was not involved in the Nature study. Prof Wolff told this week's Science In Action programme on the BBC World Service:

"It looks as though whatever kicked off this whole sequence of events to get out of the ice age was something really, in global terms, rather minor and regional, and yet it led to a sequence of events that led to a complete change in the way the surface of the Earth looked, with ice sheets disappearing.

"So, that just reminds us that although climate might seem quite steady to us because it's been relatively steady for the last few thousand years, it is actually capable of undergoing big changes. And as one famous palaeoclimatologist put it: 'we poke it at our peril'."

Image
I know, I know. Your libertarian dogma is far more comforting, because the theory of global warming can't possibly be right because, well, it just can't and you know so in your heart of hearts. Very scientific.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by AbyssalMage » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Fyyr wrote:
"Carbon is locked up in all LIVING organisms. The destruction of forests and that huge algae bloom in the Pacific (for lack of the correct term) is also contributing to Carbon levels rising."
We in the US have been conserving forests for over a 150 years. There are more trees now in North American than in human history on it. Any photos of wilderness areas taken 100+ years ago compared today confirms that.

Besides, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a limiting agent in plant growth. More CO2 equals more plant growth, plants grow faster and bigger with additional CO2. Venus has no plants, thus is a poor model for the Earth. Aquatic plants included.

Caulerpa would be a fantastic food source, for example. Nutritious and fast growing, and you don't even need to plant it. And yes, humans are responsible for its introduction to the Mediterranean Sea. Conveniently close to a whole bunch of starving people. And the lower California coast, but all those rich elites in SD or LA can make it into salads then.

Algae do not give off CO2, Mage, they consume it. And give off Oxygen as waste. Your facts are wrong, your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.
So you admit that CO2 is consumed by living things and oxygen is the byproduct?
So you are learning :D
Reread what I wrote :roll:
You try to shoot me down but support me in your vain attempt to make a point.
I wrote "Destruction" = "CO2 levels rising" and I used the destruction of Forests (North America, South America, Asia, and Africa) which is basically all of them that at one time consumed CO2 gasses. I would state the approx. % they consumed before deforestation but I am too lazy to do your homework. The Algae Bloom that I mentioned actually consumed more CO2 than the jungles but again, I'm not going to be like Tudamurf and provide you with evidence that you can't refute with anything other than a "but that's not what Fox News and the Right says."

So what did I say?
Habitat Destruction = More CO2
What other things have been told to you that you still can't disprove?
Man Kind = More CO2
And together we get Habitat Destruction + Man Kind = CO2 * 2 or (CO2^2) depending how you read the graph. Fit that with what we know and you get global warming as the only viable option that hasn't been dis-proven and you have your self what they call a "Scientific Theory."

Post Reply