|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,115
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,115 |
Saying things like "of course adding CO2 to the atmosphere is going to warm the climate, any high school student can understand that."
ignores the actual complexity of the system. It's like saying "of course a mass will drop to the ground due to the Earth's gravity, any high school student understands this simple process, right? Here, let me demonstrate this principal with this balloon filled with hydrogen gas". Oh, yeah, there are other things interacting in the system as well. Climate is a lot of things, but simple isn't one of them. Simplistic statements about it will seldom be terribly accurate or useful. Our activities may well be adding to the climate system. But in what ways precisely and to what extent isn't easy to answer.
What is easy to answer though, is that there has always been and will always be "climate change"; the statistical likelihood that there has ever been a period of "climate stasis" on our planet is essentially zero. Saying "climate change" is about as significant as saying "wet water"; what else should it be?
What's also sure is that there have been many rapidly warming periods in the past that had absolutely nothing to do human activity, and when there were humans around during these very warm periods they are generally known as "climate optimum" periods by the people that study past human activities, not "end of the world" periods. A warming climate does not by necessity equate to negative outcomes. Rather, past evidence suggests exactly the opposite with respect to human populations.
It's also pretty clear that at the time humans were developing the technology to quantitatively measure temperatures, around the 1860s, the climate was also shifting out of the last cold period, the Little Ice Age. Well, what would one expect to measure during such a climate period, other than a warming climate? Makes "warmest year ever measured!" seem less impressive as there have many, many of them since we developed the technology to take the measurements. If you've been gradually climbing a ladder for 150 years, should there be that much surprise that you're currently standing on the highest rung to date?
I know that the more I've actually studied the issue, the less convinced and concerned I've become about "anthropogenic warming". It really seems to be more of a fanatical religion of "belief" than a discussion of data and evidence. In fact, most people I know that are passionate about the subject, if anything, get flustered and angry when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,023
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,023 |
Does not warming have some potential benefits? Like maybe farming moving further North into Canada and Russia? Maybe more rain in places that need it?
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,115
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,115 |
Warming has -many- potential benefits. Evidence suggests the warmest period since the end of the last glacial period, warmer than our current climate, the Holocene Climate Optimum was a boon to human population, with the Nile region being as lush and verdant as it has ever been in human history. Agriculture began to flourish in many human populations across the planet and even the Sahara was relatively wet and fertile.
Drought and pestilence, as in the dark ages, has generally coincided with colder climate periods. The deserts in the south west of the United States (not the US at the time, obviously) suffered a very long drought during one of these cold periods, I believe, that drove out the people that farmed there, during the previous (warm) period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,983
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,983 |
Does not warming have some potential benefits? Like maybe farming moving further North into Canada and Russia? Maybe more rain in places that need it? Probably good for some locations and bad for others. There have been some thoughtful posts on this thread. I think the whole climate change issue is extremely complicated and probably beyond our current abilities to make accurate predictions. All the short term predictions of the climate alarmists have been wrong, so how can anyone believe their long term predictions? Still, it does seem to be getting warmer overall. If there is a way to decrease CO2 emissions it will be through technology. Human nature prevents people from accepting significant reductions in their standard of living unless the situation becomes very dire and they see no other choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,834
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,834 |
Call it global warming or climate change, lots of scientists and educated people are convinced that CO2-generating human activity is having a significant impact on the atmosphere. My take on this is based on what I learned in college getting a degree in physics, with a math minor. What I learned is that the math associated with thermodynamics is hard. Among the most difficult classes I took dealt with partial differential equations. These are the equations that we use to model the physical world. Our instructor told us that a small subset of these equations can be solved to a closed solution. There is a whole field that solves special cases of PDEs numerically through finite element analysis.
Currently, meteorologists use PDEs to predict the weather. The most important inputs are initial conditions. This information is gleaned from various sensors in weather stations around the world. Most weather forecasts blow up after about 5 days, mainly because the initial conditions are not very accurate from a global perspective. After initial conditions, the driver of the function are insolence (solar radiation per unit area), clouds and precipitation, heat exchange with outer space, soil, vegetation, surface water, the effects of mountains, etc. In no instance is the concentration of CO2 an input to any forecasting model I am aware of.
Why is this important? Let’s start with the relationship between weather and climate. The true believers like to say that the two are unrelated. This is simply not true. In fact, there is a very well-understood relationship between the two that every person who ever took calculus will immediately recognize as true, which is that the climate is the integral of weather. That is, unless you believe that some cosmic Being has their thumb on the scale. Climate is the integral of weather, nothing more or less.
Now we know how integrals work. You have a function with variables and relationships between the variables, and there are rules for calculating the integral of the function. Note that if a factor is not present in the function, by definition, it cannot be present in the integral of that function.
The true believers want us to believe that a factor not even relevant for weather prediction is the dominant driving factor in climate. This simply does not pass the sniff test.
There are factors that affect the weather that aren’t in forecasting models. For example, volcanism. That is true, but volcanic eruptions definitely affect insolence, which is in the model.
Any mathematicians on the Fire see any flaws in this argument?
You make one big, BIG elemental error. Climate is not the integral of weather. Climate is nothing more than the AVERAGE of the weather. Weather is not influenced by climate, it determines the climate. Inputs include water vapor, greenhouse gases, atmospheric clarity, average cloud cover, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, ocean temperature, and the proverbial butterly in the Amazon. Does human produced CO2 add to the greenhouse gases? Absolutely. What is the net effect of that? WTF knows? Multivariable analysis is always a crap shoot. Odds are, however, that adding greenhouse gases that trap energy is not going to lower the average temperature.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,831
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,831 |
The warmests' data set is too small to make any viable prediction of future climate change.
Accurate, instrument read temp. data on a world wide scale goes back less than 200 years, and yet the world is 3 BILLION+ years old. Like the OP stated, do the math.
The computer models used to predict future activity are incomplete in their useful data as well. Major holes in the data set, such as lack of accurate water vapor values for any given year let alone week, are "filled" with proxies ie guesses as to what the values should be. By doing so they are able "predict" what they want by changing the unknown values to those that backup their agenda. Water vapor numbers alone can make or break values across the board since there is about 25 times more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere on any given day/week/month/year.
What we know of geologic history shows there is little correlation between temp and CO2 levels. The two rarely if every parallel each other for any meaningful time period and as mentioned earlier temp brings on CO2, not the other way around this has been shown by ice core studies.
We also know from the geologic record that the planet has been in a cooling trend since its beginning. At the moment we are sitting in an inter glacial period in the Quaternary Ice Age (Pleistocene glaciation) and will head back into another glaciation period, just hope not too soon, but considering the lack of sun spot activity that has been going on for some years now we may be heading into a more severe solar minimum than has occurred in the last several centuries. If this trend continues for several more months/year experts predict we could head into another mini ice age such as happened during the Maunder minimum, the last half of the 1600's to early 1700's. Might be a good time to stock up on some extra wool socks and a warm coat.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?"
_Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience."
- Alexander Hamilton
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,219
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,219 |
What about all the chemicals that they are spraying from planes?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,088
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,088 |
So...what is the most prevalent "greenhouse gas" of all? Farts?
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,359
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,359 |
So...what is the most prevalent "greenhouse gas" of all? Farts? yes, the technical term is hu-methane I think. the kind you can light. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 997
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 997 |
[quote][elementary that adding CO2 (or other /quote]
CO2 is a weak as a greenhouse gas gas. Interestingly, CO2 levels generally follow temperarture rather than drive temperatures.
Weather is never constant, neither is climate. Weather is a short term- look at this variability. Climate long-term.
Increased population densities in areas that are chronically susceptible to adverse weather events, such as droughth in the SW US or hurricanes in the SE, flood plains, etc means that humans are become more likely to suffer from changes in the climate. It does not mean humans are responsible for the changes, nor can they stop them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,679
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,679 |
Sometimes when a Warmists goes off the rails, I tell them how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, just to get them back on track with a sense of perspective. It's four one hundredths of one percent.
That's a pretty damn small number. For a gas that has very little effect especially compared to H2O.
Politics is War by Other Means
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
When competing scientists make their arguments using terminology we don’t fully understand, relying on data we can’t check, we have to make our decision about the truth by relying on something within our own experience.
For me, it’s this :
How should I react when someone knocks on my door, tries to convince me that I have a BIG problem that I’ve been ignoring? ( I should wait for his next pitch )
Now he tells me he has a solution. ( I’m still listening )
Then he tells me how much it’s going to cost me to implement his solution. ( OK.....gotcha. You’re the same guy who came by last month trying to sell me an antenna to soak up the harmful microwaves attacking my house. )
Making money by convincing people that THEY have a problem, and YOU have a solution has been going on for six thousand years, at least.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,921
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,921 |
Does not warming have some potential benefits? Like maybe farming moving further North into Canada and Russia? Maybe more rain in places that need it? It also means not being able to farm in other places and less rain in places that have always had it. It means rising oceans and with a significant number of people and infrastructure within 5 miles of the coast world wide would have to be relocated into a shrinking land mass on earth. There is no doubt that Global Warming is real. The debate is whether or not humans are having an impact on it. The earth has always gone through cooling and warming cycles long before humans were here and that is the point those who don't believe keep making. The difference, and the best argument those make who believe humans are responsible is the time line. It only takes 5-6 degrees of average temperature change over the course of a year to have a significant impact on weather patterns and melting polar ice. In the past when these cycles happened it took thousands of years to see just a few degrees difference. This time we've seen the same rise in temperatures in just 200 years. I'm not smart enough to know the answer. But within reason don't see any downsides to taking some precautions. Just in case humans truly are part of the problem. To completely ignore the issue is irresponsible.
Most people don't really want the truth.
They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 316
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 316 |
In answer to the OP. CO2 concentration isn't used as a variable in the weather predictions because it is not "variable" over the course of a few days. Variables need to have variability in order to matter to an equation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,817
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,817 |
Climate is not the integral of weather. Climate is nothing more than the AVERAGE of the weather.
Technical point: How do we calculate the average?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,285
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,285 |
Making money by convincing people that THEY have a problem, and YOU have a solution has been going on for six thousand years, at least. Bingo...Except now it's the Globalist's selling the snake oil. They have a plan for everyone to pay. Big business, small business, mom & pop business, and individuals. When they figure out how to charge you for the air you breath you will pay for that as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......
Last edited by 308ld; 12/14/18.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,374
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,374 |
Does not warming have some potential benefits? Like maybe farming moving further North into Canada and Russia? Maybe more rain in places that need it? . In the past when these cycles happened it took thousands of years to see just a few degrees difference. This time we've seen the same rise in temperatures in just 200 years. . This is very likely false. This is the orthodoxy that has been perpetuated for the last century. It is called gradualism. It has now been largely debunked. The evidence shows extreme warming and cooling to the tune of 15-18 degrees over as little as a few years or decades at most. The earths climate is subject to wild temperature swings that have been going on since long before man burned any fossil fuels. Even within the Holocene interglacial that we are in now there have been fairly dramatic temperature swings over a short period of time. Do a little research on the Little Ice Age to give you an idea.
Last edited by TnBigBore; 12/14/18.
Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,234
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,234 |
Another of my problems with the alarmists. They keep rattling off claims such as the temperature will rise by 2.31° if we don't do this or that. But ask them to say with the same precision how much effect this or that will have, and they go silent.
Any proposed "climate corrective" action can have only three possible outcomes: too little effect, the correct effect, and too much effect. (That's ignoring the very real possibility of no effect at all, but they ignore that so we can, too.) Too little (or none) means we have wasted all the trillions we spent. Too much means we have to spend even more trillions to re-correct the correction or risk starting a new glacial age. But since they can't predict what if any change their proposals will cause, we have only a one in three (or four) chance of them being right.
Yet they want us to make massive changes in the way humans live, with absolutely no idea of how much if any the climate will change as a result.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,487
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,487 |
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,374
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,374 |
Weather is a short term local phenomenon. Predictions are hard due to turbulence and the inability to quantify all the variables.
GLOBAL (note that word) climate is a long term integrated (to use your word) phenomenon.
It is elementary that adding CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) will in fact increase global temperature. We are doing this by burning fossil fuels. It is also a fact that other influences (sun variations, volcanoes) and feedback effects (more heating makes more water evaporate which makes more clouds which reflect sunlight etc.) influence climate.
Although I will stack up my university physics education against yours if need be, it takes no more than a high school chemistry class to realize that we are, in fact, adding more CO2, and that increases average temperature over what it would have been from other causes alone. That is indisputable. What I disagree with is the assertion that this is 100% bad and also with the suggested remedies, which the Paris accords seemed to think should be the US giving trillions of dollars to third-world tin-pot dictators, while China, which emits more CO2 than us, gets a free pass until "later."
The US has reduced emissions more than any other country just by our competent economic growth.
. It is absolutely plausible that human produced CO2 causes a rise in global temperature. But, is it 90% or .01%? The warmists would have you believe that it is 90% or more. This is based largely on the close correlation of C02 levels and temperature over the last several hundred thousand years. This in no way shows causation. In, fact the evidence shows that rising CO2 levels actually follows temperature by a couple hundred years and not the other way around. It is likely that rising temperatures caused more CO2 to be released from the oceans which are the largest reservoir of C02 on the planet. There is some other mechanism that is the primary driver of climate change with many possible candidates. The fact that CO2 is the only variable considered and that it can be taxed should tell you all you need to know. There is no close correlation between CO2 and temperature. More precisely, many times through history there have been seriously skewed relationships. I would take some issue with this assertion. Although there is a lot of evidence showing no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 in deep time, the last 400,000 years has shown a close correlation between the two.
Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
123 members (358WCF, 450yukon, 19rabbit52, 10gaugemag, 30Gibbs, 35sambar, 22 invisible),
2,267
guests, and
905
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,279
Posts18,467,648
Members73,928
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
