Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oops, El Nino is back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • santafe2
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by astonas View Post
    The problem is that professional deniers' "science" almost never reaches even that incredibly low (high-school) bar.
    Understood. I've been there but I think I'm over it. We should all understand that there is a complete impasse. We may even enjoy our iTulip denier's posts on other subjects but when they write on this subject, all I hear is politically based nonsense. Of course, that's all they hear when they read our posts unless we stick completely to the science without an opinion either way. The physics is undeniable. As Feynman said, "Nature cannot be fooled.".

    I get the backlash to this issue from a political point of view. Every denier is at their core a small government, "drown it in a bathtub" soul. I don't completely disagree with that sentiment but I want to also be able to drown JPM, GS, C, etc. etc. and not worry about them either. AGW is a very problematic issue for small government, "fortress America", folks as it will take massive cooperation among governments around the world to begin to resolve this issue and the fraud inherent in the solution will be equally massive. Almost all denial arguments are really against big government intervention. It's just easier to say AGW isn't real, or it doesn't matter or the scientists are a fraud.

    I think we could better argue this issue if we all agreed that we fall into two camps. We either think the solution will be much worse than the problem or we think the problem is much worse than the solution. Neither side wants to harm humanity, we just have a very different idea of where the problem lies. If we can mostly agree to use this frame and get away from the denier vs. alarmist frame there may be something to discuss. Until then I'll be happy to occasionally point out the fallacies when deniers rape the science in their fever to kill off big, lefty government.

    Leave a comment:


  • astonas
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    Thanks for the explanation. I don't have a short, clear way to explain this because we shouldn't make the assumption that everyone reading here has been exposed to the idea that light hitting a darker surface is absorbed and turned into thermal energy and/or that the short wave energy coming from the sun is not the problem. As you know, the problem is the additional thermal energy trapped by increasing CO2. But the great majority of people do not understand the physics underlying this issue. It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, they've just never been exposed to the idea...at least in the US. At it's core global atmospheric warming is no more complex than an average high school physics project but your other point about ocean acidification is a much more troubling and complex issue.

    Thank you for acknowleging that ones doesn't need to be a "respected climate scientist" to develop and informed view on AGW. Can we please dispense with any subsequent appeals to that ad populam fallacy (I prefer to call it ad ignoramum)

    Of course one doesn't need to be "a respected climate scientist" to have an informed view!


    But if one wants to demonstrate that all prior work on a subject is incorrect, it is advisable that one's arguments be at least consistent with (at minimum) a high-school physics level of understanding.


    The problem is that professional deniers' "science" almost never reaches even that incredibly low (high-school) bar. Instead one gets: Blatant statistical misrepresentations. Improperly defined thermodynamic systems. "Experiments" with non-comparable controls. Elementary misunderstanding of combustion efficiency and byproducts. Improperly scaled and calculated optical absorption. Ignorance of the concept of a chemical equilibrium.


    These are what you'd expect to find in (failing) high school science projects. And these are just a few of the errors I've seen in the work of deniers who have recently been linked here on iTulip. Seriously, a high school science teacher would have to grade these an F, based on methodology and rigor alone. Entirely independent of conclusions.


    And that's pretty much what gets re-posted here on iTulip opposing climate change.


    When one makes the mistake of endorsing this garbage as legitimate "science", one also necessarily demonstrates that one does not, oneself, have even that (high school-level) of understanding.


    Why do you think even long-time deniers in the Republican party are now falling back to the position "I'm not a scientist"?


    It's because they have found that publicly repeating denier's "science-based" arguments against climate change makes them look more ignorant than a bag of rocks. (Not that any politician needs much help in this.)


    Time and time again, they have been embarrassed on camera by making obviously incorrect statements, taken straight from denier's "papers".


    Miraculously, some voters DO remember just enough high school physics to recognize such errors.






    So, vinoveri, to finally answer your request: For my part, I will happily eschew any appeal to popularity or consensus at all, in perpetuity, if the climate-change-isn't real side will finally stop posting work so embarrasingly badly conducted that it can't even make it though a simple peer-review process.


    Seriously, it's REALLY not that hard to get published somewhere. All you need to do is to show that you've conducted the experiment or study properly. That's it. Lots of scientists, some smart, some decidedly not, do it all the time. And publishing a result doesn't represent an endorsement of the conclusion, either. It just means that the work itself has probably been conducted properly.


    It really IS based on the same kind of criteria of a high-school physics project: Did you show your work? Did you do the measurements correctly (calibrating the tools, using the right references, etc.)? Do your experiments adequately support whatever level of certainty you claim in your conclusion? Did you have a meaningful control group? Did you cite prior work properly, and explain how yours is similar or different? Things like that.


    I've published, and been a reviewer, in my field. I've NEVER ONCE seen a paper get rejected from all journals for reasons other than not meeting these kinds of basic requirements. If anything, far too much stuff gets published that doesn't quite fully meet them.


    So I think that's fair. I'll refrain from pointing out that respected scientists don't actually agree with the "anti" side at all, if others finally start posting only work that on its own merits has a chance of being worthy of respect (by being published in a peer-reviewed journal).


    To the best of my recollection, the climate-change-isn't-real side of this debate has yet to put a single post on iTulip that rises to even this meager level.






    It would be nice to see one that did.


    I should point out that I'd be happy to be wrong on this. If a study whose work is rigorous enough to have objectively earned respect has been posted here on the "anti" side, please link the post. I honestly don't recall seeing even a single one with a valid methodology since I've joined.
    Last edited by astonas; 11-09-14, 08:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vinoveri
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    But the great majority of people do not understand the physics underlying this issue. It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, they've just never been exposed to the idea...at least in the US. At it's core global atmospheric warming is no more complex than an average high school physics project but your other point about ocean acidification is a much more troubling and complex issue.
    Thank you for acknowleging that ones doesn't need to be a "respected climate scientist" to develop and informed view on AGW. Can we please dispense with any subsequent appeals to that ad populam fallacy (I prefer to call it ad ignoramum)

    Leave a comment:


  • santafe2
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by astonas View Post
    You are of course quite right. I did oversimplify by wrapping all that up in the two terms "aggregate albedo" and "reflection" which does hide the principle driving mechanism, driven as it is by differing spectra of incident and emitted radiation.

    My reason was that I didn't want to get bogged down in those mechanisms, since my point was to focus on the bigger-picture relationship between two independent consequences of excess CO2: global warming, and acidification. I didn't want make my post more involved than absolutely necessary, since I can and often do get so long-winded that many readers would rather skip my arguments than consider them. But even brevity can be taken to excess.

    It is certainly not nit-picking to clarify the underlying science. Thank you for doing so.

    And of course, if you have come across a better turn of phrase that encapsulates your paragraph into a single clause, I'd happily use that in the future instead. I initially considered, for example, using "re-radiation" instead of "reflection", but it didn't really stand alone very well, since to me it begs for both radiation sources and scattering spectra to be differentiated, and thus gets grammatically awkward without a subordinate clause. Suggestions are always welcome.
    Thanks for the explanation. I don't have a short, clear way to explain this because we shouldn't make the assumption that everyone reading here has been exposed to the idea that light hitting a darker surface is absorbed and turned into thermal energy and/or that the short wave energy coming from the sun is not the problem. As you know, the problem is the additional thermal energy trapped by increasing CO2. But the great majority of people do not understand the physics underlying this issue. It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, they've just never been exposed to the idea...at least in the US. At it's core global atmospheric warming is no more complex than an average high school physics project but your other point about ocean acidification is a much more troubling and complex issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • astonas
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    Hope I'm not nit-picking too much here but I wanted to clarify your statement regarding the relationship of the earth's aggregate albedo and global warming.

    When sunlight strikes the earth as short wave radiation, (light), and reflects off a high albedo surface like snow or ice the majority of that radiation remains as short wave radiation and is reflected outside the earth's atmosphere. CO2 does not interfere with the movement of short wave radiation in and out of our atmosphere. When sunlight strikes a low albedo surface like water or a forest or a highway, much of the energy is absorbed and reflected as long wave radiation or heat. CO2 does interfere with long wave radiation attempting to leave the atmosphere. As additional energy is accumulated in the atmosphere, surface temperatures rise and more snow and ice melt. So lowering the aggregate albedo does force additional warming but it is a secondary effect. The primary effect is additional CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere trapping additional energy.
    You are of course quite right. I did oversimplify by wrapping all that up in the two terms "aggregate albedo" and "reflection" which does hide the principle driving mechanism, driven as it is by differing spectra of incident and emitted radiation.

    My reason was that I didn't want to get bogged down in those mechanisms, since my point was to focus on the bigger-picture relationship between two independent consequences of excess CO2: global warming, and acidification. I didn't want make my post more involved than absolutely necessary, since I can and often do get so long-winded that many readers would rather skip my arguments than consider them. But even brevity can be taken to excess.

    It is certainly not nit-picking to clarify the underlying science. Thank you for doing so.

    And of course, if you have come across a better turn of phrase that encapsulates your paragraph into a single clause, I'd happily use that in the future instead. I initially considered, for example, using "re-radiation" instead of "reflection", but it didn't really stand alone very well, since to me it begs for both radiation sources and scattering spectra to be differentiated, and thus gets grammatically awkward without a subordinate clause. Suggestions are always welcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • santafe2
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by astonas View Post
    Both global warming and ocean acidification result from excess CO2. The effects, however, are due to different, and independent, mechanisms.

    Global warming is the term for a change in the earth's aggregate albedo (ability to reflect light that originates from the sun). This depends on the composition of gasses in the atmosphere, including CO2.
    Hope I'm not nit-picking too much here but I wanted to clarify your statement regarding the relationship of the earth's aggregate albedo and global warming.

    When sunlight strikes the earth as short wave radiation, (light), and reflects off a high albedo surface like snow or ice the majority of that radiation remains as short wave radiation and is reflected outside the earth's atmosphere. CO2 does not interfere with the movement of short wave radiation in and out of our atmosphere. When sunlight strikes a low albedo surface like water or a forest or a highway, much of the energy is absorbed and reflected as long wave radiation or heat. CO2 does interfere with long wave radiation attempting to leave the atmosphere. As additional energy is accumulated in the atmosphere, surface temperatures rise and more snow and ice melt. So lowering the aggregate albedo does force additional warming but it is a secondary effect. The primary effect is additional CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere trapping additional energy.

    Leave a comment:


  • santafe2
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    I accept that the additional CO2 will cause global warming. My question is more along policy lines and what we can reasonably expect given that we may be entering a cooling cycle that will cover up/hide the CO2 effects for several years. We, being human, should not expect any meaningful reduction until a few years after we truly roast our asses off during the next solar peak.

    What do you think? Will this solar cycle cover up the near term warming...?
    I've linked a paper at the bottom of this post that you can use as a reference. It is true that some of the warming, (not the accumulation of CO2), may be masked over the next few years as total solar irradiance, (TSI), decreases. But the decrease is small, it's 7/100ths of one percent, (0.07%) and the period over which it is likely to decrease is another 5 years, not 14, (the solar cycle is 11 years on average). That said, TSI is only one variable, and a small one at that. Two examples: Mount Pinatubo erupted near a solar maximum in 1991 and completely masked warming for a couple of years and a very strong El Nino, (ENSO), in 1998 drove warming up massively during a solar minimum.

    Given that we have a small but noticeable El Nino forming I think that variable will more than counter the weaker irradiance. We'll have to wait and see what happens but not as long as you first thought. If you want to know when we can expect an increase in warming in the atmosphere, watch the El Nino cycle. I hope that helps.

    http://depts.washington.edu/amath/ol.../solar-jgr.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • aaron
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    aaron, we are most likely talking about two different issues. Your link is to the solar cycle which is indeed losing intensity. I'm talking about forcing caused by additional CO2. Both are happening but the solar cycle is well known and is a much smaller force than an additional 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Yes, I was not clear.

    I accept that the additional CO2 will cause global warming. My question is more along policy lines and what we can reasonably expect given that we may be entering a cooling cycle that will cover up/hide the CO2 effects for several years. We, being human, should not expect any meaningful reduction until a few years after we truly roast our asses off during the next solar peak.

    What do you think? Will this solar cycle cover up the near term warming, and if so, are we screwed if it takes 14 years from today to begin reduction ? Or, is it just too weak to matter and this decade will just get hotter and hotter regardless?

    I fear the appearance that everything is fine. It seems that way in North America, for most people. Globally, it may cool for a decade and even they might start to think scientists are not accurate.

    I guess I will be OK. I have told my kids to enjoy the seafood while it lasts.

    Leave a comment:


  • astonas
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    But is the rise of CO2 the cause of global warming or the result of global warming? My understanding is it's the latter.
    and
    Originally posted by lektrode View Post
    to that i would ask: what came first, global warming or acid rain?
    Originally posted by lektrode View Post

    my understanding - at least IIRC, ms shiny - is its the latter.

    and what is more likely to happen first: sea level rise or collapse of its food chain?

    again, my uneducated guess would be the latter (since the coral reefs are definitely having a problem and they ARE the first level, once past plankton etc) ?

    methinks the warming issue is a distraction - political/ideological - and getting more desparate by the day - to steer the argument/discussion away from the only real alternative to combustion for energy/KWHs/heat/industrial production (read: the N word)

    just sayin...
    Both global warming and ocean acidification result from excess CO2. The effects, however, are due to different, and independent, mechanisms.

    Global warming is the term for a change in the earth's aggregate albedo (ability to reflect light that originates from the sun). This depends on the composition of gasses in the atmosphere, including CO2.

    A separate effect is that CO2 dissolves in water as carbonic acid.
    CO2 + H2O H2CO3
    (For example, in a can of soda.)

    So even if the ocean CAN absorb all the excess CO2 being produced, it does so at the cost of shifting pH. In other words, if anthropogenic global warming isn't real, then we have even more to worry about than if it is.

    It means that all that CO2 is being dissolved into acid. As Lek points out, the ecosystem of earth depends crucially on the oceans, even for those species that live only on land.

    The acid rain phenomenon in the US northeast was the result of pollutants, such as NOx and SOx, which also form acids when dissolved in water. These were mostly the byproducts of industrial and vehicular combustion. Mandated cleanup (for example, chemical scrubbers on smokestacks) and catalytic converters in automobiles has significantly reduced the impact of acid rain.

    So whether you are worried about global warming, or ocean acidification, the solution for both is to reduce CO2 (and other combustion byproduct) emissions.
    Last edited by astonas; 11-07-14, 07:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lektrode
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    But is the rise of CO2 the cause of global warming or the result of global warming? My understanding is it's the latter.
    to that i would ask: what came first, global warming or acid rain?

    my understanding - at least IIRC, ms shiny - is its the latter.

    and what is more likely to happen first: sea level rise or collapse of its food chain?

    again, my uneducated guess would be the latter (since the coral reefs are definitely having a problem and they ARE the first level, once past plankton etc) ?

    methinks the warming issue is a distraction - political/ideological - and getting more desparate by the day - to steer the argument/discussion away from the only real alternative to combustion for energy/KWHs/heat/industrial production (read: the N word)

    just sayin...

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by lektrode View Post
    and its the CO2 that the oceans are absorbing that is THE REAL ISSUE/problem - something that is being ignored and/or drowned-out by all the noise about 'warming' and 'rise' of sea levels.

    the planet gets a little warmer, the beach goes a little further inland over the next 50-100 years = SO WHAT?

    its been zig-zagging like that for BILLIONS of years.

    but the acidification of the oceans is screwing up the food chain NOW and THAT IS GOING TO KILL US far quicker than the polar ice caps melting
    But is the rise of CO2 the cause of global warming or the result of global warming? My understanding is it's the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • lektrode
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    aaron, we are most likely talking about two different issues. Your link is to the solar cycle which is indeed losing intensity. I'm talking about forcing caused by additional CO2. Both are happening but the solar cycle is well known and is a much smaller force than an additional 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    and its the CO2 that the oceans are absorbing that is THE REAL ISSUE/problem - something that is being ignored and/or drowned-out by all the noise about 'warming' and 'rise' of sea levels.

    the planet gets a little warmer, the beach goes a little further inland over the next 50-100 years = SO WHAT?

    its been zig-zagging like that for BILLIONS of years.

    but the acidification of the oceans is screwing up the food chain NOW and THAT IS GOING TO KILL US far quicker than the polar ice caps melting

    Leave a comment:


  • santafe2
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    Can you point me to links for that? I understood the opposite. I thought we were at our solar peak and temperature peak right now. In other words, I thought aren't we do for some cooling over the next several years?

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
    aaron, we are most likely talking about two different issues. Your link is to the solar cycle which is indeed losing intensity. I'm talking about forcing caused by additional CO2. Both are happening but the solar cycle is well known and is a much smaller force than an additional 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    This thread gives me a great idea for a movie that I should pitch to my sister.

    Mother Nature is played by an old Chinese woman playing Chinese poker.

    She gets a flush Dragon -- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A all in the same suit -- a hand so rare as to occur only once ever 100 million years if she plays all day, statistically.

    But she hasn't had this hand for 800 million years.

    How frustrating!

    Elated she celebrates by blasting a meteor into the earth.

    This causes temperatures to plunge and the atmosphere to turn acidic and wet.

    Within 10 years or 1/1.11111E-08 of the time it took her to win the hand 95% of the previously dominant flora and fauna are dead. Tens of trillions of plants and animals are wiped out.

    But over the next 50 million years the surviving species adapt and thrive.

    That's how we all got here.

    She gets another flush Dragon after only 50 million years.

    The luck!

    This occurs coincidentally as global warming is debated in the media, a thing created by one of her species.

    Imagine their surprise when Mother Nature celebrates with a supernova of our sun and turns the entire solar system to ash.

    "Hah!" she says. "That was fun. Another game?"
    Cute idea, EJ, but my post wasn't doomerism. I'm not worried about rising sea levels. I don't know if global warming is happening or if we're entering another mini ice age. There's nothing I can do about any of those scenarios anyway. As far as I'm concerned, weather happens. I simply want to be where the climate's mild enough that if the power goes off for awhile the weather won't kill me. Somewhere that isn't a desert, because I hate the freakin' desert.

    The Southwestern U.S. has never had native water resources to support the populations of LA, Phoenix and Las Vegas. We are always either in or close to a drought scenario. It has nothing to do with "climate change." It's simply insane to put huge populations where water has to be "imported" from snowpack thousands of miles away. In bad years (sometimes bad decades) when the Rockies don't get their normal snow and our measly rainfall doesn't happen, we're in trouble. All the while the population keeps growing. We've managed so far, but it's a very fragile system.

    One summer several years ago a power tranformer blew out in Phoenix. Can you believe they didn't have a spare? The closest one was in Oregon! It took two weeks to get here; the darned thing fell off the truck twice on the journey. During that time the Phoenix Metro area (population 4+ million) was on the verge of rolling brownouts. No electricity here means no A/C. We depend on A/C for our survival, like people up north depend on heat in the winter.

    In 2010 and 2013 my A/C died on the hottest weekends of the year. Indoor temperature was 105-108 degrees... for three days. I didn't quite get heatstroke but did get heat exhaustion, the next best thing. Took me weeks to recover. Never want to go through that again!

    None of this is doomerism, although I have imagined a terrorism scenario involving little planes and two or three transformers in July. I try not to go there...

    Leave a comment:


  • vinoveri
    replied
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    This thread gives me a great idea for a movie that I should pitch to my sister.

    Mother Nature is played by an old Chinese woman playing Chinese poker.

    She gets a flush Dragon -- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A all in the same suit -- a hand so rare as to occur only once ever 100 million years if she plays all day, statistically.

    But she hasn't had this hand for 800 million years.

    How frustrating!

    Elated she celebrates by blasting a meteor into the earth.

    This causes temperatures to plunge and the atmosphere to turn acidic and wet.

    Within 10 years or 1/1.11111E-08 of the time it took her to win the hand 95% of the previously dominant flora and fauna are dead. Tens of trillions of plants and animals are wiped out.

    But over the next 50 million years the surviving species adapt and thrive.

    That's how we all got here.

    She gets another flush Dragon after only 50 million years.

    The luck!

    This occurs coincidentally as global warming is debated in the media, a thing created by one of her species.

    Imagine their surprise when Mother Nature celebrates with a supernova of our sun and turns the entire solar system to ash.

    "Hah!" she says. "That was fun. Another game?"
    Encore, encore, por favore.

    If I didn't know otherwise, sounds like a story by joint effort of Ray Bradbury and H L Mencken

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X