Northwest Passage

[DeepFrz]

Meanwhile the beat goes on. The NWP is probably 80% open for passage right now and opening quite rapidly. Also, in the Arctic sea ice topic here is a discussion by Professor Jason Box of the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Iceland of the breakup of the Greenland Ice Sheet on the east coast of Greenland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJjmW2KQsxE

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Meanwhile the beat goes on. The NWP is probably 80% open for passage right now and opening quite rapidly. Also, in the Arctic sea ice topic here is a discussion by Professor Jason Box of the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Iceland of the breakup of the Greenland Ice Sheet on the east coast of Greenland:

I would agree with you except in the archipelago where there is still fast ice on some routes and as of a couple days ago the rest was mostly 8 or 9/10 sea ice concentration .
And that bs on Greenland is just that . The above freezing temperatures are forecast to last about 18 hours then its back to the deep freeze.

But the facts don't make money the hype does.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

What I'd like to know is what happened with the peer review process?

Quite simply science is observing something then reporting a) what you observed, and b) why you think your observation is of use to others. That's it, full-stop. The observation either explains something not previously explained, or, introduces data that is believed to be integral to understanding as of yet to be defined phenomena. Getting into fortune telling is a bit much.

Peer review ordinarily is just a process to determine that a) the observations are novel, b) the observations lend utility, and c) the obscure/arcane data and methodology is of high fidelity (e.g. to protect interlopers from being misguided). Peer review is not supposed to look like

this

.


Mel Brooks' comedy is genius. The above skit shows what history damn near universally proves correct on most all huge social change movements. It's not that the policy makers had ill intent (protecting their jobs), it's that history shows that...the policies that they make...practically were only self-serving. It's wrong to draw this conclusion at the beginning of any policy discussion, but it's ignorant to ignore history and thus quite reasonable to keep it in mind.

Much of the ~alarmist position hinges upon the PAGES2K people's observations. It must be observed that the P2K observations are heavily proxy derived. Furthermore, P2K and similar like-minded observers routinely do not declare specifically there data sets and methodology. The fact that Nature publishes the stuff...to a skeptic...means little through the lens of history. The skeptic recognizes that the most universally read book in modern history (at least in the West) is heavily utilized by scoundrels purpoting to be, um, saintly. The skeptic recognizes that the lowest level of scientific validity is professional opinion; if/when the opinion is built upon a bunch of proxy derived data and methodology that is not completely placed into the open....it's quite reasonable to call shenanigans.

At any rate, I think it's reasonable to accept all the P2K findings with respect to forecasts "if we do nothing." From my perspective, the countermeasures to mitigate the P2K-type concerns completely do not address whatsoever #s 2-5 threats to civilization. This latter point...I tend to believe...is why skeptics are skeptics on this subject. I'm a firm believer that high innate intelligence...logic...is present in the supermajority of people, such that they tend to not like (and/or be skeptical about) stuff that defies logic. What's confusing is the manner in which people argue against that which does not feel right (i.e. defies their logic). They end up in revolving door arguments with adversaries promoting the opposite position. Skeptics often find themselves fighting the wrong battles (e.g. debating CO2 in lab experiments) to win a war that they otherwise find just (e.g. the war against mandating fundamental changes to life as we know it).

Meanwhile history plays out. Another thread here discussed making plans, and what happens when you do. Unknowable unknowables always pop-up....a point that alarmists on the subject matter here seem to ignore.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, then we're back to my earlier point: if the role of increased CO2 in causing warming is pretty much accepted,

This is exactly my point, or at least my questioning, and why I've been trying to get you to correct what seems like a misunderstanding on what exactly is the "accepted role of increased CO2 in causing the warming." My understanding is that the only part of it that is accepted (and has been for a long time) is that CO2 explains some level of warming (there is direct cause & effect), but how much is controversial. The "official" (IPCC) view is that the influence is "significant," which the weight of scientific opinion -- at least within the field of climate science apparently -- supports. I think you can probably see how resolution of the "how much" question could swing public opinion one way or the other, and would also be necessary for informed policymaking and the difficult choices that will entail.

then isn't it incumbent upon those still skeptical of the amount of 'A' in AGW to provide some proof and quantification of the natural forces and their CO2 outputs that have contributed to the "unnaturally" rapid increase in CO2?

The influence of natural forces are apparently not measurable nor quantifiable, so no -- the burden of proof remains on those blaming it all (or most) on the added CO2. That natural forces obviously influence Earth's temperature is a given. If humans have been disrupting that process, then it will always remain incumbent on scientists to explain why. According to some skeptics, our warming is merely a minor blip in a 10,000 year warming trend since the last major ice age. On the other end of the spectrum, some theorize we're supposed to be in a cooling trend right now due to Milankovitch (sp?) cycles, so therefore any evidence of warming must be attributable to human added CO2. But that's just another theory -- from credible scientific sources I'm sure, but then so are many others.

As I understand it, the CO2 rise has a pretty close matchup to the CO2 produced by recent human activity. And there is not yet a historical record of a natural precedent which matches the recent buildup for speed and amount. Nor evidence of a recent natural CO2 event of comparable significance. Occam's razor...

I think your first statement is correct and pretty well accepted. We certainly hear & read plenty of assertions about the other two, and I'm sure you can find plenty of scientists who will agree, but I'm not sure how well accepted it is. Once again, much of the controversy centers around the integrity & viability of the historical record that the modern build-up is being compared to. The second problem is the logarithmic relationship between added CO2 build-up & additional warming (IR saturation that Newhaul has pointed out), and the effect of the build-up on other variables such as water vapor, cloud build-up, etc. (which Allen just mentioned). So merely drawing conclusions that the undisputed CO2 build up, on its own, is the end all & be all doesn't get you there. But explicitly or by implication, that's exactly the conclusion we're bombarded with by non-scientific sources every day.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The influence of natural forces are apparently not measurable nor quantifiable, so no -- the burden of proof remains on those blaming it all (or most) on the added CO2.

That natural forces obviously influence Earth's temperature is a given. If humans have been disrupting that process, then it will always remain incumbent on scientists to explain why.

I'm sorry, I don't buy all that. Basically you're saying we can't blame a quantifiable and significant factor because there MIGHT be "natural" factors that are also significant, but so sorry, we can't quantify or measure them.

The scientists involved have explained their case fairly well, and their explanations apparently allow for the "natural" factors that are currently understood.

If there are other factors that must be considered in addition, or as alternate explanations, it needs to be shown that such factors have previously had similar influence, and have also occurred recently, and so should be considered as a factor. We're 0 for 2 here, so far.

...merely drawing conclusions that the undisputed CO2 build up, on its own, is the end all & be all doesn't get you there. But explicitly or by implication, that's exactly the conclusion we're bombarded with by non-scientific sources every day.

It's only necessary to show that the CO2 buildup is so significant that it has altered what would have been the "natural" pattern, that the human-added CO2 has made the difference... it has tipped what should have been a slightly cooling climate into warming. Hasn't this been done?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Singularity

....Much of the ~alarmist position hinges upon the PAGES2K people's observations. It must be observed that the P2K observations are heavily proxy derived. Furthermore, P2K and similar like-minded observers routinely do not declare specifically there data sets and methodology. The fact that Nature publishes the stuff...to a skeptic...means little through the lens of history. The skeptic recognizes that the most universally read book in modern history (at least in the West) is heavily utilized by scoundrels purpoting to be, um, saintly. The skeptic recognizes that the lowest level of scientific validity is professional opinion; if/when the opinion is built upon a bunch of proxy derived data and methodology that is not completely placed into the open....it's quite reasonable to call shenanigans.

At any rate, I think it's reasonable to accept all the P2K findings with respect to forecasts "if we do nothing." From my perspective, the countermeasures to mitigate the P2K-type concerns completely do not address whatsoever #s 2-5 threats to civilization. This latter point...I tend to believe...is why skeptics are skeptics on this subject. I'm a firm believer that high innate intelligence...logic...is present in the supermajority of people, such that they tend to not like (and/or be skeptical about) stuff that defies logic. What's confusing is the manner in which people argue against that which does not feel right (i.e. defies their logic). They end up in revolving door arguments with adversaries promoting the opposite position. Skeptics often find themselves fighting the wrong battles (e.g. debating CO2 in lab experiments) to win a war that they otherwise find just (e.g. the war against mandating fundamental changes to life as we know it).

Meanwhile history plays out. Another thread here discussed making plans, and what happens when you do. Unknowable unknowables always pop-up....a point that alarmists on the subject matter here seem to ignore.

It seems to me you might feel very comfortable with this stages of Climate Denial list.

Originally Posted by SailOar

There are a number of different Climate Denial Stages lists.

Taxonomy of climate change denial | Wikipedia

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It seems to me you might feel very comfortable with this stages of Climate Denial list.

I just love how you keep trotting out your links it really is entertaining but you really need to quantify when you bring out this list that it is your personal opinion and not a scientific reality. ( anything wiki needs a degree of scepticism regardless of side it supports just by its public modifiable nature)

I do try not to use it if at all possible , however sometimes due to the work preformed by the ministry of truth the real facts are no longer commonly available .

Many times on here I am called a sceptic or more often a denier .

I consider myself a climate realist.

You all have fun with that

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm sorry, I don't buy all that. Basically you're saying we can't blame a quantifiable and significant factor because there MIGHT be "natural" factors that are also significant, but so sorry, we can't quantify or measure them.

No, I'm saying that WHETHER the added CO2 IS in fact a quantifiable and significant factor in the atmospheric warming is at the core of the entire debate. "Natural forces" are simply the default (if you will) -- IF the added CO2 cannot be shown to account for all/most/significant(?) warming, THEN the remainder has to be natural forces. Is there a third possibility I missed?? Shifting the burden requires proof of the (mostly) unprovable -- again, not whether natural forces are affecting warming, but how much. We already know both CO2 (from accepted science) and natural forces (duh??) are capable of affecting temperatures, we just don't fully understand the respective roles of each when it comes to GW. Your way requires a greater degree of scientific certainty than what, in my opinion, exists in the science (as opposed to how the science is communicated to us).

There's an even more fundamental question/controversy over whether we're warming at all, and if we are whether it's sufficiently "aberrant" to warrant all the concern. This is what SailOar's article on new core sampling research spoke to. Oh, and btw, I for one feel SOOOO much better knowing it already went through such "rigorous" peer review prior to publication .

The scientists involved have explained their case fairly well, and their explanations apparently allow for the "natural" factors that are currently understood.

This is hardly objective analysis and once again ignores debate & controversy within the science community. What you're really saying is that "the many scientists involved who generally ascribe to the mainstream position have explained their case fairly well, and their explanations apparently allow for the "natural" factors that are currently understood.

No argument from me, but only as edited.

If there are other factors that must be considered in addition, or as alternate explanations, it needs to be shown that such factors have previously had similar influence, and have also occurred recently, and so should be considered as a factor. We're 0 for 2 here, so far.It's only necessary to show that the CO2 buildup is so significant that it has altered what would have been the "natural" pattern, that the human-added CO2 has made the difference... it has tipped what should have been a slightly cooling climate into warming. Hasn't this been done?

Only if you can show some meaningful level of scientific consensus that the added CO2 "has tipped what should have been a slightly cooling climate into warming." Slight cooling from when? The previous 30 years, the prior decade, the day before yesterday? (Hint: I think it's a minority view). You've identified another one of the core scientific controversies, but once again appear to be conflating scientific theory with "truth." But then you have a lot of company.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It seems to me you might feel very comfortable with this stages of Climate Denial list.

Oh no! Singularity's been OUTED!! Look for his real name, questionable associations, fingerprints, and DNA profile coming to a pro-AGW left-wing website near you!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Many times on here I am called a sceptic or more often a denier .

I consider myself a climate realist.

You all have fun with that

I actually thought you were a marine technician who lives on his own boat, enjoys sailing, is interested in scientific issues, and has strong opinions that question whether modern climate science has viable or realistic answers to why our climate is always changing? But then I noticed a WANTED poster for you up on the same website that SailOar also sent Singularity's profile to, so there MUST be something more . . . .

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It seems to me you might feel very comfortable with this stages of Climate Denial list.

I'm very comfortable in understanding that people who carry around lists, stacks of books of the same title, and relentless behaviors about an agenda are at least plainly myopic. Very comfortable in understanding that this is how they are wired and that it's rather pointless to attempt to convince them otherwise because...of how they're wired. This book explains the wiring.

What's fascinating, to me at least, is that you can interview a "comet is coming" person at length, interview a "global warming will end us all" person at length, interview a "need to wash my hands constantly" person at length, interview a "need to accept the prophet" person at length....you can record these interviews and watch them in succession. You see the same archetypical cognitive processes similar across the multiple existential fears, with routinely similar countermeasures. If you change the nouns...it's the same story.

Even more fascinating, and troubling (as described in the book above) is that you can show someone who is forever pre-occupied with the coming locust invasion (themselves carrying lists, stacks of articles, books, as so on on the subject of locusts)....you can show the locust people the comet/global warming/handwashing people videos...and the locust people will be able to recognize that those other folks share some nutty obsession problem. BUT invariably the locust people cannot, will not be able to develop insight to see that they too are doing the same thing.

I'm not a climate denier. Just that, I suspect, I have a stronger background in the sciences than you coupled with a more open conceptualization of threat prioritization...together with a relative lack of observation biasing. As a wise man once said, one's opinions are the most deceiving thing. Anyone who holds an specific opinion for any length of time...almost by definition...is deceiving himself (and/or he doesn't believe in thermodynamics, or a gazillion derivative phenomena).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, I'm saying that WHETHER the added CO2 IS in fact a quantifiable and significant factor in the atmospheric warming is at the core of the entire debate. "Natural forces" are simply the default (if you will)

But none of the prominent skeptics within the field of climate science take [the] position [that more CO2 does not cause more warming] afaik. The core of the debate is rather "how much." Anything less than all can only be logically explained by natural forces.

There's a bit of self-contradiction here.

One of a bazillion links for the "how much" part.

IF the added CO2 cannot be shown to account for all/most/significant(?) warming, THEN the remainder has to be natural forces.

It's absurd to claim that warming might be caused by "natural forces" that themselves cannot be quantified or measured. The warming IS a measure, no?

This is an uprecedented warming, coincident with an unprecedented buildup of CO2... we must now allow for an unnamed, unmeasurable "natural" force that is also unprecedented, and just happens to have happened at the same time?

There's an even more fundamental question/controversy over whether we're warming at all, and if we are whether it's sufficiently "aberrant" to warrant all the concern.

Warming is in dispute?

Really?

Only if you can show some meaningful level of scientific consensus that the added CO2 "has tipped what should have been a slightly cooling climate into warming."

Ok. [link to Skeptical Science, but it has cites] Don't miss the quote from Dr Spencer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I actually thought you were a marine technician who lives on his own boat, enjoys sailing, is interested in scientific issues, and has strong opinions that question whether modern climate science has viable or realistic answers to why our climate is always changing? But then I noticed a WANTED poster for you up on the same website that SailOar also sent Singularity's profile to, so there MUST be something more . . . .

you forgot the most important word in that entire post


I will fix it RETIRED marine technician.

My wanted poster is coming to a MMGWC meeting near you soon :-)

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh no! Singularity's been OUTED!! Look for his real name, questionable associations, fingerprints, and DNA profile coming to a pro-AGW left-wing website near you!

Frankly I provisionally buy into what little AGW studies I've seen (with respect to man-made global warming)...the science is really pseudoscience compared to other science I'm more familiar with...but but for practical purposes I think it's reasonable for any skeptic to believe in it. I'd go so far as to say that a skeptic should accept the science (provisionally) because of what other people are already doing with the "science."

As an abstraction. Suppose some radical belief system is trying to convert you and others in your community. While they are doing this, they're shutting down your roads, rationing your water supply, dipping into your paycheck. You can either stand at the front door and argue withe the proselytizer, or declare yourself a member of the clan...saving your energy to deal with the road, water, paycheck battle grounds. In this schema, the proselytizer is playing the witting/unwitting role as a distraction. If you think success in the front-door (of the house discussion) is going to help, then you have another thing coming. The only strings that the proselytizer can pull are connected to you...not the higher-ups causing effect to policy.

Regardless, the person at the front door is just parroting narratives. You can readily sense this as they're completely incapable of going off-script...you know...talk human and stuff.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Sorry... I guess a little explanation is in order. Basic physics... the wavelength of radiation is a function of the temperature of the source. The sun's temperature is 5760K and therefore the frequency is .5um which is for the most part is visible light. At that frequency most of the energy just passes through the atmosphere (not completely which is why the sky is blue). That energy strikes the earth and is absorbed and warms the surface of the planet. Now because that surface is warmed, it radiates energy back out, but the surface is much cooler, so the wavelength is longer. Depending on the surface temperature, the frequency changes. You can see of the first graph which is wavelength on the X axis and intensity on the Y. You can see the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing radiation from the earth for various surface temperatures. If there was no greenhouse gases, then what you would measure at the top of the atmosphere would be the same waveform as at the surface and the surface temperature of the earth would be about 0F. Fortunately we have greenhouse gases and they absorb energy. The next graph is an overlay of the original graph at the surface and that measured at the top of the atmosphere. There are chunks missing. These missing chunks correspond to energy that has been absorbed by greenhouse gases.
That missing energy is converted to heat which warms the planet above 0F and make the planet habitual. The graph I previously provided is an overlay of the calculated spectra of the energy transmitted from the earth compared to the actual measured value by at the top of the atmosphere. The graphs were shifted in the Y axis so they can be compared. The two graphs are almost the same. So why does that matter??? It confirms that the physics and the math that generated the model have been confirmed by actual measurements (think lab experiment). The actual amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere can be calculated as the area missing from the original curve. Based on that energy, how much warming can be expected can be calculated. I was trying to explain to Reef that the experiment has been done, and the models for energy have been confirmed... long ago. No need to go to the lab bench, the actual atmosphere has confirmed it. Different levels of CO2 can be put in the model and new energy absorption can be calculated.
So why is this not an open and shut case, why is there is all this skepticism? To first order, because industries effected are desperately trying to confuse the issue to delay implementation of controls on CO2 emissions (I see you have ignored my thought experiment). To second order, the world is more complicated than just how much energy is absorbed, there are all the effects that happen as the world warms that either accelerate warming or slow it. The role of water vapor is very complicated. If as the temperature went up, more water vapor went into the lower atmosphere, it would be easy but sometimes that added water vapor makes clouds or rain. Clouds reflect energy from the sun. Some argue that most of the warming will mostly make clouds and that will reflect the incoming energy from the sun. Water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (perhaps 2x) so more water vapor enhances the effect. There is melting glaciers and surface ice, that will also accelerate warming. All of these factors (I have named but a few) complicated the picture of how much warming.

So Reef wanted a concrete experiment that added CO2 warms the planet. The graph I originally provided does exact that. It absolutely shows that existing models for greenhouse gases are in fact correct and those models show that more CO2 causes more energy to be absorbed. Which must in fact raise the temperature. How much can be calculated and has been, but then all the other effects need to taken into account which by my understanding is why there is a large range of likely warming (.1-.3C/decade) which a 3X range which is in my way of thinking is very large.

All of this is why the science of the effect of CO2 is considered settled by virtually all both skeptics and believers. People that reject CO2 causes warming are even called deniers by those in the skeptic community. Check out this article written 8 years ago by the Chief Skeptic Fred Singer. He is a major player in the skeptic community and he accuses deniers of giving skeptics a bad rap. Notice he also specifically calls out those blaming warming on volcanoes (newhaul). I don't endorse many of his skeptic views, but it a data point that this part of the science is not really debated if you have studied the actual science.
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._bad_name.html

If you've never heard the joke about the lost helicopter pilot and the Microsoft office tower you should Google it. Because you've just mimicked the punchline.

Now, back to the original request. Let me reword what I have asked slightly differently so perhaps this time you will understand it with clarity, because you just keep parroting on with the same IR absorption mumbo-jumbo as if the more times you repeat it the more it answers the same question.

Why is there no lab demonstration that shows the relative temperature change (Delta T) in degrees Centigrade for a volume of atmosphere containing - say up to but not exceeding - 4.00% CO2 relative to a volume of atmosphere containing 0.028% in CO2 in a controlled simulation?

Skeptical Science - which appears to be your primary reference in these matters - mentions a value, from memory, of 32 w/m energy absorption with a Delta T sans water vapour of 1 degree to ~0.04%(?) from, I assume, 0.028%. So surely there must be a demonstration in controlled conditions that provides evidence of this? If not why not? As I have said on previous occasions: To show that such a demonstration exists would almost certainly quash most all doubt about the level of the effect on atmospheric temperature that CO2 actually has. I'd also go as far to say that if no such practical demonstrations exist that can show comparable levels of Delta T then this casts a bit of a shadow over the theory of AGW.

To reiterate. We don't need a lesson on carbon dioxide's absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation, we simply need to know if a demonstration exists that can provide a quantifiable value of the temperature delta that will occur in the concentration of ranges described above.