Laird
Member
He/she simply counters each entire categorical subject with a one-liner.
I might be misunderstanding what you're suggesting, but did you realise that you can click on the one-liner to go to a full-page treatment?
He/she simply counters each entire categorical subject with a one-liner.
Finally - where are the proposed solutions? If they are so clued in to science, smart and concerned about this issue - over half the site should be dedicated to detailed solutions and the implementation strategy for each - where is the mention of even one single real world solution.???????
I know, I read it - the summary articles are a mixed bag. The example I gave - the person who wrote it, "gpwayne" neither understands thermodynamics, latent energy/energy intertia, nor oceanic currents, nor systems, nor kinetic energy... he just flipped off a propaganda piece about 'alterations in global ocean currents'.I might be misunderstanding what you're suggesting, but did you realise that you can click on the one-liner to go to a full-page treatment?
Because they are proposing solutions and next steps..."gluing themselves to the gates of London’s Buckingham Palace and interrupting a summit at the Colorado Governor’s Mansion."I'm not sure that that's a fair comment. The aim of the site is to debunk climate change myths, not to propose solutions. Why shouldn't they be entitled to set the scope of their site? It's a huge investment of work as it is.
Also, I just want to point out for other readers before leaving you to continue your stream of posting that the Skeptical Science website is a great resource for countering myths of the type that you often recur to. For example, on your recent claim that we can't trust consensus because in the 70s the consensus was the opposite, they have a nice little breakdown of the facts around this myth. Any time anybody is curious about any such claims in this thread, I recommend checking with that site to see whether the claim is covered.
Returning you now to your scheduled programming...
Over the years I have developed a preference for deductive study and inference, as preferable over inductive or affirming study. Even though I am a climate change proponent, there are some issues which bother me greatly and I feel we just ignore them in favor of linear affirmation study by 2 year out of school PhD's. What you cite here LoneShaman are deductive studies. Thanks. They are white crow studies (as you contend), or at least studies which stand to countermand the lazy form of consensus which our social overlords foist on us in the name of science.
I run the carbon ppm, temperature and sea level graphs each year from the NOAA data, and have for years. So I am convinced that the planet is warming, the oceans are rising, and that the levels of carbon and methane in the atmosphere are increasing. The question is 'What is the majority contributor to this set of changes?' I still think that the answer to this question is highly in doubt. And it is the science which is showing us this.
I am still not comfortable with the assumption, that man is the 90+% contributor to this issue. Below is another graph I run each year and update, but in various forms and from various data sources, so as to not have any particular bias imbue the results. This year I have used the sources below. This is the fifth different way I have examined this data and the answer always comes out the same:
- Deep oceans are heating faster than surface ocean- Deep oceans are heating faster than mid-level ocean- Ocean surface is heating faster than mid-level ocean- Heat temperature deltas in deep oceans precede mirror image temp delta changes in surface oceans by 3 years.
This implies conveyance and a heat source which is near the deep ocean and not the surface. The surface is heated by deep ocean conveyance currents being warmer than they used to be (not cooling surface areas and the atmosphere as well as they once did). There are two ways to heat a system in equilibrium - 1. Add kinetic energy, and 2. Remove its kinetic energy sump. I am concerned that we are not examining option #2.
This concerns me a great deal
1. Because it is happening.
2. Because we are ignoring it.
View attachment 1444
Oh well, TES, I won't try to speak for them, but I know a lot of us feel that the political class is too apathetic on the need for solutions, so activism to shake up that apathy is warranted. How does that strike you?
It is interesting T.E.S.
The only thing I disagree with really is the point about sea level rise. I will cover that in time.
Though you don't specifically relate methane to the climate here?? I don't see how it can given the spectral range of absorption.
It is interesting I have never heard of this before, you may very well have something there. As you suggest this has implications beyond cause of AGW.
There is another interesting aspect of methane. I wonder how long the methane that can be extracted by fracking actually stays underground if left alone. Since methane is supposed to be a much more powerful 'greenhouse gas' than CO2, it might be 'good for the climate' to extract the stuff and burn it for energy!Yes, the spectral index impacts concern me. Water vapour is such a large portion of the SSI, that any slight change in its atmospheric equilibrium would result in large capture of kinetic energy by atmospheric water vapor. This too, we dismiss too flippantly/politically. Methane is a smaller frequency band of the SSI than carbon for sure. But it captures more kinetic energy per frequency than does carbon. Then after a number of years it has decayed into carbon anyway. So it is a concern, even if I do not mention it.
Dead on!! I support industry efforts to make sure that natural gas fracturing does not end left unattended - and that the fissure penetration feeds are capped off and monitored. By and large they are all monitored and licensed by the state.There is another interesting aspect of methane. I wonder how long the methane that can be extracted by fracking actually stays underground if left alone. Since methane is supposed to be a much more powerful 'greenhouse gas' than CO2, it might be 'good for the climate' to extract the stuff and burn it for energy!
David
When this conference was scheduled in its usual location, a Munich hotel, a media campaign smeared it as anti-scientific, right-wing and even for ‚killing people‘ by denying climate change. The most prominent newspaper pushing that campaign was the Berlin based newspaper Tagesspiegel, which published several articles smearing the conference. Shortly before its start, the Munich based Umweltinstitut published an open letter calling the hotel to cancel the conference which it did after a group of activists entered its lobby and smeared the conference and upset guests.
I think this is no more than an extreme example of the pressure climate scientists have had to endure for decades. Not surprisingly, many have left the field (probably a rather dreary field once you realise there is no cause for alarm), and others just go along with the nonsense. It is worth remembering that back in 2011, Ivar Giaevar protested that members of the APS were being roped in on block and supporters of CAGW.
David
I am curious as to how big the difference in C-13 concentration are.It’s a counterintuitive finding: methane from fossil fuels is higher than we thought, but it seems to be making up a smaller share of total global emissions. In his email, Schwietzke wrote, “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”
Firstly if you think that all I have done is say "It's all a giant hoax to enslave us all"
Nice tactics with the moon hoax thing. That is going to a new low. this is nothing short of a personal attack. This is like claiming I have psychological issues.