Global Warming - Page 10

NeilBlanchard · 10-05-13, 10:55 PM

If he does science well, then he'll be fine. Scientific grants are not like favors or graft - and no one gets rich. They work very hard, and often risk their lives, and their data and analysis has to stand up to scrutiny.

You also seem to be impugning scientists as making stuff up to please their benefactors. That is truly an insult to scientists - they are by definition, true to the data and true to reality.

Xringer · 10-05-13, 11:20 PM

I didn't say anything bad about Richard Lindzen. I think he's a good scientist.
He's actually pretty impressive.
But, there are some people that say he's getting rich on dirty oil money.
He is outspoken and has made many enemies in the GW camp, and some at MIT.

roflwaffle · 10-06-13, 11:10 AM

I don't think he's a bad scientist, but he makes mistakes, like everyone else.

Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen

There are several scientists that aren't questioning climate change, but are questioning the accuracy of the IPCC projections.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which can be valid, but criticism needs to be both accurate and constructive, and that isn't always the case.

Apology From Prof. Lindzen for Howard Hayden's NASA-GISS Data Interpretation Error

But that isn't a function of climate science as much as it's a function of our scientific fields in general. People tend to stake out opposing viewpoints for a few reasons. One of the bigger ones is getting more work published, which can lead to a larger salary, and this can be true on both sides of an idea.

Unfortunately it doesn't tend to result in a whole lot of constructive discussion about something when it's strictly antagonistic. Occasionally it's constructive, ie "your model is inaccurate, but I've modified it and now it works much better", but most of the time it;s just, "your model is inaccurate", which isn't very helpful.

NeilBlanchard · 10-08-13, 08:16 PM

As we get more data, some things like the rate of Arctic ice is melting, or how quickly the ocean is getting more acidic, or the rate of the tundra is melting - are happening more quickly that the models showed, and even much more quickly than the worst case.

Do we want to run this experiment?

We know that chemistry and physics follow the Laws of Nature, and we are still adding more and more fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere, and we know there is about 30-40 years of "momentum" already in the system - if we stopped using fossil fuels immediately, we would still continue to warm for (at least?) 30-40 years, and we would also see the feedback loops continue. The melting tundra and the melting Arctic ice and other feedback loops would add even more heat energy into the system.

Those are the biggest uncertainties in climate science: what will happen and how much heat will feedback loops bring into the climate? If we don't have ice reflecting sunlight, and instead the dark ocean absorbs heat - what effects will this have on the jet stream, or on the temperature of the water - which will raise the level of the ocean even more.

We cannot reset this situation and if the "experiment" goes awry, then we all pay the price.

There is no Planet B.

creeky · 08-12-15, 10:14 AM

I can't believe there are still global climate change deniers out there. Really?

But then I found a study that shows conservative white males (cwm) cannot change their minds. Literally are 6x less likely to change their minds even in the face of compelling evidence.

I thought that was hilarious.

I guess, in this rapidly changing world, we should stop listening to cwm.

Just for the record. In early to mid 1980s when climate change became apparent we were hoping for 330 ppm. In 1988 when James Hansen (who deserves a medal) stood up and did what responsible people do when they see trouble, yelled, "hey folks there's climate change trouble abrewing here". We were worried that 350 was the tipping point.

But nobody saw China saying, "to heck with growing rice, let's make TVs instead." and burning coal and in a generation rebuilding their country with concrete. They are rightly proud for being the manufacturer for the world. But the ongoing cost of CO2 is just beginning.

Today we're at and over 400 ppm. So you can stick your head in the sand. you can pretend that your local climate is all that matters in the world (and ps. if you want to look like a complete doofus, make global comparisons based on local data. Ha.). Or try to say "it's all a scam to take my money away from me."

But science doesn't care about your belief system. Science is based on facts. The facts are that CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans.

Once again. If this is an "eco" renovator site, it might be a good idea to focus on CO2 reducing strategies and tips for living lighter on the planet.

natethebrown · 08-12-15, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creeky

Once again. If this is an "eco" renovator site, it might be a good idea to focus on CO2 reducing strategies and tips for living lighter on the planet.

I somewhat disagree. I think this forum covers exactly that but just in different words. Every single contributor that has posted a project on here has hit one or both of the aspects of "Eco". For instance, if someone was to build a really awesome composter, that project hits both aspects of "CO2 reduction" and "living lighter." While the person who built the composter may not be able to say, "I have reduced my CO2 production by XX tons," I think we all know he is both conserving energy and reducing his consumption.

Xringer · 10-02-15, 06:25 PM

Saw this news yesterday..
MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

Might be an explanation of the poor performance of current computer models..

NeilBlanchard · 10-02-15, 10:31 PM

You saw something - but it is not correct. We are seeing (probably) yet another record warm year.

Xringer · 10-02-15, 11:47 PM

Yeah, it's likely just some local solar effects, since it's been so hot and cloudless..

Cookie for PDF file

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-surface...e-thought.html

Xringer · 10-19-20, 09:20 AM

Who woke this old thread up?
I was just thinking about a news report from last month..
It turns out that the COVID19 caused a big reduction in CO2 and air pollution.

So, how did that impact our planet? It got warmer! LOL!!
I never would have guessed that..

10-05-13, 11:20 PM	#92
Xringer Lex Parsimoniae Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Woburn, MA Posts: 4,918 Thanks: 114 Thanked 250 Times in 230 Posts	I didn't say anything bad about Richard Lindzen. I think he's a good scientist. He's actually pretty impressive. But, there are some people that say he's getting rich on dirty oil money. He is outspoken and has made many enemies in the GW camp, and some at MIT. __________________ My hobby is installing & trying to repair mini-splits EPA 608 Type 1 Technician Certification ~ 5 lbs or less..

10-02-15, 06:25 PM	#97
Xringer Lex Parsimoniae Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Woburn, MA Posts: 4,918 Thanks: 114 Thanked 250 Times in 230 Posts	Saw this news yesterday.. MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms Might be an explanation of the poor performance of current computer models.. __________________ My hobby is installing & trying to repair mini-splits EPA 608 Type 1 Technician Certification ~ 5 lbs or less..

10-02-15, 11:47 PM	#99
Xringer Lex Parsimoniae Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Woburn, MA Posts: 4,918 Thanks: 114 Thanked 250 Times in 230 Posts	Yeah, it's likely just some local solar effects, since it's been so hot and cloudless.. Cookie for PDF file http://phys.org/news/2015-09-surface...e-thought.html __________________ My hobby is installing & trying to repair mini-splits EPA 608 Type 1 Technician Certification ~ 5 lbs or less..

10-19-20, 09:20 AM	#100
Xringer Lex Parsimoniae Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Woburn, MA Posts: 4,918 Thanks: 114 Thanked 250 Times in 230 Posts	Who woke this old thread up? I was just thinking about a news report from last month.. It turns out that the COVID19 caused a big reduction in CO2 and air pollution. So, how did that impact our planet? It got warmer! LOL!! I never would have guessed that.. __________________ My hobby is installing & trying to repair mini-splits EPA 608 Type 1 Technician Certification ~ 5 lbs or less..

10-05-13, 10:55 PM	#91
NeilBlanchard Journeyman EcoRenovator Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth Posts: 383 Thanks: 78 Thanked 39 Times in 32 Posts	If he does science well, then he'll be fine. Scientific grants are not like favors or graft - and no one gets rich. They work very hard, and often risk their lives, and their data and analysis has to stand up to scrutiny. You also seem to be impugning scientists as making stuff up to please their benefactors. That is truly an insult to scientists - they are by definition, true to the data and true to reality.

10-06-13, 11:10 AM	#93
roflwaffle Apprentice EcoRenovator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 116 Thanks: 29 Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts	I don't think he's a bad scientist, but he makes mistakes, like everyone else. Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen There are several scientists that aren't questioning climate change, but are questioning the accuracy of the IPCC projections. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Which can be valid, but criticism needs to be both accurate and constructive, and that isn't always the case. Apology From Prof. Lindzen for Howard Hayden's NASA-GISS Data Interpretation Error But that isn't a function of climate science as much as it's a function of our scientific fields in general. People tend to stake out opposing viewpoints for a few reasons. One of the bigger ones is getting more work published, which can lead to a larger salary, and this can be true on both sides of an idea. Unfortunately it doesn't tend to result in a whole lot of constructive discussion about something when it's strictly antagonistic. Occasionally it's constructive, ie "your model is inaccurate, but I've modified it and now it works much better", but most of the time it;s just, "your model is inaccurate", which isn't very helpful.

10-08-13, 08:16 PM	#94
NeilBlanchard Journeyman EcoRenovator Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth Posts: 383 Thanks: 78 Thanked 39 Times in 32 Posts	As we get more data, some things like the rate of Arctic ice is melting, or how quickly the ocean is getting more acidic, or the rate of the tundra is melting - are happening more quickly that the models showed, and even much more quickly than the worst case. Do we want to run this experiment? We know that chemistry and physics follow the Laws of Nature, and we are still adding more and more fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere, and we know there is about 30-40 years of "momentum" already in the system - if we stopped using fossil fuels immediately, we would still continue to warm for (at least?) 30-40 years, and we would also see the feedback loops continue. The melting tundra and the melting Arctic ice and other feedback loops would add even more heat energy into the system. Those are the biggest uncertainties in climate science: what will happen and how much heat will feedback loops bring into the climate? If we don't have ice reflecting sunlight, and instead the dark ocean absorbs heat - what effects will this have on the jet stream, or on the temperature of the water - which will raise the level of the ocean even more. We cannot reset this situation and if the "experiment" goes awry, then we all pay the price. There is no Planet B.

08-12-15, 10:14 AM	#95
creeky Journeyman EcoRenovator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: a field somewhere Posts: 304 Thanks: 64 Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts	I can't believe there are still global climate change deniers out there. Really? But then I found a study that shows conservative white males (cwm) cannot change their minds. Literally are 6x less likely to change their minds even in the face of compelling evidence. I thought that was hilarious. I guess, in this rapidly changing world, we should stop listening to cwm. Just for the record. In early to mid 1980s when climate change became apparent we were hoping for 330 ppm. In 1988 when James Hansen (who deserves a medal) stood up and did what responsible people do when they see trouble, yelled, "hey folks there's climate change trouble abrewing here". We were worried that 350 was the tipping point. But nobody saw China saying, "to heck with growing rice, let's make TVs instead." and burning coal and in a generation rebuilding their country with concrete. They are rightly proud for being the manufacturer for the world. But the ongoing cost of CO2 is just beginning. Today we're at and over 400 ppm. So you can stick your head in the sand. you can pretend that your local climate is all that matters in the world (and ps. if you want to look like a complete doofus, make global comparisons based on local data. Ha.). Or try to say "it's all a scam to take my money away from me." But science doesn't care about your belief system. Science is based on facts. The facts are that CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans. Once again. If this is an "eco" renovator site, it might be a good idea to focus on CO2 reducing strategies and tips for living lighter on the planet.

10-02-15, 10:31 PM	#98
NeilBlanchard Journeyman EcoRenovator Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth Posts: 383 Thanks: 78 Thanked 39 Times in 32 Posts	You saw something - but it is not correct. We are seeing (probably) yet another record warm year.