Comments 1 to 50:

1. jamesh at 07:01 AM on 5 March, 2021

   I found doug-bostrom's posting very helpful inasmuch as it focused on several issues that can be discussed in a frendly atmosphere.  The first is the warming of our invironment in the US in the years since the end of WW2.  at the end of the war we had a population of 14o million.  Housing developments were built on what was farm land.  Power plants were built,  both nuclear fossil fuel.  The interstate HWY system was built. plus a lot of secondary roads.  Dams were built for the purpose of generating electricity.  The Marble canyon dam created the enormus Lake Powel.  I don't know the impact of Lake Powel, I leave that to the experts.  The St. Lawrence Seaway project was built to genrtate electricity.  New power lines were built to transmit all the new power.  At least 30 pct of transmited power is lost to the environment.  We built shopping centers, high rise buildings, waste water treatment plants which were designed to use the aerobic process, drinking water treatment plants. solid waste disposal methods which were very energy  Americans had to pay for all of the above energy intensive projects, so to call them deniers is unfair. The next issue I want to deal with is the measurement of energy in the environment.  We have heated up our invironment, and I assume it can be decteded by sattelites,  but there is hidden energy which can be computed but not detected.  To prove my point I chose to pick a municipal reservoir used for drinking water.  Such reservoirs are closely monitored for PH, temp. etc.  The water is soft and the goal is to keep it that way.  Said reservoir recieves a certain amount of solar radiation every day, which can be estimated.  Once the energy is adsorbed by the water it is essentialy in storage, we cannot measure it, and it doesn't matter where we try to measure it,  we cannot see it.  If we know the temp. of the water we can calculate how much energy is lost through evaporation.  When the evaporation process  takes place, we still cannot takr a direct measurement of the watervapor.  The watervapor will eventually cool and release it's energy.  So it looks to me like we have an energy transfer system to which our instruments are totally blind.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [BL] Referring to the blog post author's name in your comment does not make your comment on-topic.As far as I can tell, none of the rest of your comment has anything to do with any article referred to in the blog post.

   You have been warned on multiple occasions before. take your comments to appropriate threads. Read those threads before you start commenting.

   Warning #2

   Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

   Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
    
   Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

   Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    

2. michael sweet at 11:02 AM on 5 March, 2021

   Jamesh:

   Your first question relates to waste heat.  The thread for waste heat is here.  If you look at this post you will find a response I posted in 2010 to someone else who didn't understand waste heat.  Read the waste heat thread.  Your questions have already been answered.

   Your second question relates to the measurement of energy in the environment.  Professional scientists know how to measure all the energy in the environment.  In your example the energy can be measured by the temperature change of the water.  The evaporation can be measured.  The graph of increasing ocean heat content (posted for you by the moderator on another thread but now lost since you posted off topic) is measured this way.  The local temperature change from artifical lakes is known and the temperature change from increasing evaporation due to irrigation is also measured and known.  The heat absorbed by melting ice is known.  There is no hidden energy.

   We all start out not knowing how measurements are made.  As we gain experience we learn how more and more things are done.  I recommend that you assume scientists have measured anything you can think of.  That will be correct most of the time.

   0 0
3. Dawei at 15:17 PM on 5 March, 2021

   Great intro. My story: I started checking New Research back in 2019 and haven't missed a week ever since. By far the best part of this site.

   I save every paper with an observed, negative impact on humanity into a database. To my knowledge no such database exists anywhere else. I've added over 70 papers to my database thanks to this list and it's great to be able to get the "latest and greatest" from here. 

   0 0
4. SunBurst at 13:55 PM on 12 March, 2021

   You climate change people talk about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but is this AGW really "global"?  Well, warming has certainly happened in some parts of the world, but in other regions such as the midwestern and northeastern continental US, temperatures have dropped by about 25 degrees F during the winter months from years before 2015.  In Colorado, we have seen relatively mild winters during the past 5-6 years due to drought conditions, but the summers have also been "milder" (ie. cooler).  This results in much shorter growing seasons even though annual average temperatures may or may not have changed much.  The ground in many places remains frozen and therefore not suitable for tilling until mid-June.  Then killer frosts occur in the late August to early September time frame — not much time for growing.  One might argue that our problems are related to cooling, and not warming.

   Therefore, it seems that your AGW isn't as "global" as we were led to believe.  Furthermore, we would expect that warming caused by the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect would be more or less uniform since CO2 tends to spread evenly in the atmosphere over long time intervals.

   In view of these simple facts, we must ask if the CO2 greenhouse effect is the best explanation of any warming we are experiencing.  Also, AGW believers ultimately base their claims on an increasing global mean surface temperature (GMST).  But is this actually a meaningful figure of merit for assessing planetary warming?

   0 0
5. MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 12 March, 2021

   SunBurst @4,

   Your detailed account of US temperature sits within a wider annual trend. The GISS mapping tool mapping warming 1980-to-date shows individual years averaged over a month can be cold in certain regions and even a decade of a single month can show cold. Thus October in the northern mid-west US shows a bit of cooling when averaged over a decade (and a similar area shows no warming through April/May), but these are some of the few exceptions in a global-wide warming evident over the full year mapped out below.

   

   I would suggest, contrary to your assertion, that this does indicate that "AGW is global."

    

   You also argue that, if CO2 is spread evenly in the atmosphere (which it is, global rises are measured up to 50km with perhaps a two-year lag between the hemespheres), the warming should be also seen uniformly across the globe.

   Yet the climate is a far more complex thing. While the sun provides a uniform warming by latitude, the map below (from here) shows some significant variations within latitude, this seen even on a temperature scale perhaps 10x wider than the anomaly map above.

   It is these variations that define the detailed average temperature of a latitude and these variations do not simply get warmer uniformly in a warming world.

   

   We would thus expect regional variations in the rate of AGW.

   0 0
6. SunBurst at 10:32 AM on 13 March, 2021

   MA Rodger @5

   We would thus expect regional variations in the rate of AGW.

   I agree in that we would not expect perfectly uniform warming, but when temperatures show a downward trend in some regions that is equally as strong as the upward trend in other regions, it definitely raises doubts about global warming.  As I stated in my first posting, global warming means warming over the entire global, which certainly isn't happening.  Also, many pro-AGW articles focus on the thawing permafrost in Alaska and the summer-like temperatures in London or Paris during the December-January months, but neglect the frozen-over Niagra Falls and ports on the Great Lakes, massive numbers of burst water mains in Chicago, shorter growing seasons in agricultural areas, and dozens of hypothermic deaths in cities throughout the midwestern and northeastern states.  For people in these regions, global warming is not the problem and fossil fuels are necessary for making a living, or even just surviving.  These people simply cannot afford governments imposing additional taxes (or "cap and trade") for their use of fossil fuels.  Also, they can't afford governments shutting down pipelines or making "national monuments" of regions rich in methane.

   Finally, with the failed prediction track records of Al Gore and other pro-AGW politicians,  it cannot reasonably be expected that Americans would be more concerned about global warming than fixing the economy and getting back to work.

   0 0
7. nigelj at 13:21 PM on 13 March, 2021

   Starburst @6

   "I agree in that we would not expect perfectly uniform warming, but when temperatures show a downward trend in some regions that is equally as strong as the upward trend in other regions, it definitely raises doubts about global warming. As I stated in my first posting, global warming means warming over the entire global, which certainly isn't happening."

   My understanding is most regions of the world show warming. The few regions showing cooling or no change do not have enough cooling to offset the warming in the regions with warming. This means the world as a whole is warming. This is commonsense. Scientists measure all these things and take it all into account because they are basic things. The heat energy content of the entire planetary system has also increased in the last several decades. Again scientists look into these things because its what they are trained to do.

   If you still dont understand or agree, please provide a list of all countries in the world and its oceans as well, and their warming rates and cooling rates (if there are any) over the last 50 years and we shall see which dominates, - warming or cooling. Until you do this in detail, with links to all your data, and making sure you are comparing like with like, you have got nothing worth me considering.

   "For people in these regions, global warming is not the problem and fossil fuels are necessary for making a living, or even just surviving. These people simply cannot afford governments imposing additional taxes (or "cap and trade") for their use of fossil fuels. "

   I sympathise with the challenges people face, but these comments about what they can afford are just empty assertions. On what basis with what facts? What expert study says this? Even if they had difficulties affording this you can have carbon tax and dividend schemes which are financially gentle on people (google it).

   Many expert reports like the Stern Report find we can mitigate the worst of climate change at a cost of approximately 2% of global gdp per year. This is very roughly equivalent to 2% of peoples incomes. I suggest all but very poor people can afford that, and poor people can be given finanical assistance by governmnet so they can cope or could be excluded from carbon tax schemes. At least some countries do this sort of thing. I dont have time to list them all but this sort of thing is eassily googled.

   "Finally, with the failed prediction track records of Al Gore and other pro-AGW politicians,..."

   You provide no evidence of these alleged failed predictions. But its not relevant anyway , because the IPCC reports about climate change are not based on anything Al Gore said. The IPCC and climate scientists make their predictions based on science, and so far warming trends are very close to predictions made decades ago. Refer:

   www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/update-day-2020/

   0 0
8. MA Rodger at 18:50 PM on 13 March, 2021

   StarBurst @6,

   You tell me:-

   "I agree in that we would not expect perfectly uniform warming, but when temperatures show a downward trend in some regions that is equally as strong as the upward trend in other regions, it definitely raises doubts about global warming."

   Then you describe cold weather in Niagra Falls & Chicago, But do does that indicate locations showing a downward trend?

   February 2015 was a cold month in both these locations, in Chicago the 4th coldest on record and in Buffalo the 2nd. But cold months way below the average are seen in the records at both locations. Such events are surely to be expected. They are not part of a downward trend. The trend at both locations is upward!!

   0 0
9. JohnSeers at 20:20 PM on 13 March, 2021

   nigelj @ 7

   SunBurst

   As you rightly point out Al Gore's expertise is not the issue as suggested by SunBurst. However I would like SunBurst to list one prediction by Al Gore that "failed" because I do not think SunBurst will be able to list one.

   Al Gore may have had a tendency to frame his narrative in rather doom laden terms and his desire to dramatise for effect gave ammunition for criticism. But he was fairly accurate.

   The only prediction SunBurst is likely to come up with is Arctic ice. An accurate understanding of exactly what Gore said on this does not add up to a prediction. (Though you could criticise the words for dramatising a worst case scenario.)

    

    

   0 0
10. David Kirtley at 23:29 PM on 13 March, 2021

    SunBurst, you are confusing weather for climate. Take a look here: Does cold weather disprove global warming?

    As MA Rodger pointed out @8, one year's cold temperatures (weather) need to be looked at in the larger context (climate) to see if there is any trend. Deke Arndt, in this tweet, summed this up well for the continental US, for Feb:

    

     

    Now compare this year's Feb to Febs from earlier in the 20th century:

    

     

    Do you see the trend? That is global warming.

    0 0
11. Rob Honeycutt at 03:52 AM on 14 March, 2021

    I'm very curious where SunBurst finds cooling "that is equally as strong as the upward trend" because I'm just not seeing it.

    

    0 0
12. SunBurst at 04:55 AM on 14 March, 2021

    MA Rodger, nigelj, John Seers, David Kirtley, Rob Honeycutt

    You all seem to be stuck on using global averages as your only way of characterizing global temperature trends.  You must, however, consider the Big Picture in that "global warming" really isn't global unless the upward temperature trends are happening everywhere, and I have pointed out several regions where exactly the opposite is happening.  This is especially true in the case where the warming is caused by the CO2 greenhouse effect since CO2 is non-condensing and therefore stays in the atmosphere long enough to become more or less evenly spread.  In this case, would it not be much more logical that the greenhouse warming would also be evenly spread instead of some regions showing great warming and other regions showing great cooling?  You miss this sort of thing by relying only on global average temperatures.  

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?
    
    "No, “global warming” means Earth's average annual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.  It’s like your grades. If one semester you get all Bs and Cs, and the next you get all As and Cs, your grade point average rises, even though you didn’t improve in every class.
    
    That’s the way it is with Earth’s near-surface temperature as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels climb. Temperature trends across the entire globe aren’t uniform because of the diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate variability. When you’re zoomed in on a particular place, you may not be able to see the overall trend.
    
    It is only when scientists calculate the average of temperature changes from every place on Earth over the course of a year to produce a single number, and then look at how that number has changed over time that a very clear, global warming trend emerges. In other words, it’s only when we “zoom out” to the planet-wide scale that the trend is obvious: despite a few, rare areas experiencing an overall cooling trend, the vast majority of places across the globe are warming."
    
    
    

13. Philippe Chantreau at 05:49 AM on 14 March, 2021

    Sunburst, you seem to be the one stuck with not understanding the very words you yourself use to argue.

    You have pointed to several regions where cold events have happened recently (weather) but failed to produce data that would show that there is a long term cooling trend in these locations. In post 8 above, MA Rodger did not mention gobal averages at all but instead linked data that clearly show an upward trend for the 2 locations you mentioned with enough precision that they could be checked.

    So, not only these locations fail to show "a downward trend equally strong as the upward trend in other regions," they actually show an upward trend, consistent with the global trend. How did you get the impression that these locations were experiencing a long term cooling trend?

    Repeating stuff does not make it become real. If you want to be taken seriously, you must now produce local data that shows a long term cooling trend of approximately 0.18 deg C per decade. Considering how your original argument went, you should produce a great quantity of them too.

    You must also show data showing a decreasing growing season. That will likely not be in the 48 contiguous US, where the length of the growing season has gone up steadily. I'll add that, if you want to go into the growing season argument, in order to keep it honest you must steer away from research showing that the overall warming could cause a decrease in the number of days suitable for plant growth due to soil moisture and other factors adversely affected by rising temperatures.

    0 0
14. SunBurst at 06:51 AM on 14 March, 2021

    Philippe Chantreau @ 13

    Well, you are free to believe whatever you want.  But I'm sure that most Americans who have seen skyrocketing heating bills and frozen water mains for the past 5-10 winters would tend to say it's a cooling trend and not just cold weather.  At any rate, it would simply be wrong to deprive those people (including myself) of the fuels they need in order to get them through the winter seasons despite all of the "global warming" we are experiencing.  

    0 0
15. SunBurst at 07:01 AM on 14 March, 2021

    nigeli @ 7

    I sympathise with the challenges people face, but these comments about what they can afford are just empty assertions. On what basis with what facts? What expert study says this? Even if they had difficulties affording this you can have carbon tax and dividend schemes which are financially gentle on people (google it).

    Don't trouble me with "expert studies".  These studies say only what the paymasters want them to say.  First try living in one of those cooling regions I describe and see what it's like to try to make ends meet on reduced crops and whatever government assistance they can get.  And the more government handout we have, the more inflation we get.  Either way we are stuck with less, and things are bad enough even under the present circumstances.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Sloganeering snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts or just make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

16. Rob Honeycutt at 07:11 AM on 14 March, 2021

    SunBurst @12...

    The term "global warming" refers to the rise in global mean temperature. There is nothing dictating that every single point on the planet must be warming for it to be global warming. 

    You also failed to address the point that your original statement said the cooling was "equally as strong" as the warming, when it clearly in fact is not.

    0 0
17. nigelj at 07:26 AM on 14 March, 2021

    Sunburst @12

    "You must, however, consider the Big Picture in that "global warming" really isn't global unless the upward temperature trends are happening everywhere, and I have pointed out several regions where exactly the opposite is happening."

    No. The world doesn't have to be warming at every place for the world to be warming as a whole. All that has to happen is the planets average temperature goes up. This is self evidently possible even if some small areas are cooling. By analogy a simple traditional wood fire could be getting hotter and hotter measured with temperatures in the chimney even if you spilt your iced drink on a small part of the fire causing one corner of the fire to cool for a little bit. I've already explained all this @7 and you havent disproven it with any data. You have pointed out a couple of regions where you allege without hard evidence theres cooling but you neglect the many more regions that show warming. You provide no proof that areas of your alleged cooling are greater than areas of warming. And as people point out you confuse a warming trend with weather so you havent demonstrated any actual cooling trend anywhere at all on the planet.

    ---------------------------------

    Sunburst @13

    "Well, you are free to believe whatever you want. But I'm sure that most Americans who have seen skyrocketing heating bills and frozen water mains for the past 5-10 winters would tend to say it's a cooling trend and not just cold weather. "

    Or is it because electric companies are simply charging more money for other reasons? Maybe they are building new infrastructure. Maybe they are getting greedy. Maybe there is maineinance work. Again you provide no reliable evidence of why prices are skyrocketing or even "if" they are sky rocketing.

    And 10 years does not constitute a climate change trend. Its generally accepted we need 30 years of data to be certain the climate has changed in a fundamental way and its not just short term natural cyclical variability. This is why it was only decided in about the 2000s that burning fossil fuels was definitely causing climate change. So even if the global  climate WAS cooling for 5 -10 years (it isn't) this doesnt prove very much.

    " At any rate, it would simply be wrong to deprive those people (including myself) of the fuels they need in order to get them through the winter seasons despite all of the "global warming" we are experiencing."

    Strawman. Nobody is depriving anyone of fuel.

    0 0
18. SunBurst at 12:03 PM on 14 March, 2021

    John Seers @9

    However I would like SunBurst to list one prediction by Al Gore that "failed" because I do not think SunBurst will be able to list one.

    All right.  How about the prediction he made in 2006 that New York City would be flooded within ten years due to sea level rise from the melting of the Arctic ice cap.  Well, the year 2016 has come and gone but NYC is still on dry land.

    0 0
19. SunBurst at 12:14 PM on 14 March, 2021

    nigelj @17

    And 10 years does not constitute a climate change trend. Its generally accepted we need 30 years of data to be certain the climate has changed in a fundamental way and its not just short term natural cyclical variability.

    Then howcome the threat was global cooling from the early 1940s up to about 1975, and then changed to global warming in by the middle 1980s?

    0 0
20. SunBurst at 12:37 PM on 14 March, 2021

    Question:  Assuming you all are 100 percent correct in the temperature trends you are stating,  does any of your "New Research" turned up a plausible explanation as to how we know that human carbon dioxide emissions are the cause?  Remember that CO2 accounts for only about 20% of the total greenhouse effect, and less that 10% of that is caused by humans.

    0 0
21. Bob Loblaw at 13:06 PM on 14 March, 2021

    Sunburst @ 18: "...he made in 2006 that New York City would be flooded within ten years..."

    He didn't. Unless you can provide a reliable reference of where he did.

    https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

    Sunburst @ 19 "...then changed to global warming in by the middle 1980s"

    It didn't.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

    Unless you are just looking at observed temperatures and trying claim that nothing byut CO2 is affecting temperature trends. In that case, you are applying the phrase "global warming" to two different phenomena. The early 20th century rise, the mid-20th century cooling, and the current rapid warming since the 1980s are not caused by the same thing.

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm

    You need to find some better sources of information.

    0 0
22. Bob Loblaw at 13:11 PM on 14 March, 2021

    Sunburst @ 20

    "CO2 accounts for only about 20% of the total greenhouse effect"

    Wrong.

    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

    "...less that 10% of that is caused by humans."

    Wrong.

    https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    You really need to come up with something that is not a long-debunked talking point.

    0 0
23. Rob Honeycutt at 14:45 PM on 14 March, 2021

    SunBurst @20... "...does any of your 'New Research' turned up a plausible explanation as to how we know that human carbon dioxide emissions are the cause?"

    That doesn't really require new research since the old research has demonstrated that more than sufficiently. Just look at the change in radiative forcing for CO2 over the past century. 

    

    0 0
24. MA Rodger at 19:51 PM on 14 March, 2021

    SunBurst @20,

    When you ask about "New Research" (a term used in these SkS pages to denote research new this week), I asume you are simply trying to coin a perjorative term to troll onto this thread. So I assume you are actually asking about all what Rob Honeycutt @23 terms the "old research" which has been rattling round for yeras if not decades. Note this week's 'new research' is fresh-off-the-boat and needs a bit of time to be checked out, a checking process achieved with 'old research'.

    You take a giant leap in conceding at least that there is reason to consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong about temperature trends. Well done you!!

    However, I struggle to see the connection between, on the one hand, the contribution of CO2 to the "total greenhouse effect" and the percentage change wrought by AGW on that  "total greenhouse effect" which you ask respondents to "remember", and on the other hand, attribution of the causes of the global warming you now see as worth assuming?

    The"total greenhouse effect" contributes roughly +33ºC to planetary temperature and, while assessments of the direct mechanism of the GH-effect (eg Schmidt et al (2010) - note the date = 'old research') shows CO2 contributing 20% to "total greenhouse effect" , note also that CO2 is an esential requirement for the other main contributor to the GH-effect H2O making CO2 the principle control knob governing Earth's temperature (Lacis et al 2010 - note the date ='old research').

    The actual question you ask is addressed by Bob Loblaw @22 but note that assessing the contribution of CO2 to AGW is not straightforward as the various gases have differing residence times and CO2 is particularly long-lived. But perhaps contributions cab be best simplistically measured using the NOAA AGGI which shows CO2 alone contributing a little under 60% of today's AGW (positive) forcing. Do note that all the other contributions are like CO2 anthropogenic in origin.

    0 0
25. SunBurst at 05:56 AM on 15 March, 2021

    Bob Loblaw @21

    Al Gore showed scenes in his movie An Inconvenient Truth that depicted a bunch of cities, including NYC, underwater from the melting Arctic ice caps.  He later backpedaled in this point in his sequel.  In his new movie, he depicts Hurricane Sandy as the causing NYC flooding, including the flooding of the WTC Memorial which was then under construction.  By changing the cause of NYC flooding from rising sea-level to a storm (brought on by AGW, of course), recovers some of his credibility.

    0 0
26. Rob Honeycutt at 06:33 AM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst... It's clearly stated in the movie what's being demonstrated is what would happen if all the ice on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted. An ice-free planet, which we had the last time CO2 levels were as high as today, would have sea levels that are 70 meters higher than today. These are facts.

    0 0
27. SunBurst at 06:57 AM on 15 March, 2021

    Rob Honeycutt @26

    When have we had CO2 levels as high as they are today?  The story I keep hearing from the AGW folks is that current CO2 levels are unprecidented.   

    0 0
28. Bob Loblaw at 07:13 AM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBUrst @ 25.

    What Rob said @ 26. I guessed that you would probably try to claim that your statement of a "prediction he made in 2006 that New York City would be flooded within ten years due to sea level rise from the melting of the Arctic ice cap." was from the movie.

    So, your score on this issue is (so far):

    • You got the year of the movie right (2006),
    • Gore said nothing about "within 10 years",
    • It was not about melting "the Arctic ice cap".

    Pretty pathetic, really. The only thing right is pretty trivial. On any item of substance, you got it badly wrong.

    Where are you getting  this crap? You really need to find yourself some better sources of information. There is lots here at this site if you take the time to look.

    ...but at comment #27, you are just running off on a different quest. To avoid admitting your error, you are trying to distract everyone. It won't work - we've seen all this sort of behaviour time after time after time.

    If you actually have something accurate and new to contribute, please do so.

    1 0
29. Rob Honeycutt at 08:10 AM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst @27.... Oh, come on! Surely you're not that uninformed on this issue. Are you?

    0 0
30. MA Rodger at 08:30 AM on 15 March, 2021

    Rob Honeycutt @29,

    Let's assume he is ignorant and isn't just playing with his troll-head on.

    SunBurst @27,

    CO2 levels were momentarily (thus for a 100k years perhaps) approaching today's levels back 3 million years ago. This was a time when the Panama Isthmus had just formed between N & S America, an event that would make a big impact on global climate. The levels of CO2 we see today were have not been seen for 13 million years and prior to that on scales of 100s of millions of years, CO2 was multiple-times higher than today although estimates of how many multiples are not well defined.

    But do bear in mind that the sun has been getting warmer with time. Roughly this equates to a forcing equal to a doubling of CO2 every 150 million years. So to balance a weaker sun back 450 million years ago, CO2 would have to be perhaps at 2,000ppm, 8-times higher than pre-industrial.

    0 0
31. Rob Honeycutt at 08:37 AM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst would likely benefit from reading Royer et al 2004.

    0 0
32. SunBurst at 11:01 AM on 15 March, 2021

    Rob Honeycutt @29

    All right, Smarty!  Then answer my question from @27.  Keep in mind, however, the quote from https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    ... atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009).

    Let's see how well informed you are!

    0 0
33. SunBurst at 11:36 AM on 15 March, 2021

    Bob Loblaw @22

    Your claim involving https://skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm is a strawman since I never claimed that the Climate Myth in this link was true.  I thought it was already known that about 20% of the greenhouse effect was due to CO2 while the remaining 80% was due primarily to water vapor.

    In the other link https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm , some bold assertions are made without any error bars either on the data or the conclusions.  Since the human released amounts of CO2 and other GHGs are so much smaller than the naturally released amounts of these gases, it is highly likely that the amount of human released gases would fit within the uncertainty of the naturally released gases.  In other words, one could not distinguish between the human released gases and uncertainties in the naturally released gases.  In this case, you haven't debunked anything.

    0 0
34. Rob Honeycutt at 11:49 AM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst... Your question, I'm assuming, is, "When have we had CO2 levels as high as they are today?"

    But that question was followed with the comment saying, "The story I keep hearing from the AGW folks is that current CO2 levels are unprecidented."

    So... as MA Rogers just pointed out, the last time we've had CO2 levels this high was >3 mya. No one has ever claimed that current CO2 levels are unprecedented in all of earth's history. Current levels are unprecedented, certainly during the holocene, certainly during the past million years of glacial-interglacial cycles. 

    If you bother to read Dr Tripati's paper you mention you'd see the abstract states:

    The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).

    This is consistent with what everyone exchanging comments with you right now has been stating, as well as being consistent with Al Gore's movie.

    My suggestion is that you read both the Tripati paper and the Royer paper I previously posted. Then we can at least start to have a reasonably informed conversation about these issues.

    0 0
35. SunBurst at 13:52 PM on 15 March, 2021

    MA Rodger @24

    Given a fair chance, I believe I can clear up most of your concerns about my claims, and maybe even a few things you never quite understood. It would, however, take an open mind on your part and recognize the possibility that not all of the cardinal laws of modern "climate science" are consistent with fundament laws of phyics. Probably the most far-reaching inconsistency between fundamental physics and climate science is the assumption of an earth in perfect thermal equilibrium. Now you and I both know that can't possibly be true or all of your temperature data would show a uniform temperature over the entire surface. Also, relative humidity would be 100 percent everywhere. This is the basis, however, for arguing the CO2 "control knob" theory. As you may recall, this theory relies primarily on the Clausius-Claperyon equation which assumes a uniform temperature over the entire condensed state/vapor state sample. Since the entire earth is our "sample" in this case, CO2 cannot in general be the controlling GHG unless we have a uniform temperature earth.

    Despite what seems to be total absurdity in this "control knob" theory, however, it is the reason why climate science does not allow dismissal of the CO2 greenhouse effect as small compared with that of H2O.  It is also the basis for lingo such as forcings, feedbacks, fast and slow feedbacks, and the somewhat comical iceball earth scenarios.  It seems to me that modern climate science has gotten into a mode of thinking that needs correction!

    At this point, I have probably discussed these issues as much as I dare.  In fact, I expect these comments will be taken down within 12 hours of when I post them.  Your AGW comrades and moderators don't like to hear this kind of news about their pet theories.  I've been through this many times before!

    0 0
36. Rob Honeycutt at 15:18 PM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst... "Probably the most far-reaching inconsistency between fundamental physics and climate science is the assumption of an earth in perfect thermal equilibrium."

    Essentially, your entire understanding of climate science is based on a strawman argument. If you can't be bothered to try to understand the basics of climate science you will necessarily be ignorant of it.

    0 0
37. Eclectic at 15:25 PM on 15 March, 2021

    Yes, Sunburst @35 and prior ~ you have indeed been "through this many times before."

    And each time you return to it, you have a different user-name.

    But despite your many visits to SkS site over the years, you appear unable to learn anything ~ even though large amounts of genuine information is provided to you.

    The real world seems too difficult for you.

    0 0
38. SunBurst at 17:40 PM on 15 March, 2021

    Rob Honeycutt @36

    This is no "strawman" argument.  It is exactly how it is stated in Lacis et. al. 2010.  And I understand the basics of climate science all too well, well enough to recognize its clash with other more legitimate sciences.

    0 0
39. SunBurst at 17:49 PM on 15 March, 2021

    Eclectic @37

    What "large amounts of genuine information"?  If you can't legitimately argue the most basic concept supporting all of your claims, you don't have anything!

    0 0
40. MA Rodger at 22:26 PM on 15 March, 2021

    SunBurst @35,
    So let me get straight what you are saying.
    I require an "open mind" to be able to "recognise the possibility" of a big big boo-boo in climatology. Okay. I can run with that all day long.
    And "the most far reaching" boo-boo (so you suggest there is more than one) is an assumed "earth in perfect thermal equilibrium" which you define as one with "a uniform temerature over "the entire surface."  Now I struggle with this.  An "earth in perfect thermal equilibrium" surely has to be energy flows to the poles which surely means temperature gradients. And the same with this "relative humidity would be 100% everywhere."  Why would that be? But, hey, this is your 'possibility recognition' class, not mine. So I'll let it ride for the while.

    Then you ask me to "recall" that the "primary" assumption of AGW is Clausius-Claperyon which you say requires this "uniform temperature" over "the entire earth" for it to be valid. Now that will require some further explanation from you. Clausius-Claperyon simply shows a linear relationship between temperature and specific humidity at a constant pressure at the dew-point. I see no "uniform temperature" over "the entire earth" or even an "entire condensed state/vapor state sample" (whtever that is supposed to be).

    And @38 you protest that "It is exactly how it is stated in Lacis et. al. (2010)." Of course, it would be proper to quote what Lacis et al actually say rather than just say they say it is "exactly how." So what do Lacis et al say? They mention Clausius-Claperyon just the once saying:-

    "If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as TS =TE [ie the surface cools from 288K to 255k], the Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply that the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current atmospheric value."

    But this use of Clausius-Clapeyron is not the substance of the Lacis et al findings. That is derived from a full-blown climate model. This quote is simply explaining the finding in more simplistic terms.

    So this in no way supports your contention that "It is exactly how it is stated in Lacis et. al. 2010."

    SunBurst, I am always open to ideas but you do seem to have failed to present anything valid @35 or @38. Maybe you have forgotten to explain some vital link in your argument? Or maybe you are a simple fool repeating the nonsense echoing round the denialosphere? I would suggest it is more likely the latter as you give no indication of the former. But don't feel so bad about it. You are not the first fool to gush out this same cretious nonsense here at SkS.

    0 0
41. Philippe Chantreau at 00:44 AM on 16 March, 2021

    Now Sunburst has gone full delirium mode. Another rant that falls in the "not even wrong" category.

    Considering how confident Sunburst is that everyone has it fundamentally wrong, he is bound to produce something monumental in the science litterature soon. I'll keep an "open mind" and will read whatever that will be once it has been peer-reviewed and published. Until then, I won't waste my time. I recommend DNFTT.

    0 0
42. Rob Honeycutt at 01:16 AM on 16 March, 2021

    SunBurst @38... Being the word "equibrium" doesn't occur in the Lacis paper, perhaps you could better describe what you're trying to claim. To my understanding no one states a requirement the "assumption of an earth in perfect thermal equilibrium." In fact, all warming and cooling is going to be a function of a radiative imbalance.

    0 0
43. Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 16 March, 2021

    What's fascinating to watch is how SunBurst has presented erroneous statements, been corrected with evidence and citations, and ignored it. It's clear he just flat out doesn't care when he gets something wrong.

    @4, 6, 12 he said (without citation) warming isn't global, and shown he's wrong multiple times and in multiple ways.

    @14 he claims (without citation) we're taking energy away from people who need it, and shown how this is wrong.

    @18 he claims (without citation) that Al Gore said NYC would be under water in 10 years, and he was repeatedly shown this is wrong.

    @20 he questions how we could know that human CO2 emissions are causing warming, and is shown the research and evidence, and ignores it.

    @27 he asserts that "AGW folks" claim (without citation) that CO2 levels are "unprecedented," is shown the research and ignores the error of his assertion.

    @35 he makes the false assertion (without citation) that Lacis 2010 claims the earth must be in perfect equilibrium, and will surely be back to defend his false statement.

    If this isn't Gish Gallop then I don't know what is.

    0 0
44. SunBurst at 05:31 AM on 16 March, 2021

    MA Rodger @40

    An "earth in perfect thermal equilibrium" surely has to be energy flows to the poles which surely means temperature gradients.

    Wrong!  An object or sample in thermal equilibrium has no temperature gradients.  If it did, heat would be flowing from the regions of higher temperatures to those of lower temperature, which would not be thermal equilibrium.  In the Clausius-Claperyon equation, the temperature of the sample is characterized by a single value, not a bunch of values.  Check it out for yourself by doing a search on "Clausius-Clapeyron equation derivation".  I believe you will find that the first statement made is that the sample consists of a substance in which two phases of that substance are in thermal equilibrium with each other.  So, if we apply the CC equation to a single temperature earth, we are automatically assuming that this earth is in thermal equilibrium with itself everywhere, period.

    So don't ask me anymore for credible evidence of my claim that the CO2 "control knob" theory is false.  You have a mountain of it already.  Every temperature dataset you have that shows a non-uniform temperature over the surface of the earth is further evidence.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Apologies for delay, but comment will released after an investigation for sock-puppetry is complete.

    [DB] Sock puppet confirmed.

45. MA Rodger at 19:51 PM on 16 March, 2021

    All this denialist nonsense that keeps emerging about Clausius-Claperyon remains a curious phenomenon. Clausius-Claperyon simply says the dew point water content for constant pressure (pressure is significantly fixed within the atmosphere) is linearly dependent on temperature. The only shred of reason i can see for this denialist nonsense about something being 'uniform' would thus concern, not an assumption of 'iniform' global temperature, but either an assumption of atmospheric relative humidity remaining unchanged with temperature or an assumption of a 'uniform' average global temperature change, both of which are not assumed but modelled within GCMs and both of which (as Lacis et al use of GCMs demonstrates) are reasonably valid assumptions for an approximate assessment.

    If there were a denialist out there with just half a brain, they may be able to explain it all properly. In the meantime I can but assume all this denialist Clausius-Claperyon nonsense is the result of swivel-eyed denialists thinking they have found something cunningly complex and thus an irrefutable argument, oblivious to the matter actually being remarkably straightforward. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Pretty much all CC nonsense comes just one denialist that creates a lot a sock-puppets. He is convinced of his superiority (and his license to ignore comments policy). Just not worth the time as ignores any contrary evidence or interprets it as supporting his nonsense.

46. JohnSeers at 20:47 PM on 16 March, 2021

     

    Looks like SunBurst has been outed as a sockpuppet. Quelle surprise. 

    Someone else has pointed out his example of an Al Gore prediction (of New York flooding) does not hold up. I would just add that I notice he fails to provide a reference to the actual prediction and the actual words Al Gore used, which is an all too common problem in his echo chamber. All the better to misrepresent what was said. 

    I will add one point in refutation. Al Gore made this unreferenced prediction in 2006 according to SunBurst. New York was badly flooded in 2012. That seems pretty convincing to me. 
    
    I am aware that the science doubters argue until they are blue in the face that this does not count "'Cos it was caused by a hurricane.".  Just a sign of their desperation to cling to their failing zombie tropes.

     

     

    0 0
47. Eclectic at 23:56 PM on 16 March, 2021

    JohnSeers @46, the gentleman in question does indeed keep returning, like Halley's Comet ~ but at intervals closer to 7.5 months rather than 75 years. Though unlike Halley's Comet, he gains a new name at every cycle.

    And it's always the same nonsense arguments, and the same imperviousness to rational thinking.  Idee fixe  is the French term, I believe.   Perhaps you can advise on the translation of two short planks.

    Al Gore did come out with the statement: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica ..."  <unquote>  but the reference was to the substantial inundation of Florida.  And he specified no time scale.  Presumably somewhere he made similar reference to the flooding of New York.   In addition, Al Gore is definitely not a scientist, and cannot be specified as an authentic spokesman for modern climate science & its "predictions".   (Not that the denialists care about such distinctions.)

    0 0
48. Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 17 March, 2021

    John, 

    We coud add that said Hurricane was a monster 1800km in diameter at its largest, that made it all the way to 40 degrees latitude. Of course, you can blame NY flooding on the storm surge, but there the sea level and storm surge combo is what takes the cake. Deniers will deny.

    0 0
49. HK at 20:56 PM on 17 March, 2021

    It does make sense to claim that the Earth as a whole usually is very close to thermal equilibrium if that refers to its energy imbalance with space on a century to millennium time scale or more. If that number wasn't very close to zero most of the time, the Earth would almost constantly experience huge changes of its average temperature, ice cover, sea level and so on.
    An energy imbalance of, say, +0.1 watts/m² sounds very small compared to the ~240 watts/m² flowing in and out of the climate system, but what if that imbalance was maintained over a period of 10,000 years?
    If so, the Earth would accumulate a total of 1.6 x 10²⁵ Joules of energy. That amount of energy could:

    
    1. Heat all the water in the oceans by 3°C on average, or the upper 350-400 metres by 30°C
    2. Melt all the Earth's roughly 28 million gigatonnes of ice 1.5 times
    3. Heat the entire atmosphere by 3000°C (yes, three thousand degrees C)
    (3 is of course highly "unphysical", but it illustrates the huge amount of heat involved)

    This suggests that the Earth's average energy imbalance from the last glacial maximum to the early Holocene optimum was of the order 0.1-0.2 watts/m² and that it through most of the Earth's history must have been much less than that.

    And the present imbalance?
    If the heat increase of the oceans' upper 2000 metres during the last decade is used as an indicator, the current imbalance is about +0.7 watts/m², probably about +0.8 watts/m² if other parts of the climate system are included.
    So, yes, it definitely makes sense to assume that the Earth usually is very close to thermal equilibrium on a century to millennium time scale or more.

    0 0
50. MA Rodger at 19:47 PM on 19 March, 2021

    SunBurst0 @50,

    Rather that having "cleared away any notions that [SunBurst] was simply making stuff up" you rather confirm it by your comment @50. The effort you appear to have taken in composing the comment may suggest it was not done "simply," but the result is pure make-believe. (Note that the notion of what you describe as a "temperature forcing" sounds a lot like a climate feedback.)

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [TD] Sunburst again has been banned for yet another sock puppetry.

    [DB] As will all subsequent and future sock puppet iterations of the same account.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.