Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
We have been over all this before. I must assume that when the Great Deletion occurred Izzy lost all memory of previous discussions.
Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.
We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
Wez
DA
You do that a lot, you try to find some hidden meaning in a link, something only you can see and are unable to describe when called on it, then you go on about others not reading and understanding your made up points that you are unable to describe in any way.
You like to call others morons but have zero ability to prove it.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
You still unable to describe what you found on those pages?
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
What's the date on the stuff from coyoteblog? I'm pretty sure the modelling now encompasses much that was mentioned there. For the skeptic, finding a favorite from this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
might get you further down the road, at least from a science standpoint, than Warren Meyer.
If anybody wants to cut to the chase through lord knows how many posts, this is useful.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Finally, IPCC AR4 had a great historical overview chapter on climate modeling. The complete .pdf is here
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
I don't think AR5 had an equivalent chapter unfortunately, so this too is a bit out of date. But it does showcase the increasing sophistication of the modeling, which, if nothing else, can be viewed as an intellectual and creative human achievement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
might get you further down the road, at least from a science standpoint, than Warren Meyer.
If anybody wants to cut to the chase through lord knows how many posts, this is useful.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Finally, IPCC AR4 had a great historical overview chapter on climate modeling. The complete .pdf is here
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
I don't think AR5 had an equivalent chapter unfortunately, so this too is a bit out of date. But it does showcase the increasing sophistication of the modeling, which, if nothing else, can be viewed as an intellectual and creative human achievement.
Bruddah IZ
DA
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
To satisfy my own curiosity I googled this entire passage from Meyer and it pulls up 2010, so that would be AR4. The stuff on Obama and job numbers sounded a bit dated too. But it occurred to me-wouldn't it be fun it we could use political partisan fanboy talking point "truisms" as a legitimate logical structures within scientific discourse. For example, in the behavioral sciences.
"In 500 independent trials, we found that 99% of the mice treated with the Captain Jack elixir were no longer sensitized to an electric shock stimulus in needing to conceptualize alternative strategies for reaching a food reward. They proceeded directly to the reward despite the stimulus. Compared to untreated controls, this would appear to be a highly significant finding, falling well within a 95% confidence interval. However, given the Obama administration's purported negative correlation between stimulus and job creation (citation needed), such a conclusion on our part must be approached with caution."
Or genetics. "In our laboratory controlled environments, introduction of male mosquitoes disrupted for the ACA1 gene led to a 25% reduction in female reproductive potential within 5 generations. The relatively low penetrance of this effect, even under idealized laboratory conditions, raises questions regarding the effectiveness of ACA1 as a biological target for genetic mosquito control. However, it is worth noting that our mosquitos came from California, where the presence of the Obama administrations ACA has been generally well accepted. It is possible that in more red southern states, where vector bourne diseases are endemic, that females may be much more receptive to males that are lacking ACA1."
OK, enough fun. Work.
Wez
DA
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/07/26/487457043/the-remarkable-inconsistency-of-climate-denial
"This is the great dilemma and the great contradiction. People who benefit from science everyday somehow manage to find a place in their heads to simultaneously reject it. Whether its climate or vaccines, the same contradiction between words and action arises.
But here is the really difficult thing about this kind of contradiction for all of us: It always gets resolved in the end. That's because when it comes to science denial, it'sreality that always has the last word."
"This is the great dilemma and the great contradiction. People who benefit from science everyday somehow manage to find a place in their heads to simultaneously reject it. Whether its climate or vaccines, the same contradiction between words and action arises.
But here is the really difficult thing about this kind of contradiction for all of us: It always gets resolved in the end. That's because when it comes to science denial, it'sreality that always has the last word."
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Policy-ba$ed evidence making is all too frequent in climate science--Matt Ridley
Bruddah IZ
DA
For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff.
Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science.
Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.--Ridley
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx
Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science.
Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.--Ridley
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx
Wez
DA
Your "Jesus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
"Ridleys views on climate change have been controversial, because he has connections to the coal industry. He is owner of land, on which coal mines operate, and receives payments from that mines. In 2016 he was accused for lobbying for the coal industry.[53]"
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ying-uk-government-on-behalf-of-coal-industry
"Friends of the Earth (FoE) campaigner Guy Shrubsole said: “We think it’s worrying that climate sceptic Viscount Ridley should be using his privileged position in the Lords to argue against renewable energy, whilst lobbying to benefit a coal industry he has a significant financial interest in.
“Ridley has always maintained his own coal interests are immaterial to his climate sceptic views and political activities,” Shrubshole said. “This disclosure paints a different picture – of a peer who attacks clean energy whilst seeking to extend the lifetime of the coal industry in this country.”"
But please, keep endlessly posting his opinion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
"Ridleys views on climate change have been controversial, because he has connections to the coal industry. He is owner of land, on which coal mines operate, and receives payments from that mines. In 2016 he was accused for lobbying for the coal industry.[53]"
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ying-uk-government-on-behalf-of-coal-industry
"Friends of the Earth (FoE) campaigner Guy Shrubsole said: “We think it’s worrying that climate sceptic Viscount Ridley should be using his privileged position in the Lords to argue against renewable energy, whilst lobbying to benefit a coal industry he has a significant financial interest in.
“Ridley has always maintained his own coal interests are immaterial to his climate sceptic views and political activities,” Shrubshole said. “This disclosure paints a different picture – of a peer who attacks clean energy whilst seeking to extend the lifetime of the coal industry in this country.”"
But please, keep endlessly posting his opinion...
Last edited:
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
I don't care what you or he thinks he knows, he's a Coal industry lobbyist. I doubt his opinions add meaningfully to a discussion about the Science as it relates to AGW.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
I have entertained your thoughts and rejected them