Global warming

[deadheadskier]

Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.

How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol:

Well, to deny human effect on climate is a bit surprising to read from you given you've been pretty big into the whole chemtrail thing. Those positions conflict a little bit

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Rowsdower]

Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.

How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol:

It's an observation, but not quite an explanation yet. If I were on your thesis committee I'd ask why you know humans aren't having an impact, and then I'd ask for evidence to support that position.

 

[benski]

NOAA is a NGO, its budget for 2016 is 5.7 billion. The bigger business that the previous administration was aiming for was the Paris agreement. The estimated cost over the life of the agreement is ~ trillion for US taxpayer, roughly 46 to 176 billion per year.

And yes, climate change is not going away.... it been going on way before we became the dominant species on this planet.

1. The NOAA is owned by the federal government and is part of the Department of Commerce. :flag:

2. The cost of the Paris climate agreement will likely come from reduced economic growth, though this is a guess since the agreement only set goals and the federal government can change its policies at any point under the agreement as long as it reaches the goals.

3. The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

 

[jack97]

3. The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

That is surface temps and if you want to throw in the ocean temps which was Karl et al's paper. The problem with these temps are that they are prone errors; sampling (spatially and temporally), quantization and with surface temps the measurement is contaminated by the urban heat island effect.

It's very telling that the troposphere temps which mitigates the above errors still shows very little warming and has plateaued for the last 18 to 20 years. With the rise of fossil fuel emissions, the troposphere temps has remains flat which shows the lack of causality.

 

[jack97]

If I were on your thesis committee I'd ask why you know humans aren't having an impact, and then I'd ask for evidence to support that position.

Here's a list of non AGW papers about 1300 since 2014, not sure how many are PhD thesis nor authors getting the paper count high for tenure and society fellows.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[bdfreetuna]

Well, to deny human effect on climate is a bit surprising to read from you given you've been pretty big into the whole chemtrail thing. Those positions conflict a little bit

You're right. Just as you're being dishonest by characterizing a conversation about cloud seeding and weather modification as "chemtrails", I'm being dishonest in saying I don't think humans have any effect on climate.

I believe aviation may be one of the more significant human causes of change in the climate, and suspect that we will not be able to obtain baseline climate readings unless aviation were to cease.

Luckily for me there's some scientists who agree with this in a mainstream magazine so maybe I can escape being mischaracterized this time around.

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus
Ulrike Burkhardt & Bernd Kärcher

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html

 

[bdfreetuna]

So let's assume the Radiative forcing from contrail cirrus science is correct and as the authors say, it's the largest factor in climate change from aviation. That means more than all the carbon emissions burned up in jet fuel. And I mean carbon as in soot, not CO2. But the CO2 footprint is huge as well.

So we can try to move planes over to biofuels and work on other ways to get the CO2 down, that's what most climate scientists would want, right? But we still have contrail clouding warming the planet. So we're not addressing the primary cause of warming from aircraft.

This is the kind of chasing the rabbit down the wrong hole I see a lot of with so-called mainstream climate science. CO2 is always the big bad molecule, or at least it's dumbed down for public consumption as such. I oppose any policy imposed designed to regulate CO2 in any way because CO2 is a distraction; something easy to quantify and sloppily compare to past amounts and point to and say "look, we've got too much". Easy to convert into a universal taxation and redistribution scheme too.

So until I see some widespread recognition that, look, we as a people fly too much and it's clouding up the sky enough to raise the temperatures a degree or two -- and this could be stopped if we really needed it to be (but we probably don't) -- I'm not buying the majority of climate based fear mongering.

 

[SIKSKIER]

I sort of disagree with contrails warming the atmoshere.I can certainly see full cloud cover holding heat from escaping ground levels but I could see where the scattered cover of contrails actually do the opposite by letting heat escape while at the same time shading the ground from the sun.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Anyone who is "confused" as to how money or power could possibly be extracted from pushing a man-made global warming agenda clearly hasnt spent the 3.2 seconds necessary to figure that out. This is a first for me; even pro AGM subscribers admit this obvious reality.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends

Just so everyone understands how Federal financing works: if you don't agree with the current favored theory on climate change, you better pluck your funding off the mystical magic money tree. Right now the preponderance of such funding is government sponsored. If you dont like that, you're free to pound sand, because your alternative hypothesis to man-man Global Warming that you'd like to study aint gonna' get funded.

 

[bdfreetuna]

The only data there is to really know for sure is on the 3 days after 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded.

http://news.psu.edu/story/222587/20...ntrails-alter-average-daily-temperature-range
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

So what's conclusive is that during this time there was a 2 degrees F increase in temperature range... lower lows and higher highs. So does this equal overall warming or cooling? That's the question the scientists in the first article I posted sought to answer and they concluded overall warming.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong but it's not hard to imagine the high, thin cloud cover frequently caused and/or increased by aircraft having a significant effect worth giving equal consideration to other claimed causes of climate change.

 

[machski]

So let's assume the Radiative forcing from contrail cirrus science is correct and as the authors say, it's the largest factor in climate change from aviation. That means more than all the carbon emissions burned up in jet fuel. And I mean carbon as in soot, not CO2. But the CO2 footprint is huge as well.

So we can try to move planes over to biofuels and work on other ways to get the CO2 down, that's what most climate scientists would want, right? But we still have contrail clouding warming the planet. So we're not addressing the primary cause of warming from aircraft.

This is the kind of chasing the rabbit down the wrong hole I see a lot of with so-called mainstream climate science. CO2 is always the big bad molecule, or at least it's dumbed down for public consumption as such. I oppose any policy imposed designed to regulate CO2 in any way because CO2 is a distraction; something easy to quantify and sloppily compare to past amounts and point to and say "look, we've got too much". Easy to convert into a universal taxation and redistribution scheme too.

So until I see some widespread recognition that, look, we as a people fly too much and it's clouding up the sky enough to raise the temperatures a degree or two -- and this could be stopped if we really needed it to be (but we probably don't) -- I'm not buying the majority of climate based fear mongering.

What crack pot science is this? I fly up high on an almost daily basis, some days you contrail, some days you don't. The amount of soot emitted from modern Turbofan engines is minute and actually has nothing to do with contrailing. That is a factor of atmospheric humidity and temperature that day. On extreme contrail days, you can get a thin Cirrus overcast to develop in high air traffic areas. But this would not be a continuous warming factor as it will break down or move along.

As others have noted, I have not noticed a warming trend at altitude over the last 15 years (I routinely fly at 38000-45000 feet for reference). That said, the atmosphere is very thin up there (@18000, the atmosphere is approximately half as dense as sea level), so I would not necessarily expect much warming there given fewer molicules spread further apart than close surface temps. Also, the tropopause acts like a pot lid, trapping the lower atmosphere. When you hit the stratosphere, the temp lapse rate reverses and gets warmer with altitude. And the height of the tropopause and stratosphere vary by season/jet stream and region.

Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Domeskier]

That's like saying I can't be bothered to pay the bill that's due on Friday because I'll be dead in 70 years.

Well, if the only consequence is that the interest on the bill increases and you can't default, why not?

 

[BenedictGomez]

The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

The rate at which the Boston Red Sox started winning World Series has shot up. This happens to be during the digital revolution.

Clearly global network connectivity is causing Red Sox championships.

Either that, or we should perhaps beware of unproven inferences until theories are proven.

 

[bdfreetuna]

What crack pot science is this? I fly up high on an almost daily basis, some days you contrail, some days you don't. The amount of soot emitted from modern Turbofan engines is minute and actually has nothing to do with contrailing. That is a factor of atmospheric humidity and temperature that day. On extreme contrail days, you can get a thin Cirrus overcast to develop in high air traffic areas. But this would not be a continuous warming factor as it will break down or move along.

What crack pot science is this... and then you go on to agree with the findings of the article except in far less detail. Did you read it?

I will say the authors appear to adhere to the scientific method better than a lot of the climate science I've seen.

 

[BenedictGomez]

And for those of you who "deny" the persecution of those who dont believe in man-made global warming, here's a Boston based meteorologist who was FIRED this week because she doesnt believe man is likely responsible for the bulk of the earth's recent warming.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html

Then there's a meteorologist from France's national TV who doesnt believe in man-made Global Warming who was FIRED last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/

A simple Google search will demonstrate many such instances of people being FIRED, because they "deny" man-made Global Warming. This has been going on for YEARS now.

Hell, Al Gore's version of the Night Of The Longknives when he cut off funding and purged NOAA of people who dont believe in man-made Global Warning occurred in 1993, that's almost 25 years ago.

And, "Just so everyone understands", firing people and/or killing their research by drying up its' funding, is "not how science works".

 

[Not Sure]

Agree with statements on humidity being the cause not soot . Actually soot or ash will put a lid on heating. I've been a glider pilot and crew at races for 40 yrs and observed some weather conditions. I was at a race in Pa. just after the Mount Saint Hellens erupted, even though the sun shone through a high ash cloud the contest was done in by the lack of thermals. At another race I went 15 miles to get out from under a high cirrus/contrail shelf. Once in a full sun area I hit thermals again and was able to make it back to the home field.

Agree about the powers that be focusing on C02 as a distraction. Combustion and sunlight absorbtion are the answers. Doubt anything significant can be done with the first. You can do something to prevent solar absorption, macadam should be replaced with concrete. Put white shingles on your roof , plant some trees, anything to reflect sunlight from your patch of ground.

Springtime before trees leaf out is an amazing time to fly , so much heat headed up through the cold air . Some incredible climb rates and cloud base heights , over a thousand feet per minute and cloud bases over ten thousand feet! When we start to get lower we look for thermal generators , parking lots , rock faces , large buildings. After trees leaf out there is a noticeable change .

Just my 2 cents

 

[benski]

Hell, Al Gore's version of the Night Of The Longknives when he cut off funding and purged NOAA of people who dont believe in man-made Global Warning occurred in 1993, that's almost 25 years ago.

And, "Just so everyone understands", firing people and/or killing their research by drying up its' funding, is "not how science works".

Is this your source seems to be the only thing close to backing you up and this guy appears to have done a bad job photoshopping different paragraphs and headlines together to.
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/the-climate-of-intimidation-and-harassment/

 

[benski]

And for those of you who "deny" the persecution of those who dont believe in man-made global warming, here's a Boston based meteorologist who was FIRED this week because she doesnt believe man is likely responsible for the bulk of the earth's recent warming.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html

Then there's a meteorologist from France's national TV who doesnt believe in man-made Global Warming who was FIRED last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/

A simple Google search will demonstrate many such instances of people being FIRED, because they "deny" man-made Global Warming. This has been going on for YEARS now. [/I].

Meteorologists are not climatologists. They are hired by private industry so there employers may not want conspiracy theorists. Many climatologists are hired by Universities who tenure staff to make it clear they will not be persecuted for there theories since once you have tenure its almost impossible to fire you.

 

[Puck it]

Meteorologists are not climatologists. They are hired by private industry so there employers may not want conspiracy theorists. Many climatologists are hired by Universities who tenure staff to make it clear they will not be persecuted for there theories since once you have tenure its almost impossible to fire you.

Where do you think these people get their grants from?