Jump to content

Is Global warming a myth?


crf450ish

Recommended Posts

I noticed this on wunderground as well. Interesting stuff. I'm actually lining up to start a Masters next fall here at PSU in the Climate Science Lab. NASA/JPL funded work on downscaled regional modeling. I'll be trying to model the synoptic-scale conditions that lead to thunderstorm formation here in the PNW, in order to model possible fire starts from lightning in the future. The work will go toward the regional component of the National Climate Assessment (NCA). 

 

Sounds awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to both Demitri and Jesse. I look forward to reading and learning from your research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, when referencing Annapolis et al, that report conveniently fails to mention isostatic rebound and other local geologic processes which are responsible for at least 40% of the observed "SLR" across the Chesapeake Bay domain since the end of the LIA.

 

The wetlands around here have been sinking for thousands of years now, and this will probably continue to occur until the Laurentide Ice Sheet re-establishes itself, which won't occur for another several thousand years (it took over 4000 years for the Laurentide Ice Sheet to expand from its inception point over Baffin Island/NE Canada into what is now the Northern US).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to both Demitri and Jesse. I look forward to reading and learning from your research.

Thanks man. Dmitri’s is probably more impressive since it’s for his Master’s, and right now I’m just tagging along as an undergrad. But appreciate it nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds fascinating. Keep us updated on the research. I'll be interested to hear about your findings.

 

It looks like we will both be embarking on research that tangentially relates to wildfire soon. I just got an internship with the hydrology program at WSU as an undergrad. They have a study site on the south side of Mount Adams (near the Cascade Creek fire and Cougar Creek Fire areas) where we will be looking at the impact wildfire has on snow pack (depth and soil absorption in burned areas versus unburned) as well as water table (oils from burnt vegetation can often make a hydrophobic layer within the soil horizon). Should be really enjoyable as I like that area a lot, having done a lot of hiking around there. We'll be snowshoeing up to replace the batteries in some of the cameras later this month!

 

That's really cool. I can put you in touch with a professor here at PSU who specializes in ecological disturbance. He's done a lot of wildfire-related work. The experience you're talking about would be exactly what he would look for in a graduate student. Just an option you can keep in mind in case you want to pursue a Masters in this stuff, down the road.

 

This is the same guy from the Mt. St Helens succession study and the central Cascades tree ring study, both of which I am/was involved in as an undergrad. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really cool. I can put you in touch with a professor here at PSU who specializes in ecological disturbance. He's done a lot of wildfire-related work. The experience you're talking about would be exactly what he would look for in a graduate student. Just an option you can keep in mind in case you want to pursue a Masters in this stuff, down the road.

 

This is the same guy from the Mt. St Helens succession study and the central Cascades tree ring study, both of which I am/was involved in as an undergrad.

Thanks. I may have to take you up on that. I definitely haven’t ruled out getting my Master’s or even going further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am arguing the man made warming aspect. I don't buy it and I never will. Its all cyclical. 

 

 

I have three questions for you.

 

1.   Why is the average temperature of the Moon less than that of Earth, even though they are about the same distance from the sun?

 

2.   Why is Venus hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun? 

 

3.  Off the top of your head, in your opinion, what are the three most important equations in thermodynamics that say that it is possible to add CO2 into a closed system receiving solar energy without causing warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have three questions for you.

 

1. Why is the average temperature of the Moon less than that of Earth, even though they are about the same distance from the sun?

 

2. Why is Venus hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun?

FWIW, a massive slew of factors (too many to list) determine the average temperature of a planet, and GHGes are just one of those many factors (albeit an important one). Unfortunately, the Stefan-Boltzmann law of thermal radiation is often mis-applied to "average surface temperature", which in fact is not predictable via that specific equation. Thermal capacity, photochemistry, rotation rate, and emissivity are all involved in maintaining the "average" temperature.

 

3. Off the top of your head, in your opinion, what are the three most important equations in thermodynamics that say that it is possible to add CO2 into a closed system receiving solar energy without causing warming?

Another misconception is that CO^2 "adds" energy to the system via "backradiation". That's not at all how it works (much more complex issue involving collisional line broadening/time delays between the emission/diffusion ratios with altitude, which raises the aggregate emission height).

 

In fact, the presence of CO^2 actually reduces the thermal capacity of the atmosphere itself because it emits in the infrared spectrum (the thermal capacity of CO^2 is ~ 38% less than that of nitrogen, for example).

 

When a CO^2 molecule emits a photon, it moves into a less excited state (loses energy), and is therefore "cooler" than the surrounding gases at that moment. The surrounding gases then conduct some of their heat to the cooler CO^2 molecule via collisions, moving into less excited states themselves. So the fact CO^2 sheds energy via emission actually reduces the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, a massive slew of factors (too many to list) determine the average temperature of a planet, and GHGes are just one of those many factors (albeit an important one). Unfortunately, the Stefan-Boltzmann law of thermal radiation is often mis-applied to "average surface temperature", which in fact is not predictable via that specific equation. Thermal capacity, photochemistry, rotation rate, and emissivity are all involved in maintaining the "average" temperature.

 

 

Another misconception is that CO^2 "adds" energy to the system via "backradiation". That's not at all how it works (much more complex issue involving collisional line broadening/time delays between the emission/diffusion ratios with altitude, which raises the aggregate emission height).

 

In fact, the presence of CO^2 actually reduces the thermal capacity of the atmosphere itself because it emits in the infrared spectrum (the thermal capacity of CO^2 is ~ 38% less than that of nitrogen, for example).

 

When a CO^2 molecule emits a photon, it moves into a less excited state (loses energy), and is therefore "cooler" than the surrounding gases at that moment. The surrounding gases then conduct some of their heat to the cooler CO^2 molecule via collisions, moving into less excited states themselves. So the fact CO^2 sheds energy via emission actually reduces the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

Ive pretty much chalked up the fact that nearly all of the teachings in modern education, both primary and higher education, indoctrinate students with the idea that CO2 is the main factor in our changing weather and climate. I have read a plethora of articles and papers relating to climate change. Very few cite natural causes, yet most hinge nearly all climate change on......drum roll........ CO2. Whats even more interesting is the privately funded research groups are the ones not citing CO2 as the source for climate change. I wonder why.

 

But I am not a scientist nor do I have a fancy acronym after my name, so what do I know? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's not a myth, but there are a lot of myths that have been attributed to it. Global Warming/ AGW/ Climate Change is the theory that human caused emissions mean that the planet is warmer than it would be if we were still living in the stone age. Beyond that, it's mostly myth.

 

People think that human caused warming is bad, but natural warming is good (naturalistic fallacy).

People think that all the consequences of warming are negative while ignoring the positives. ie. change is bad (appeal to tradition fallacy).

People think that the warming of the planet is accelerating. When you call them out on it with science and data, they invoke the appeal to authority fallacy by claiming someone with more important title than you disagrees (even though they cannot actually cite the person's statement on this).

People think that the only solution to the warming is Marxism, and thus have no time for scientific inquiry and cost-benefit analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's also bad is when we keep doing the same practices not adapting to a warming world. 

 

It's not a myth, but there are a lot of myths that have been attributed to it. Global Warming/ AGW/ Climate Change is the theory that human caused emissions mean that the planet is warmer than it would be if we were still living in the stone age. Beyond that, it's mostly myth.

 

People think that human caused warming is bad, but natural warming is good (naturalistic fallacy).

People think that all the consequences of warming are negative while ignoring the positives. ie. change is bad (appeal to tradition fallacy).

People think that the warming of the planet is accelerating. When you call them out on it with science and data, they invoke the appeal to authority fallacy by claiming someone with more important title than you disagrees (even though they cannot actually cite the person's statement on this).

People think that the only solution to the warming is Marxism, and thus have no time for scientific inquiry and cost-benefit analysis.

Marxism isn't even a solution. It's guarantee destruction for all but those at the top and those who kissed their way to the top. It's the same corporate crap on steroids.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Sounder

It's not a myth, but there are a lot of myths that have been attributed to it. Global Warming/ AGW/ Climate Change is the theory that human caused emissions mean that the planet is warmer than it would be if we were still living in the stone age. Beyond that, it's mostly myth.

 

People think that human caused warming is bad, but natural warming is good (naturalistic fallacy).

People think that all the consequences of warming are negative while ignoring the positives. ie. change is bad (appeal to tradition fallacy).

People think that the warming of the planet is accelerating. When you call them out on it with science and data, they invoke the appeal to authority fallacy by claiming someone with more important title than you disagrees (even though they cannot actually cite the person's statement on this).

People think that the only solution to the warming is Marxism, and thus have no time for scientific inquiry and cost-benefit analysis.

This brings up an interesting point that I've always been surprised it doesn't get more discussion, especially from Conservatards who are hell bent on making science a political issue.

 

It's quite clear and pretty well established fact among the rest of the world outside this forum that at least some degree of AGW is occurring. But there's a potentially compelling (not making and statement on my own personal agreement with this line of reasoning) argument to be made that to a point, global warming could be a net benefit over a net cost to humanity. As you said, humans have a kneejerk tendency to believe that change=bad, but I haven't really seen a clear case made yet that a few degrees of warming would be the absolute disaster its made out to be. Aside from increased prozac prescriptions in Covington, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up an interesting point that I've always been surprised it doesn't get more discussion, especially from Conservatards who are hell bent on making science a political issue.

 

It's quite clear and pretty well established fact among the rest of the world outside this forum that at least some degree of AGW is occurring. But there's a potentially compelling (not making and statement on my own personal agreement with this line of reasoning) argument to be made that to a point, global warming could be a net benefit over a net cost to humanity. As you said, humans have a kneejerk tendency to believe that change=bad, but I haven't really seen a clear case made yet that a few degrees of warming would be the absolute disaster its made out to be. Aside from increased prozac prescriptions in Covington, of course.

 

I've made this point before as well. That's where the alarmism really turns me off - it seems pretty unbalanced, only looking at potential negative consequences and basically ignoring potential positive ones.

 

Change is hard either way, but all else being equal, a warmer world is more hospitable to humans than a colder one.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up an interesting point that I've always been surprised it doesn't get more discussion, especially from Conservatards who are hell bent on making science a political issue.

 

It's quite clear and pretty well established fact among the rest of the world outside this forum that at least some degree of AGW is occurring. But there's a potentially compelling (not making and statement on my own personal agreement with this line of reasoning) argument to be made that to a point, global warming could be a net benefit over a net cost to humanity. As you said, humans have a kneejerk tendency to believe that change=bad, but I haven't really seen a clear case made yet that a few degrees of warming would be the absolute disaster its made out to be. Aside from increased prozac prescriptions in Covington, of course.

Again who does this benefit the most?  Certainly not the users of course. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's this:

 

"We found that there has been a substantial increase in the propensity for extreme ridge/trough sequences to produce especially severe temperature contrasts across the U.S., and (to a lesser extent) an increase in the frequency of the relevant atmospheric “western ridge/eastern trough” pressure patterns themselves. Using climate model simulations, we further found that an increase in extreme temperature dipole days like those we’ve observed in recent years is considerably more likely in a climate with rising greenhouse gas concentrations than in a hypothetical climate without human influence."

 

http://weatherwest.com/archives/5982

Regardless, is it not a tiny bit asinine to just automatically assume a ridge, a part of a weather pattern that has existed since the big bang, is caused by AGW? That reminds me of the people that think thunderstorms are caused by humans.

Formerly *ahem*: LNK_Weather, TOL_Weather, FAR_Weather, MSP_Weather, IMoveALot_Weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYP

 

Well, there's this:

 

"We found that there has been a substantial increase in the propensity for extreme ridge/trough sequences to produce especially severe temperature contrasts across the U.S., and (to a lesser extent) an increase in the frequency of the relevant atmospheric “western ridge/eastern trough” pressure patterns themselves. Using climate model simulations, we further found that an increase in extreme temperature dipole days like those we’ve observed in recent years is considerably more likely in a climate with an expanded west-Pacific warm pool than in a hypothetical climate without an expanded warm pool ."

 

http://weatherwest.com/archives/5982

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s the f**king Indo-WPAC warm pool. This one is pretty obvious. We see it play out every year from an intraseasonal and seasonal standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s the f**king Indo-WPAC warm pool. This one is pretty obvious. We see it play out every year from an intraseasonal and seasonal standpoint.

You think it’s outside of the realm of possibility that that feature could be modified by AGW to some degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it’s outside of the realm of possibility that that feature could be modified by AGW to some degree?

Of course it can, but there’s no evidence (or logic) behind the idea that its location/shape will change due to changes in global temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's this:

 

"We found that there has been a substantial increase in the propensity for extreme ridge/trough sequences to produce especially severe temperature contrasts across the U.S., and (to a lesser extent) an increase in the frequency of the relevant atmospheric “western ridge/eastern trough” pressure patterns themselves. Using climate model simulations, we further found that an increase in extreme temperature dipole days like those we’ve observed in recent years is considerably more likely in a climate with rising greenhouse gas concentrations than in a hypothetical climate without human influence."

 

http://weatherwest.com/archives/5982

 

I doubt these sequences have been more severe than what was seen in the 1930s, for example. That decade had insane extremes.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...