And so it starts....
-
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue - do you know how science is done? One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful. Here - let me explain this yet again: The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. Sunlight adds energy to the system on one side of the earth (daytime) and it radiates back into space on the other side. This reaches a steady state for overall planetary energy content. Now, we've been pouring old carbon back into the system (as CO2 for some time now, at an every increasing rate, and at the same time, have been removing those components of the environment that sequester it. We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents. Something's got to happen. Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen? * For example, when I wrote an application to take XPS data (Xray Photoelectron Spectroscopy) I had to take into account the "natural variability" of the odd cosmic ray passing through the detector an creating a spike of non-data. It had to be removed from the data in order to actually get the data. These events weren't common - but their effect on interpretation of the spectra was profound unless filtered out. Background Noise - you have to look beyond it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue
Nope. "This is end for the CAGW bullshit" quoth Munchies Matt in his first post, not 'Climate Change'.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
do you know how science is done?
Outside of Climatology and Medicine? Yes.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful.
Jolly good. Now, Santer removed ENSO and Volcanic signals from the data and the models. The TLT remained pretty flat for 20 years, in spite of the continuing increase in CO2. Whatever CO2 was contributing to warming, it appears to have been overwhelmed by the remaining forcings. (Or, possibly, 'background noise'?)
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Here - let me explain this yet again:
So gracious of you to condescend to do so, oh Wise One.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. ... We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents.
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium. Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen?
I have seen no evidence of CO2 being the cause of 20th [edit: century] warming, or the cause of 21st century non-warming. So, anthropogenic it isn't.
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue
Nope. "This is end for the CAGW bullshit" quoth Munchies Matt in his first post, not 'Climate Change'.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
do you know how science is done?
Outside of Climatology and Medicine? Yes.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful.
Jolly good. Now, Santer removed ENSO and Volcanic signals from the data and the models. The TLT remained pretty flat for 20 years, in spite of the continuing increase in CO2. Whatever CO2 was contributing to warming, it appears to have been overwhelmed by the remaining forcings. (Or, possibly, 'background noise'?)
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Here - let me explain this yet again:
So gracious of you to condescend to do so, oh Wise One.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. ... We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents.
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium. Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen?
I have seen no evidence of CO2 being the cause of 20th [edit: century] warming, or the cause of 21st century non-warming. So, anthropogenic it isn't.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium.
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless. If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
That remark is, at best, idiotic. Really. You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need? The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Outside of Climatology and Medicine?
Well aren't you special! Maybe you should have spent some time with thermodynamics and kinetics. They don't give a sh*t about politics . . . ever. Or, for that matter, what anyone "reckons".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium.
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless. If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
That remark is, at best, idiotic. Really. You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need? The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Outside of Climatology and Medicine?
Well aren't you special! Maybe you should have spent some time with thermodynamics and kinetics. They don't give a sh*t about politics . . . ever. Or, for that matter, what anyone "reckons".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless.
It weakens the positivity of your statement. After all, appearances can be deceptive.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
As it does, or are you saying that, without anthropogenic forcings, and in spite of weather, forest fires, volcanoes, oceans, etc., etc., the planet remains in equilibrium?No warming, no cooling? Static? Really? Nope. It is dynamic, constantly 'striving' to attain equilibrium in response to various natural and anthropogenic forcings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
That remark is, at best, idiotic.
My remark was: Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need?
You asked me to "explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents". I had already opined that the Santer paper showed that the increase in CO2 is not the cause of the current warming, any effects being overwhelmed by 'natural variability'. Consequently, I reckoned that the planet would cope with this warming much as in the past, I also reckoned you would be well up on that matter. As for being a 'proof', nobody can provide you with a 'proof' of how "the atmosphere will react to the new contents".
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
We could be well on our way to the solution of this non-problem, were it not for the fixation on 'renewables'. Solar Panels and Wind Farms? Environmental Vandalism to no good purpose. But there is sufficient time to correct these mistakes, fortunately.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Well aren't you special!
No. It is acknowledged that at least half the published papers in Medical Science are flawed (well, just plain wrong). Most Climate Science papers, if subjected to the same scr