Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 06 Sep 2016 05:26

Yes I do understand the issue at hand.

As far as some Al Gore claim of "catastrophic sea level rise" happening...I never said I believe this.

Now here is the real issue, and please pay attention:

Who can afford emission reduction targets w/o compromising on economic and military advancement?

The West has the money and technology to do this. The rest of the world doesn't.

Therefore, they should take the lead and give other's the chance to catch up.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Sep 2016 06:12

RoyG wrote:As far as some Al Gore claim of "catastrophic sea level rise" happening...I never said I believe this.


OK, thanks for clarifying that. I agree.

RoyG wrote:Now here is the real issue, and please pay attention:

Who can afford emission reduction targets w/o compromising on economic and military advancement?

The West has the money and technology to do this. The rest of the world doesn't.

Therefore, they should take the lead and give other's the chance to catch up.


Like I've been saying all along, if it's about addressing industrial pollution, emissions (*all* emissions, not just some silly carbon tax to address CO2), cleaning up the seas (plastic junk :P), renewable energy, reducing wasteful consumerism, and all that - I'm in. If it's going to be about a demonization contest with CO2 as the victim - I'm out. And yes, the west should take the lead while we catch up. So peace.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 06 Sep 2016 07:46

You can agree disagree w/ anthropogenic climate change. I happen to agree w/ it minus the alarmism baggage.

This however isn't the real issue.

The real issue is pressing ahead w/ burning coal and industrializing. India must do this to survive and become a world power.

If we simply stick to this it will force the West, particularly the US, to upgrade its emissions target and compensate.

Nothing at the moment, even nuclear, comes close to burning coal. This is the fact that stares everyone in the face.

123, NSG, Thorium, etc. all this is bullshit at the end of the day.

Adrija
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 19:42

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Adrija » 06 Sep 2016 09:27

RoyG saheb, my apologies upfront, but I do feel constrained to ask if you even absorbed what Sudarshanji shared? :D

You wrote "who can afford emission reduction targets...." Pray, WHY does one need to accept any emission reduction targets please? The link of CO2 to increased atmospheric temperature, rise in sea levels yada yada is NOT proven..... if you are such a passionate believer in climate change would you care to isolate it from the "heat island" effect which Sudarshanji has also alluded to although in passing....

We should all of course stop polluting the atmosphere and clean up the oceans and adopt organic farming, but can we all agree that India's role in the historical baggage is limited at best and it is only right the at the "polluter pays" principle is implemented in all equity, and that we cannot compromise on our growth aspirations? If the West is sooo concerned about India polluting by burning coal... why, tere is a simple answer, pelase do share with us clean coal technologies pro bono :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Separately, have you thought of reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Micha ... te+of+fear

Back to lurk mode

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 06 Sep 2016 10:10

Adrija wrote:RoyG saheb, my apologies upfront, but I do feel constrained to ask if you even absorbed what Sudarshanji shared? :D

You wrote "who can afford emission reduction targets...." Pray, WHY does one need to accept any emission reduction targets please? The link of CO2 to increased atmospheric temperature, rise in sea levels yada yada is NOT proven..... if you are such a passionate believer in climate change would you care to isolate it from the "heat island" effect which Sudarshanji has also alluded to although in passing....

We should all of course stop polluting the atmosphere and clean up the oceans and adopt organic farming, but can we all agree that India's role in the historical baggage is limited at best and it is only right the at the "polluter pays" principle is implemented in all equity, and that we cannot compromise on our growth aspirations? If the West is sooo concerned about India polluting by burning coal... why, tere is a simple answer, pelase do share with us clean coal technologies pro bono :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Separately, have you thought of reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Micha ... te+of+fear

Back to lurk mode


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

All sorts of nonsense floating out there about vaccines, zionist bankers, Roswell, Holocaust, etc. Take your pick and add it to your kitty.

The world is getting hotter and the scientific consensus tells us that it is anthropogenic.

Now, does the effect warrant India to compromise on its development. Simple answer - No.

The West including the US can do all the emission reduction targeting it wants to compensate.

Adrija
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 19:42

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Adrija » 06 Sep 2016 10:28

Ah, classic case of trying to obfuscate by tarring with a broad brush ("all sorts of nonsense....")

let's try to be specific here:

1. "The world is getting hotter"- Short answer- WE DON"T KNOW. The world has gotten much hotter many times in the past, and there is no clear evidence that it even is happening currently.......again, please do google the "heat island" effect.

Are the places we live in getting hotter? Undeniably yes.... that MAY also simply that we live in concrete, and well lit places.....(please note the MAY.... again, we don't know)

2. "Scientific consensus tells us it is anthropogenic"- NO IT DOES NOT. There is no scientific consensus, and Sudarshanji spent a lot of time explaining that above very well so I won't even try repeating it.

There is no scientific consensus on whether the world is indeed getting hotter, and if so, what the outcome of that is, and there is no consensus of whether it is amenable to being reversed with the levers being talked about (curbing CO2 etc.... )

Should we stop polluting the planet by curbing waste, plastics, cutting trees, etc? Of course yes

Should we in India stop trying to increase energy generation and consumption, and making energy cheaper so that people can consume more? I would request not....it is critical that our first and foremost priority remains rapid economic growth

Apologies for any offence caused

Thanks

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 06 Sep 2016 19:25

disha wrote:How do you know climate is not changing for the worse?


It very well might be. I am not questioning that its not. The question is, is it as bad as its made out to be? And can we be certain that it is worsening? If it is, show us the data. And the data is THE problem. If the data is patchy. Extrapolating outcome of a very dynamic system to 20 year old data is quite fallible.

IMO we are falling into the 'show me the double blind randomised control clinical trial' trap. The western medicine uses this as a definitive test of validity of a claim to say a drug is effective. In ayurveda, they haven't got this data, so its considered hokum. With time as more data becomes available, ayurveda will compete with western medicine.

I am not a climate change denier, I am skeptical about claims that the sky is falling because of human action. Now you could very well claim, in 20 years data will conclusively prove human action has irreversibly changed the climate and by then it will be too late to do anything. I am not taking this position either. If there is real urgency, why are the great and good nations who created this problem NOT doing more about it?

P.S. Adrija saar, why did you mention - Michael Crichton? Now I will have to buy his book and the 2 others recommended by Amazon. He is a very good writer. :D

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Sep 2016 20:20

Adrija wrote:2. "Scientific consensus tells us it is anthropogenic"- NO IT DOES NOT. There is no scientific consensus, and Sudarshanji spent a lot of time explaining that above very well so I won't even try repeating it.

There is no scientific consensus on whether the world is indeed getting hotter, and if so, what the outcome of that is, and there is no consensus of whether it is amenable to being reversed with the levers being talked about (curbing CO2 etc.... )



Yep, the lay person still sees the scientists as these "impartial, disinterested nerdy types who are after the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." That is of course the ideal of science, but when you have hundreds of millions of boys and girls who aspire to make a career out of science - money and glory - then mediocrity is bound to set in. And it *has* set in. I see it all the time in the peer-review process, in the competition for funding, in the milking of papers. SHQ, who recently started being exposed to all this, sees it big time, and I have to keep her from getting totally cynical and disillusioned by dangling the ideal of science, which still exists, in front of her. The reason you don't see the mediocrity yet, is that there are all these awesome tools which didn't even exist twenty years ago, which multiply productivity hundreds or thousands of times. Computers and algorithms, telescopes and microscopes, networking and cloud computing, which churn out so much data, that even a fraction of that data is equivalent to the entire productive scientific output from thirty years ago.

But leave that aside for the moment.

NRao wrote:For serious researchers.

A Sharp Increase in
‘Sunny Day’ Flooding


Global warming and rising seas are increasing the amount of tidal flooding on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Flood levels are different from city to city, but the trends are similar


When I saw this headline: 'Sunny Day' Flooding, the first thing that I thought of was that it seemed like an artificial metric, carefully crafted in such a way that it would show a doomsday scenario of some parameter which displayed an "alarming increase" (or decrease). Media manipulation at its best. Is this sharp increase seen in global sea level data? NO. If those coastal sites are indeed flooding, that might be more indicative of crumbling infrastructure - it certainly does not indicate sea level rise, because the data shows no sea level rise, over and above the mild rate of rise that's been going on for centuries.

Why is it that the same people who can endlessly dissect and expose media propaganda when it comes to the demonization of Modi and the elevation of Kejriwal, can't see through the same kind of charades here? That global sea level data website that I posted is accessible to anybody with a computer and internet connection, if you can browse BR, you can browse that site as well, you don't even have to bother downloading data and plotting it, the plots are displayed right there on the website. The "year-wise averaging of monthly data" that I showed in my plots is also already done for you on that site (I just redid it). But people still stop with reading some article and internalizing its contents without question, without even bothering to seek out contrary viewpoints. Internet articles cannot give you the true picture. Please seek out the source data (which in many cases is very much in the public domain) and analyze it for yourselves. Learn some basic data regression techniques. You just need to know how they work, so you can correctly interpret the results - the codes are in many cases freely available as well.

By doing this, you will not gain any capability to challenge serious scientists - science goes way beyond just plotting and interpreting data. But you will definitely be in a much better position to sniff out media propaganda, because in most cases, media personnel are absolutely clueless about the true science behind whatever story they are reporting.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 06 Sep 2016 21:55

Adrija wrote:Ah, classic case of trying to obfuscate by tarring with a broad brush ("all sorts of nonsense....")

let's try to be specific here:

1. "The world is getting hotter"- Short answer- WE DON"T KNOW. The world has gotten much hotter many times in the past, and there is no clear evidence that it even is happening currently.......again, please do google the "heat island" effect.

Are the places we live in getting hotter? Undeniably yes.... that MAY also simply that we live in concrete, and well lit places.....(please note the MAY.... again, we don't know)

2. "Scientific consensus tells us it is anthropogenic"- NO IT DOES NOT. There is no scientific consensus, and Sudarshanji spent a lot of time explaining that above very well so I won't even try repeating it.

There is no scientific consensus on whether the world is indeed getting hotter, and if so, what the outcome of that is, and there is no consensus of whether it is amenable to being reversed with the levers being talked about (curbing CO2 etc.... )

Should we stop polluting the planet by curbing waste, plastics, cutting trees, etc? Of course yes

Should we in India stop trying to increase energy generation and consumption, and making energy cheaper so that people can consume more? I would request not....it is critical that our first and foremost priority remains rapid economic growth

Apologies for any offence caused

Thanks


There is scientific consensus. Almost all agree that warming is due to emissions.

This is a published paper on the subject:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... ld.iop.org

As far as your heat island theory is concerned, it has already been debunked:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban- ... effect.htm

"Another way to explore the UHI would be to look at where the majority of warming has occurred across the globe. The UHI should match where most people live. However, if you look at the 2006 global temperature anomaly (figure 2.), you find that the greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred."

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Sep 2016 23:09

I don't see what the big deal is with this elusive "scientific consensus" beast. 100% scientific consensus is still meaningless - at one time there was close to 100% consensus on the Newtonian world view, before Einstein came along. Before that, there was scientific consensus on the "turtle carrying the earth" theory. So can we all stop worrying about whether or not there is "consensus?"

So UHI should match where most people live? Why don't emissions also match where most people live, then? Because emissions travel and spread. Heat also travels and spreads. From the beginning of the industrial age (1900's?) to 2006, the additional heating due to all the heat engines that we've got going, has had ample time to affect every part of the globe. This is not the same as the "Urban Heating" effect - I am talking about direct heat addition into the atmosphere by internal combustion technology, not about perceived urban heating due to proximity of temperature sensors to population centers. Nothing surprising in the fact that rural and urban sites show practically the same temperature anomaly.

If the argument is that the anomaly being greater at northern latitudes debunks urban heating, then it should also debunk emissions, because when those emissions spread out over the atmosphere, they should cause uniform additional greenhouse heating.

Plus I really don't know what you mean by "heating is due to emissions." That's such an ambiguous statement. Are you talking about direct heat addition due to hot exhaust gases (which, technically, is also "heating due to emissions"), or are you specifically talking about the greenhouse heating? If it's about greenhouse heating, are you using the word "emissions" to specifically talk about CO2, or are you also considering NOx, SO2, H2O, O3, HCs, CH4, C2H6, benzene, etc., each of which has its own greenhouse heating characteristics?

And none of this rules out the hypothesis that the increased temperature anomaly could be due to increased heat output from the sun itself, coincident with the industrial age. That would also cause uniform heating at rural and urban centers. It may not explain this "higher heating at northern latitudes" issue, but neither does the blanket statement of "heating due to emissions."

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 07 Sep 2016 00:04

I was merely responding to another user. He made a claim that you disproved general consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. I just posted a published paper which refutes it. If you did indeed try to disprove a scientific consensus would you care to share some actual data?

When I speak of emissions I'm referring to CO2 and methane in particular.

As far as uniform heating is concerned, it simply doesn't happen that way. Some areas will experience some cooling and some heating. However, the overall temperature is increasing.

Now wrt to this northern latitude temperature differential, you are ignoring a big piece of the puzzle...solar radiation reflection due to ice. As the ice melts, more radiation is absorbed by the water and permafrost which releases more CO2 and methane creating greater increase in heating. It's a positive feedback loop.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 07 Sep 2016 00:56

Disprove the presence of a scientific consensus, or disprove the point over which there is this perceived "consensus?" I haven't done either, just pointing out how ambiguous your statements are.

My stance is that it's hard to imagine the presence of a scientific consensus on an issue which is so poorly understood as gas radiation through highly inhomogeneous media, especially when the effects of mass flows (especially turbulent mass flows) also have to be considered. I haven't proved this, but I stand by this statement. And I don't see how the paper you posted proves the presence of a consensus either.

OK, if I am ignoring this big piece of the puzzle - radiation reflection due to ice melting - why doesn't this hold good for the southern latitudes also? The temperature anomalies in the southernmost regions is flat, or negative, according to the figure you referenced.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 07 Sep 2016 01:29

sudarshan wrote:Disprove the presence of a scientific consensus, or disprove the point over which there is this perceived "consensus?" I haven't done either, just pointing out how ambiguous your statements are.

My stance is that it's hard to imagine the presence of a scientific consensus on an issue which is so poorly understood as gas radiation through highly inhomogeneous media, especially when the effects of mass flows (especially turbulent mass flows) also have to be considered. I haven't proved this, but I stand by this statement. And I don't see how the paper you posted proves the presence of a consensus either.

OK, if I am ignoring this big piece of the puzzle - radiation reflection due to ice melting - why doesn't this hold good for the southern latitudes also? The temperature anomalies in the southernmost regions is flat, or negative, according to the figure you referenced.


Ambiguous like "I haven't proved this, but I stand by this statement"?

Please refer to page 4. It's a simple data set comprised of scientific papers. I believe it's 97.1% for AGW.

As far as the Southern latitudes are concerned, they simply receive less solar radiation than the northern latitudes so the temperature differential will be far less. However, the temperature there has now shown signs of increase and there is substantial evidence of melting.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 07 Sep 2016 01:43

Southern latitudes receive less radiation than northern?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page3.php

Please look at the net radiation figure. If anything, it's the opposite. There's more yellowish shading over Antarctica in the figure than over the Arctic.

"I haven't proved the presence of God, but I stand by my statement that He exists." Is this statement ambiguous?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 07 Sep 2016 02:39

sudarshan wrote:Southern latitudes receive less radiation than northern?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page3.php

Please look at the net radiation figure. If anything, it's the opposite. There's more yellowish shading over Antarctica in the figure than over the Arctic.

"I haven't proved the presence of God, but I stand by my statement that He exists." Is this statement ambiguous?


I meant in terms of solar radiation absorption. The ice sits on ground in instead of floating on water which acts a heating reservoir. So you won't see as great a temperature fluctuation.

As far as your second statement is concerned, a better term would be buffoonery.

But only in a purely semitic light. I don't think you meant it in the way you said it.

I can claim that martians exist, but w/o any sort of scientific literature to back up my claim it doesn't really do anything for anyone.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Cosmo_R » 07 Sep 2016 03:56

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the- ... xist-15938

So man made climate change?

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 07 Sep 2016 06:40

RoyG wrote:As far as your second statement is concerned, a better term would be buffoonery.

But only in a purely semitic light. I don't think you meant it in the way you said it.

I can claim that martians exist, but w/o any sort of scientific literature to back up my claim it doesn't really do anything for anyone.


It's called "having an opinion." An opinion doesn't have to be proved to anybody, and so long as you don't go imposing it on others, it's neither buffoonery, nor (even if it's contradictory) ambiguous. Even the Mahatmas who've seen God - Adi Shankara or Ramakrishna - don't go proving it to everybody, they only train the ones who specifically come to them as disciples. Not that I'm making any claims to Mahatmahood.

I meant in terms of solar radiation absorption. The ice sits on ground in instead of floating on water which acts a heating reservoir. So you won't see as great a temperature fluctuation.


:(( :(( This is the ambiguity I'm complaining about, saar. First you say "southern latitudes receive less solar radiation," then you amend it to "I mean - how much they absorb."

But what you're saying is a plausible explanation, that the sub-layer (water or ground) does make a difference - not to the heat absorbed, because that comes directly from the sun (or greenhouse heating) and only has to do with the absorption characteristics of the ice itself, but in terms of temperature change, which depends on how much heat can be transferred to the sub-layer. If, further, the ice layer in the northern hemisphere is thinner than the one in the southern, then that makes the figure you referenced even more likely. In addition to the effect you mentioned (which I'm inclined to believe will be rather minor), there is the bigger effect of "latent heat of melting," which would lead to the same result (if the ice layer thicknesses were different).

However....

This can happen regardless of whether the forcing function (the source of the heat) is due to greenhouse heating, direct changes in the sun's output itself, or some other heating function. In any of these cases, varying thickness of the ice layer between northern and southern hemisphere can lead to a temperature anomaly distribution, just like that referenced figure. So what is it about that figure which specifically leads to the conclusion that it is greenhouse heating which is causing that anomaly pattern? My opinion is - nothing. And this opinion isn't just an opinion (this time), but based on what I've learned of the principles of heat transfer. You are free to verify this with other folks who have knowledge of heat transfer, and they'll confirm this (or not - see, scientific consensus is not a given, even among two experts in the same field).

Image

The figure above is a little demonstration of what I mean. You heat a pot of water, steam comes out. Is it because of the direct addition of heat, or is it because of the emissions of CO2 and methane (yes, burning wood will release some methane), which reach the atmosphere, cause greenhouse heating, which in turn causes the water to boil? OK, this is a ridiculous example.

In the second panel, we again have two cases. In the first case, we have hundreds of millions or even billions of distributed heat sources - cars and planes and trains, factories and power plants, electronics which generate heat, light bulbs, fans, motors, compressors... all of which generate heat. These heat sources have come into existence after the industrial age began. Well, that's an explanation of the heat dumped into the atmosphere right there. Why go to this convoluted "greenhouse gas model," (second case in second panel) and hold CO2 entirely responsible for the heating?

In both cases in the second panel:

* The warming is caused by humans, and started after the industrial age began.

* Since the heat will spread to affect the entire globe, regardless of whether it is due to distributed heat sources or greenhouse heating, we will see some areas of cooling, some areas of heating, but the overall trend will be heating. *This is no longer that UHI effect we are talking about - proximity of temperature sensors to urban centers.*

* Rural or urban areas, it doesn't matter - they'll both be affected. Convective, conductive, advective (wind), and radiative transfer will transport that heat to all areas of the globe.

* If the northern hemisphere ice has a different sub-layer than the southern hemisphere ice, and if the thicknesses of the layers are different in both hemispheres, we could very well see the temperature anomaly pattern from your referenced figure. Because when the northern hemisphere ice melts (earlier than the ice in the S. hemisphere), it could lead to the runaway effect you mentioned - more solar radiation is absorbed. Also the much more significant latent heat effect. So there can now be two forcing functions - distributed heat sources, and direct solar radiation.

So, by the principle of Occam's Razor, which explanation will you pick?

What is different between the two cases?

* In the first case, sequestering the emissions (or CO2 in particular) will achieve nothing, as far as curbing the warming trend goes.

Do you see where I'm going? Even if it is a given that human activity is causing warming, there is a much more direct explanation for this warming, which also explains the observed facts. The solution would be to push for renewable energy, reduce wasteful consumption, etc. - that would also control the amount of emissions.

Now I'll give you one more reason to pick the first explanation (heating from billions of distributed sources) over the second (greenhouse heating). Remember that hubbub, years ago, about how the ancient temperature and CO2 level record showed that CO2 level increase *lagged the temperature increase by 800 years or so?*

The link between temperature rise and CO2 level is iffy. There is a better and more direct explanation for this temperature rise, *even if it is human-activity-induced.* And there is still the competing explanation of "increased solar output." If this heating is human-induced, then I agree, it is a good idea for humans to do something about controlling it. Only, curbing CO2 might not be that something.
Last edited by sudarshan on 07 Sep 2016 09:28, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2016 07:17

Cosmo_R wrote:The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the- ... xist-15938

So man made climate change?


Man has accelerated the -ve impact on climate. There have been a few events that have contributed to the sudden change in climate, but they were never human induced.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 07 Sep 2016 23:57

RoyG wrote:As far as your heat island theory is concerned, it has already been debunked:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban- ... effect.htm

"Another way to explore the UHI would be to look at where the majority of warming has occurred across the globe. The UHI should match where most people live. However, if you look at the 2006 global temperature anomaly (figure 2.), you find that the greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred."


Hmm, looks like I might have been wasting my time responding to the material in this link. You're all welcome to go to this link and take a look at the pretty plot there, showing temperature anomaly between 1885 and 2006. See if you can figure out why I'm saying this: until the author can answer some questions satisfactorily, this plot is meaningless. The claim that this plot debunks the heat island theory seems (currently to me) laughable. I don't think the author can answer any questions though, because I see a line in that web page, saying "Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio." So I much suspect that the author simply went to the NASA web page, used some tool there to generate this plot, took a look at the results and went "Ooh looky, I just debunked the heat island effect," without understanding what the plotting tool was doing. I am of course willing to change my views on any and all of this, if the author can explain certain things. But why don't you guys figure it out for yourselves (why I'm saying all of the above, I mean)?

Here I was talking about ice layer thickness, N. vs. S. hemisphere, etc. That plot, as described ("temperature anomaly between 1885 and 2006, based on NASA/Goddard data") seems to simply show a lot of artificial shading - it seems to be an artifact of the data, not any great insight into the temperature differential.

Even if you accept that rural and urban sites don't show much variation, that is still not a debunking of the heat island theory. If you do a simple order of magnitude analysis of the expected temperature differential between rural and urban sites, you will see why this is so.

Will elaborate later.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 08 Sep 2016 01:25

NRao wrote:Man has accelerated the -ve impact on climate. There have been a few events that have contributed to the sudden change in climate, but they were never human induced.


There is NO evidence to back your claim. Anthropogenic changes cannot yet be attributed to climate.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 08 Sep 2016 04:42

NRao wrote:Man has accelerated the -ve impact on climate. There have been a few events that have contributed to the sudden change in climate, but they were never human induced.


What saar, no comments on or defence of this link you posted, which has been shown to be rank alarmism?

NRao wrote:For serious researchers.

A Sharp Increase in
‘Sunny Day’ Flooding


Global warming and rising seas are increasing the amount of tidal flooding on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Flood levels are different from city to city, but the trends are similar


Specifically, did you check the freely available sea (tide) level data (and freely available trend plots from the same website) before you posted this link?

I don't mean to offend or to be snide, but in the interest of healthy debate, I think this question needs to be asked.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2016 10:56


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2016 11:04

NRao wrote:For serious researchers.

A Sharp Increase in
‘Sunny Day’ Flooding


Global warming and rising seas are increasing the amount of tidal flooding on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Flood levels are different from city to city, but the trends are similar


Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun0




Is sea level rising?

Fundas.

What is Sea Level?

There is an important distinction between the global sea level trend and relative sea level trends (based on local sea level measurements), which must be understood in order to interpret changes to a coastline or particular location, and to properly apply the information.

Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the oceans is also not flat, and this sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. For instance, it is known that the absolute water level height is higher along the West Coast of the United States than the East Coast. However, publications often refer to Global Sea Level, or the average height of all the Earth's oceans. "Global Sea Level Rise" refers to the increase currently observed in the average Global Sea Level Trend, which is primarily attributed to changes in ocean volume due to two factors: ice melt and thermal expansion. Melting of glaciers and continental ice masses, such as the Greenland ice sheet, which are linked to changes in atmospheric temperature, can contribute significant amounts of freshwater input to the Earth's oceans. Additionally, a steady increase in global atmospheric temperature creates an expansion of saline sea water (i.e., salt water) molecules (called thermal expansion), thereby increasing ocean volume. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report estimates that the global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), based on tide station measurements around the world, with projected increased trends in sea level in the 20th Century based on global climate models.

Tide stations measure Local Sea Level, which refers to the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Water level measurements at tide stations are referenced to stable vertical points (or bench marks) on the land and a known relationship is established. However, the measurements at any given tide station include both global sea level rise and vertical land motion, such as subsidence, glacial rebound, or large-scale tectonic motion. Because the heights of both the land and the water are changing, the land-water interface can vary spatially and temporally and must be defined over time. Depending on the rates of vertical land motion relative to changes in sea level, observed local sea level trends may differ greatly from the average rate of global sea level rise, and vary widely from one location to the next. For instance, in areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico where significant subsidence is occurring, relative sea level trends reflect an increase of greater than 10 mm/yr in some locations, while areas of southeastern Alaska reflect a decrease in relative sea level because the region is dominated by isostatic rebound, or regional uplift of the land caused by the retreat of the glaciers. Relative Sea Level Trends reflect changes in local sea level over time and are typically the most critical sea level trend for many coastal applications, including coastal mapping, marine boundary delineation, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, sustainable habitat restoration design, and the general public enjoying their favorite beach. This website focuses on relative sea level trends, computed from monthly averages of hourly water levels observed at specific tide stations, called monthly mean sea level.

The term Mean Sea Level (MSL) can also refer to a tidal datum, or frame of vertical reference defined by a specific phase of the tide. Tidal datums are locally-derived based on observations at a tide station, and are typically computed over a 19-year period, known as the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE). The present 19-year reference period used by NOAA is the 1983-2001 NTDE. Tidal datums must be updated at least every 20-25 years due to global sea level rise. Some stations are more frequently updated due to high relative sea level trends. Tidal datums are the basis of marine boundaries, are used as a vertical reference plane in producing nautical charts, and provide important baseline information for observing changes in sea level over time. MSL as a tidal datum is computed as a mean of hourly water level heights observed over 19-years. Monthly means are generated in the datum calculation process, which are used to generate the relative local sea level trends observed here. Click here for more information on tidal datums.

Why doesJust as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the oceans is also not flat, and this sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. For instance, it is known that the absolute water level height is higher along the West Coast of the United States than the East Coast. However, publications often refer to Global Sea Level, or the average height of all the Earth's oceans. "Global Sea Level Rise" refers to the increase currently observed in the average Global Sea Level Trend, which is primarily attributed to changes in ocean volume due to two factors: ice melt and thermal expansion. Melting of glaciers and continental ice masses, such as the Greenland ice sheet, which are linked to changes in atmospheric temperature, can contribute significant amounts of freshwater input to the Earth's oceans. Additionally, a steady increase in global atmospheric temperature creates an expansion of saline sea water (i.e., salt water) molecules (called thermal expansion), thereby increasing ocean volume. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report estimates that the global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), based on tide station measurements around the world, with projected increased trends in sea level in the 20th Century based on global climate models.

Tide stations measure Local Sea Level, which refers to the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Water level measurements at tide stations are referenced to stable vertical points (or bench marks) on the land and a known relationship is established. However, the measurements at any given tide station include both global sea level rise and vertical land motion, such as subsidence, glacial rebound, or large-scale tectonic motion. Because the heights of both the land and the water are changing, the land-water interface can vary spatially and temporally and must be defined over time. Depending on the rates of vertical land motion relative to changes in sea level, observed local sea level trends may differ greatly from the average rate of global sea level rise, and vary widely from one location to the next. For instance, in areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico where significant subsidence is occurring, relative sea level trends reflect an increase of greater than 10 mm/yr in some locations, while areas of southeastern Alaska reflect a decrease in relative sea level because the region is dominated by isostatic rebound, or regional uplift of the land caused by the retreat of the glaciers. Relative Sea Level Trends reflect changes in local sea level over time and are typically the most critical sea level trend for many coastal applications, including coastal mapping, marine boundary delineation, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, sustainable habitat restoration design, and the general public enjoying their favorite beach. This website focuses on relative sea level trends, computed from monthly averages of hourly water levels observed at specific tide stations, called monthly mean sea level.

The term Mean Sea Level (MSL) can also refer to a tidal datum, or frame of vertical reference defined by a specific phase of the tide. Tidal datums are locally-derived based on observations at a tide station, and are typically computed over a 19-year period, known as the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE). The present 19-year reference period used by NOAA is the 1983-2001 NTDE. Tidal datums must be updated at least every 20-25 years due to global sea level rise. Some stations are more frequently updated due to high relative sea level trends. Tidal datums are the basis of marine boundaries, are used as a vertical reference plane in producing nautical charts, and provide important baseline information for observing changes in sea level over time. MSL as a tidal datum is computed as a mean of hourly water level heights observed over 19-years. Monthly means are generated in the datum calculation process, which are used to generate the relative local sea level trends observed here. Click here for more information on tidal datums.

Why does Sea Level change over time?

There are a number of factors that contribute to long and short-term variations in sea level. Short-term variations generally occur on a daily basis and include waves, tides, or specific flood events, such as those associated with a winter snow melt, or hurricane or other coastal storm. Long-term variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to several years, and may be repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent anomalies. Seasonal weather patterns, variations in the Earth's declination, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences (such as dredging), vertical land motion, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are just a few of the many factors influencing changes in sea level over time. When estimating sea level trends, a minimum of 30 years of data are used in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level. Accounting for repeatable, predictable cycles, such as tidal, seasonal, and interannual variations allows computation of a more accurate long-term sea level trend.

What does Sea Level have to do with Climate?

Understanding trends in sea level, as well as the relationship between global and local sea level, provides critical information about the impacts of the Earth's climate on our oceans and atmosphere. Changes in sea level are directly linked to a number of atmospheric and oceanic processes. Changes in global temperatures, hydrologic cycles, coverage of glaciers and ice sheets, and storm frequency and intensity are examples of known effects of a changing climate, all of which are directly related to, and captured in, long-term sea level records. Sea levels provide an important key to understanding the impact of climate change, not just along our coasts, but around the world. By combining local rates of relative sea level change for a specific area based on observations with projections of global sea level rise (from IPCC, 2007), coastal managers and engineers can begin to analyze and plan for the impacts of sea level rise for long-range planning.

What are the differences between historical and new sea Level trends and confidence intervals?

As more data are collected at water level stations, the linear mean sea level trends can be recalculated each year. The figure compares linear mean sea level trends and 95% confidence intervals calculated with data beginning from a common year and ending in each year since 2006. The values do not indicate the trend in each year, but the trend of the entire data period up to that year. Although the mean trend may change from year to year, there is no statistically significant difference between the calculated trends if their 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, the most recent calculated trend is not necessarily more accurate than the previous trends; it is merely a little more precise. If several recent years have anomalously high or low water levels, the values may actually move slightly away from the true long-term linear trend. The main effect of including a few more years of data is to narrow the 95% confidence intervals. The figure below (from Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854-2006, NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 53) shows estimated widths of the 95% confidence intervals derived from all the calculated trends at long-term CO-OPS water level stations. A 30-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 1.5 mm/yr confidence interval; a 60-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 0.5 mm/yr confidence interval. Sea Level change over time?

There are a number of factors that contribute to long and short-term variations in sea level. Short-term variations generally occur on a daily basis and include waves, tides, or specific flood events, such as those associated with a winter snow melt, or hurricane or other coastal storm. Long-term variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to several years, and may be repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent anomalies. Seasonal weather patterns, variations in the Earth's declination, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences (such as dredging), vertical land motion, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are just a few of the many factors influencing changes in sea level over time. When estimating sea level trends, a minimum of 30 years of data are used in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level. Accounting for repeatable, predictable cycles, such as tidal, seasonal, and interannual variations allows computation of a more accurate long-term sea level trend.

What does Sea Level have to do with Climate?

Understanding trends in sea level, as well as the relationship between global and local sea level, provides critical information about the impacts of the Earth's climate on our oceans and atmosphere. Changes in sea level are directly linked to a number of atmospheric and oceanic processes. Changes in global temperatures, hydrologic cycles, coverage of glaciers and ice sheets, and storm frequency and intensity are examples of known effects of a changing climate, all of which are directly related to, and captured in, long-term sea level records. Sea levels provide an important key to understanding the impact of climate change, not just along our coasts, but around the world. By combining local rates of relative sea level change for a specific area based on observations with projections of global sea level rise (from IPCC, 2007), coastal managers and engineers can begin to analyze and plan for the impacts of sea level rise for long-range planning.

What are the differences between historical and new sea Level trends and confidence intervals?

As more data are collected at water level stations, the linear mean sea level trends can be recalculated each year. The figure compares linear mean sea level trends and 95% confidence intervals calculated with data beginning from a common year and ending in each year since 2006. The values do not indicate the trend in each year, but the trend of the entire data period up to that year. Although the mean trend may change from year to year, there is no statistically significant difference between the calculated trends if their 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, the most recent calculated trend is not necessarily more accurate than the previous trends; it is merely a little more precise. If several recent years have anomalously high or low water levels, the values may actually move slightly away from the true long-term linear trend. The main effect of including a few more years of data is to narrow the 95% confidence intervals. The figure below (from Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854-2006, NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 53) shows estimated widths of the 95% confidence intervals derived from all the calculated trends at long-term CO-OPS water level stations. A 30-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 1.5 mm/yr confidence interval; a 60-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 0.5 mm/yr confidence interval.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Gus » 08 Sep 2016 12:40

increase in sea level forcing coastal people to migrate?

BAH. what BS.

tell them to stay put as it is all a hoax.

It is nothing but dihydrogen oxide in another form.

after all, world was 90% water in hydrozoic era and average temperature was 58 C in heatozoic era.

people were fine then and people will be fine now.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 08 Sep 2016 21:15

Gus wrote:increase in sea level forcing coastal people to migrate?

BAH. what BS.

tell them to stay put as it is all a hoax.

It is nothing but dihydrogen oxide in another form.

after all, world was 90% water in hydrozoic era and average temperature was 58 C in heatozoic era.

people were fine then and people will be fine now.


Yaar, dont you know? they can simply heat ocean water w/ direct heat energy from combustion engine and add namak garnish to their meals dal lake ishtyle. :lol:

Global warming ≠ global warning ; no scientific consensus you see

Big conspiracy has all world leaders including their scientific/security establishments fooled.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 08 Sep 2016 22:04

Yep, the poor sods looking at the actual sea level data have no clue, because you guys know better. If the tide data doesn't show this alarming sea level rise, then the tide data has got to be wrong. Full stop.

NRao, what's with those long articles you posted? One of them says "sea level has been increasing since 1900 and this is different from the lack of sea level rise before 1900." This is not true. If you look at the long-term data from Stockholm, Amsterdam, Brest, Liverpool, etc. which is referenced on the same GLOSS site, you will see that the rate of tide level change (could be either rise or fall, and in fact in some places it is definitely a fall) hasn't changed since the late 1700's. Many other locations have data from ~1850, and these don't show any change in rate sea level rise either over that entire time period. So why the alarmism now?

That other site you referenced says - "global mean sea level rise is different from local tidal data." Like we didn't know this already :D. So local tidal data (all over the world) shows the same trend since the 1700's, but the claim is that the global mean sea level rise shows a different trend since 1900, than before 1900. Can you figure out what this implies on your own, or do you need it spelled out? It means that the rate of land rise or subsidence has to maintain lock-step choreography with the sea level trends for this to happen. If the land level is capable of choreographing with sea level like this, then why the concern about cities sinking into the ocean?

RoyG, wassup, resorting to sarcasm now? Did you take a further look at that great "debunking the heat island theory" plot that you posted? If so, have you figured out yet, why I'm saying the following: that plot shows data artifacts, not some great insight into temperature differentials between 1885 and 2006? That the conclusions in that article about "rural vs. urban China" are unwarranted (to put it mildly and diplomatically)? That even if those conclusions about "rural vs. urban China" come from real data (which they don't), it still doesn't debunk the heat island theory, as a simple order of magnitude analysis will show?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2016 22:41

RoyG wrote:
Gus wrote:increase in sea level forcing coastal people to migrate?

BAH. what BS.

tell them to stay put as it is all a hoax.

It is nothing but dihydrogen oxide in another form.

after all, world was 90% water in hydrozoic era and average temperature was 58 C in heatozoic era.

people were fine then and people will be fine now.


Yaar, dont you know? they can simply heat ocean water w/ direct heat energy from combustion engine and add namak garnish to their meals dal lake ishtyle. :lol:

Global warming ≠ global warning ; no scientific consensus you see

Big conspiracy has all world leaders including their scientific/security establishments fooled.



There used be a city in central Texas, which hired a man to provide them a state of the city report. A few weeks later this contractor came back and said you have a very healthy city and went on to explain the various aspects, the main part: the ave income was $50,000 - much to the surprise of the city fathers. So he presented his findings: You have two people living in your city, one earns a dollar a year, the other $99,999. That ave out to $50,000. (First story, first class on Statistics.)

Free data, free tools, free web sites to post. And, no oversight. That is the internet for you, with a few lost exceptions.

There are people who have invested time/effort for two years, learning from some of the best (some of whom are themselves extremely skeptical), took years to build models in real-life, make projection over 25 years and lived to see the results. The immense pressures involved in dealing with the lives of millions, spending huge amount, facing egocentric politicians and business people, is not even on display.

"Alarmist": One who disagrees with you.

Perhaps it is much easier to type a "NO" and in some circumstances use the bold button to try and get the point across.

Use. Misuse. Abuse. Do the right thing with the free data/tools/web sites.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 08 Sep 2016 23:13

sudarshan wrote:Yep, the poor sods looking at the actual sea level data have no clue, because you guys know better. If the tide data doesn't show this alarming sea level rise, then the tide data has got to be wrong. Full stop.

NRao, what's with those long articles you posted? One of them says "sea level has been increasing since 1900 and this is different from the lack of sea level rise before 1900." This is not true. If you look at the long-term data from Stockholm, Amsterdam, Brest, Liverpool, etc. which is referenced on the same GLOSS site, you will see that the rate of tide level change (could be either rise or fall, and in fact in some places it is definitely a fall) hasn't changed since the late 1700's. Many other locations have data from ~1850, and these don't show any change in rate sea level rise either over that entire time period. So why the alarmism now?

That other site you referenced says - "global mean sea level rise is different from local tidal data." Like we didn't know this already :D. So local tidal data (all over the world) shows the same trend since the 1700's, but the claim is that the global mean sea level rise shows a different trend since 1900, than before 1900. Can you figure out what this implies on your own, or do you need it spelled out? It means that the rate of land rise or subsidence has to maintain lock-step choreography with the sea level trends for this to happen. If the land level is capable of choreographing with sea level like this, then why the concern about cities sinking into the ocean?

RoyG, wassup, resorting to sarcasm now? Did you take a further look at that great "debunking the heat island theory" plot that you posted? If so, have you figured out yet, why I'm saying the following: that plot shows data artifacts, not some great insight into temperature differentials between 1885 and 2006? That the conclusions in that article about "rural vs. urban China" are unwarranted (to put it mildly and diplomatically)? That even if those conclusions about "rural vs. urban China" come from real data (which they don't), it still doesn't debunk the heat island theory, as a simple order of magnitude analysis will show?


All world powers including India agree that more needs to be done to combat climate change meaning that they all agree w/ the scientific consensus that it has significant man made input.

The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost.

They all have their own scientists/security/economic guys who came to pretty much the same conclusions over the data which is why they all met to discuss what they can do about it. Are you telling me they are all incompetent? WHY WASTE TIME WITH CLIMATE TALKS SIR?

It is simply not possible to dupe all of them at the same time.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 09 Sep 2016 00:41

RoyG wrote:Are you telling me they are all incompetent?


Nope, I'm telling you that that one specific plot you referenced from that one specific site, together with your categorical statement that "this plot debunks the heat island theory," doesn't make sense. You're the one who's bringing in world powers and India and "you think they're all incompetent??" in response. Nice display of sarcasm and bile, saar, now you can put away the claws and fangs, this cat-fight that you think you're in is over.

NRao, you might have all those awesome credentials you claim, or you might not. Likewise, you know nothing about me, or what I might have or might not have done with my life. But your credentials are of no concern here, if you can't put forth a response to somebody who's asking simple questions. In all your posts on this thread, there's no gyaan that you've shared which comes from your own experience, you've simply been posting links to net articles. If your stance is that "free data=bad, free tools=bad," then that makes no sense either. If you have any specific reason not to use those particular datasets, please try to share it without going blue in the face and mumbling about your credentials. If your reason makes sense, I'll accept it. And you really have no cause to complain about "lack of oversight on these free forums," because if you really have those awesome credentials you talk of, then this lack of oversight is the fault of people like yourself, who are unable to share your awesome experience in a simple way that even the low-lives on a forum like this can understand.

And yes, I do use bold fonts to make it easier for people to zoom in on the gist of what I'm saying in long posts, if they don't feel inclined to read the whole thing. You're free to report this abuse of bold fonts if you feel like it.

I don't know what objection you might have to my trying to get others interested in science by pointing to free tools and data, with the caveat which I have already inserted saying "this will not give you the capability to challenge serious scientists, it's for your own edification." if it's lack of oversight you're worried about, then it's up to you to do something about it.

As for this guy Gus, he hasn't posted a single worthwhile thing on this thread, it's all been rants and demands for data from others. But it seems he's in on the "scientific consensus" that certainly exists on this thread.

Why bother with climate talks sir? (yelling and emphasis deliberately removed)


Well then, why bother arguing on this silly thread either?

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 09 Sep 2016 08:09

RoyG wrote:Yaar, dont you know? they can simply heat ocean water w/ direct heat energy from combustion engine and add namak garnish to their meals dal lake ishtyle.


Aah, I got this at last. I must be sarcasm-challenged, eh. Frontal lobe damage can do that to a person - after all, one would have to be brain-damaged to even think of questioning the scientific consensus on this subject.

You were referring to the figure I posted, showing direct heating from distributed sources as the likely contributor to AGW. What's the matter, you find that funny? It's a thermodynamic principle, all the heat that you utilize in cars or heat engines or light bulbs or motors (the electricity comes from combustion sources) will end up in the atmosphere. The waste heat ends up there directly, since the atmosphere is the proxy for the concept of the "infinite heat sink" that comes up in the Carnot cycle. The rest of the energy, which does useful work, such as in moving your vehicle or rotating your fan or propeller, will also end up in the atmosphere. Your vehicle initially accelerates to speed. If there were no air or ground resistance, then your vehicle would maintain this speed forever. But the resistance has to be overcome (by burning fuel), and overcoming resistance is the same as heating. The energy which was initially used to accelerate to speed will be released when the vehicle decelerates to a stop - and this again goes to heat up the atmosphere. So long as there are no potential energy changes (vehicle ends up at a different elevation than where it started), electrical changes (vehicle ends up in a charged state), magnetic changes, etc., all the energy released by the fuel will end up in the atmosphere. Ditto for all the other devices mentioned. To radiate this heat into space, the atmosphere will exhibit a temperature rise. Like, say, 2 deg. C every century?

So there's no cause to go snickering about "namak and dal lake."

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 09 Sep 2016 13:37

RoyG wrote:The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost. .


No RoyG. That is not the only disagreement. The disagreement is about
1/the claims of speed with which the climate is changing.
2/are humans making it worse
3/if change is perpetual, what are the limits which would be considered beyond repair.
4/the breadth and depth of the data backing up all the claims

Sudarshan ji,
What are the credentials of NRao you are talking about? Is he a climate change scientist?

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7084
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Muppalla » 09 Sep 2016 18:25

panduranghari wrote:
RoyG wrote:The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost. .


No RoyG. That is not the only disagreement. The disagreement is about
1/the claims of speed with which the climate is changing.
2/are humans making it worse
3/if change is perpetual, what are the limits which would be considered beyond repair.
4/the breadth and depth of the data backing up all the claims



Added to that the force on Governments, individuals to do things in a certain way. It is just raising the costs. I will tell you an example about flooding. In the city I am living, when they started planning it was a once in a 100 year flooding model. Now it is any year flooding declared. All the construction codecs change which only increases the costs.

Take the case of new AP capital of Amaravati/Vijayawada. This is never ever a sysmic zone but as it is banks of river Krishna, it is a flooding zone. But the theory now is that it is sesemic/flooding/soggy lands etc. :). It is being described as bad choice.

All the inconsistencies and fast changing codes makes that the whole science around this area is either immature or rigged.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 09 Sep 2016 18:34

panduranghari wrote:Sudarshan ji,
What are the credentials of NRao you are talking about? Is he a climate change scientist?


I don't know saar, I'm going by this bit in one of his posts, where I assumed he was talking about himself (he could have actually been talking about the grandma next door, for all I know):

NRao wrote:There are people who have invested time/effort for two years, learning from some of the best (some of whom are themselves extremely skeptical), took years to build models in real-life, make projection over 25 years and lived to see the results. The immense pressures involved in dealing with the lives of millions, spending huge amount, facing egocentric politicians and business people, is not even on display.


BTW, you missed this bit in RoyG's post:

RoyG wrote:All world powers including India agree that more needs to be done to combat climate change meaning that they all agree w/ the scientific consensus that it has significant man made input.


This is basically the same argument you made - and for which you got jumped on - (why aren't governments doing anything about AGW if it's real), only in the reverse direction.

Also, NRao saar, WRT your story on that town in Texas, what are your thoughts on that "debunking the heat island theory" plot that RoyG referenced? Do you think it's statistically significant to take the temperature anomaly between two isolated years, 1885 and 2006, and make broad conclusions about heat island effect, AGW, and everything else based on that one sample?

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 09 Sep 2016 22:55

NRao saab, please don't get me wrong. If you really have all that experience under your belt, I respect that, but it wouldn't be fair to expect that people should accept whatever you say because of that experience of yours. Please explain in simple terms what (if anything) is wrong with that tide level dataset (which isn't just a free dataset, it's the official GLOSS dataset - so far as I know - which has simply been made free for public use), or with my analysis techniques. If your concern is that the sample size was too small, please say so directly, instead of hinting at it with stories of Texas towns. If the argument makes sense, I'll accept it.

Likewise to you RoyG.

Gus, my quibble is simply that none of your posts has contributed any data or insight so far. Nothing personal.

My concern was that everybody on this thread seemed to be posting cartoons and links and opinions and rants, nobody was getting down to the science behind the phenomenon, so I was just trying to fill that gap.

Going offline for a while.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 09 Sep 2016 23:17

panduranghari wrote:
RoyG wrote:The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost. .


No RoyG. That is not the only disagreement. The disagreement is about
1/the claims of speed with which the climate is changing.
2/are humans making it worse
3/if change is perpetual, what are the limits which would be considered beyond repair.
4/the breadth and depth of the data backing up all the claims

Sudarshan ji,
What are the credentials of NRao you are talking about? Is he a climate change scientist?


No no no...The primary disagreements at Paris were about who will foot the bill and economic advantage.

They all agree that there is a significant anthropogenic component to climate change which is why all the world powers decided to cut emissions.

If there was significant disagreement about the science (Points 1,3,4) they wouldn't have met in the first place or the talks would have fallen apart.

Each country has their own national security teams comprised of scientists, lawyers, security analysts, etc. who have looked over the data.

They all reached the same conclusion: AGW is a reality but we need to continue developing to preserve our national comprehensive strength. Hence, the continuing disagreement over who foots the bill.

In light of this fact, I asked you...Do you think they are all incompetent? Perhaps one of the countries should have dragged you along to help explain what they all somehow missed.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 09 Sep 2016 23:31

As far as frontal lobe damage is concerned, hopefully this paper puts an end to your silly anthropogenic heat flux (waste heat) argument. Did you even bother looking it up and posting data? :lol:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/

Globally, in 2005, this anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) was +0.028 W/m2, or only about 1% of the energy flux being added to Earth because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

http://data.engin.umich.edu/faculty/fla ... annr09.pdf

Although global-mean AHF is small, it
may approach 1 W m2 over large regions by 2040. Climate
simulations do not show significant continental-scale surface
temperature response to this forcing in the near-future,
but annual-mean warming of 0.4 –0.9C occurs over large
industrialized regions in one 2100 scenario, supporting
recent work by Chaisson [2008].

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 10 Sep 2016 01:29

RoyG wrote:Globally, in 2005, this anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) was +0.028 W/m2


Well now, this is a much better "debunk" of the "distributed heating model" I was talking about earlier. Why would you even post that silly link you posted before, if you had this? We could have also dispensed with the sarcasm (on both sides).

The global energy consumption figure was the one I was going for (and yes, I was looking for it and I'd have posted it here soon), and it matches well with this heat flux number you quote.

So until I come up with a good enough objection to this (and I could still do that), I have to admit that this does discount the heat addition into the atmosphere as the cause of any observed temperature rise. Because, by itself, this additional heat flux is too feeble to cause much of a temperature rise on top of the baseline ~25 deg. C or so.

P.S.: But I see you're still referring to it as the "waste heat model." It's not just the waste heat, it's *all* the heat generated in any engine which ends up in the atmosphere.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6724
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 10 Sep 2016 08:57

To be honest, I have not followed up all the discussion here, yet I am fascinated by some interesting things/comments made here - some times polar opposite in the name of science...Just for example this caught my eye:
RoyG wrote:...
As far as the Southern latitudes are concerned, they simply receive less solar radiation than the northern latitudes so the ...........

sudarshan wrote:Southern latitudes receive less radiation than northern?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page3.php
Please look at the net radiation figure. If anything, it's the opposite. ...

Now both can't be correct at the same time. Right. So I am curious if experts here can reach the same conclusion.

(Let us not complicate the matter by introducing ice/floating water - we are talking about *average* and effect of *north* vs *south* onlee...)

If one wants to be precise, consider two spots, one 45 degrees NORTH latitude and the other 45 degrees south. Both have same local weather pattern -- same cloud cover - similar days of sunshine per year ityadi ityadi... Both have similar solar power plants, identical area and quality of solar panels ityadi.. which one, if any, will produce more solar power? (averaged over a long time to even out small fluctuations)

a) Northern
b) Southern
c)Both will be almost same ..

(Can you justify your answer by giving important point(s) in simple scientific reasoning LATER but first just give the answer and let others agree/disagree with. )

I am curious to see if *all* agree on the result for this seemingly simple model? (I hope that at least 3-4 people will care to answer this)
(Hint: No tricks, the physics involved is quite simple)
Last edited by Amber G. on 10 Sep 2016 09:03, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 10 Sep 2016 09:02

I realize how cryptic that previous post of mine would sound to some people. So in simple terms:

Average temp. of earth - let's say around 27 deg. C (300 K)

Heat radiated by earth - (sigma)*T^4 - 5.67e-8 * 300^4 - around 450 W/m^2

Now with my notion of "heat addition by cars, planes, electronics, electrical equipment etc. is evenly distributed around the globe, and radiated into space" - how much additional heat flux (W/m^2) would this be? A very good estimate would be the total energy consumption of the globe, divided by the surface area of the globe.

* Total energy consumption (2012) - around 12 trillion watts (this was the figure I was looking for, to do an order-of-magnitude analysis)

* Surface area of globe - 514 trillion m^2 (this is land and water - but the model was, that all the additional heat from industrial sources is evenly distributed around the globe and radiated away)

* Heat flux - 0.0232 W/m^2

This is close to the 0.028 W/m^2 referenced by RoyG.

So the baseline radiation is around 450 W/m^2, and the additional heat from all the "industrial" sources is around 0.03 W/m^2, which is like 60 parts per million over the baseline. This is a negligible player, below noise level even on the baseline. So the heat addition from all industrial sources is nothing to the baseline heat flux radiated by the earth. This assumes that the earth is a black body (i.e., it radiates the maximum possible heat for any given temperature). If the black body efficiency ("emissivity") of the earth is more like 30%, then the 450 W/m^2 figure above would become 135 W/m^2. The additional heat from industrial sources is still only like 200 parts per million on this baseline - very much negligible still. So not much temperature rise from the heat addition.

P.S.: To clarify, this does not mean the model is wrong, all the combustion engines in the world do directly heat the atmosphere. The above just shows that this heating effect is still miniscule, and unless the world starts consuming something like 200 to 500 times more energy every year than it is currently consuming, the heat addition to the atmosphere makes no difference to the temperature model.
Last edited by sudarshan on 11 Sep 2016 03:16, edited 2 times in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 10 Sep 2016 09:06

AmberG, I think both will be almost the same, unless there's some weird asymmetry of the orbit around the sun that I don't know about. When I said "if anything, it's the opposite," I was just referring to the specific shading pattern in one particular figure on the NASA webpage. I really don't think either northern or southern latitudes receive more or less sunshine than the other.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests