AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

Chosun Juan · Jan 3, 2018

fugl said:
I hope this isn’t a reference to my NPD, Daphne. If so, shame on you!

Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.

This thread should come with a warning of such at the start, lest poor innocent souls wandering in, looking to converse, or contribute positively, get bushwhacked ......

Chosun :gh:

litebeam · Jan 3, 2018

fugl said:
......if I’d thought it material to the discussion.

Says the same guy (and side) who interject the obligatory..."so...do you believe the Earth is 5000 years old?" or.."did God instruct you to deny AGW?" rhetoric. Pathetic and immaterial.

More hypocrisy at its best.

litebeam · Jan 4, 2018

Chosun Juan said:
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.

This thread should come with a warning of such at the start, lest poor innocent souls wandering in, looking to converse, or contribute positively, get bushwhacked ......

Chosun :gh:

Consider the source and shake it off, Juan.
It's obvious that there's room in Fug's head for more than one. 3

elkcub · Jan 4, 2018

MTem said:
OK thousands of years if you like - still the same point.

Copied from the article:

Abstract: The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar
influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last
2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 - year periods whereas other
cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and
present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier
transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with
the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic
nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 - year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new
proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.

Your admission of "thousands of years" cycles is an order of magnitude below your original assertion; moreover, the article shows that ~1000, ~460, and ~190 yr. cycles alone account for r^2 = 70.5% of the G7 temperature proxy variance. So, that's roughly two orders of magnitude below your assertion, not even considering shorter ~60 yr. cycles, and well within one or two human lifespans.

Ed

fugl · Jan 4, 2018

litebeam said:
Says the same guy (and side) who interject the obligatory..."so...do you believe the Earth is 5000 years old?" or.."did God instruct you to deny AGW?" rhetoric. Pathetic and immaterial.

More hypocrisy at its best.

Who will rid me of this turbulent yokel?

litebeam · Jan 4, 2018

MTem said:
Indeed it has, and the causes are well-documented - the Milankovitch cycles is probably the best summary. Not keen on links as you know, but this one will do as (correctly in all scientific papers in my view) it also points out some of the flaws as well.

http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com.../OCR/Climate-Change/Climate Change Causes.pdf

BUT all of this is completely irrelevant to the current topic of man-made AGW because it is on a completely different timescale. The climate in the past has always changed, has been much hotter, and much colder, BUT on cycles of tens of thousands of years.

What we are talking about is levels of CO2 that have changed in the last 50-100 years, and that are now 30% higher than they've been in the last 800,00 years.

So this is different - and carbon isotope measurement of the Co2 shows it is from a predominantly organic carbon source (like burning fossil fuels) not inorganic (from volcanic irruptions) - which have caused historic peaks.

So it is correct, but irrelevant, to say the Earth's climate has always changed. It in no way impacts the veracity or seriousness of current AGW and ocean acidification. An inconvenient truth indeed.

Hope this helps Chosun...

I'd defer to Elkcub's fine (earlier) posting...

".. In brief: ...That evidence includes a physical understanding of how carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere affect the planet’s temperature; evidence from past climates (in which carbon dioxide has served as a key planetary knob controlling temperature); and a stark record of ever rising concentrations of the atmospheric gas [CO2] that have been predictably accompanied by rising temperatures.
He (or they) ignorantly conceptualize climate as a closed-loop control system, with CO2 as the controlled variable (i.e., control "knob"). Unfortunately, rising concentrations of CO2 are not, and never have been, accompanied by rising planet temperatures. In the real world (as opposed to climate models), rising temperatures have always preceded CO2 rise by as much as 800 yrs., judging by the paleoclimate ice-core records. In any event, if these pompous "experts" were to opine what the ideal surface temperature should be everywhere on the planet, that would really help dedicated engineers to design a wonderful planetary control system — all of which is well beyond their kill set. For that noble objective to be implemented in the interest of humanity I'm sure we taxpayers wouldn't mind dredging up a few more billions of dollars for 'climate control engineering,' would we? I mean, it sounds like a really nice thing to do for future generations.

Ed

fugl · Jan 4, 2018

Chosun Juan said:
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.

It sure is, Daphne, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

litebeam · Jan 4, 2018

fugl said:
Who will rid me of this turbulent yokel?

*laughing*......(seriously)

fugl · Jan 4, 2018

litebeam said:
*laughing*......(seriously)

You’re a cheery little soul, I’ll give you that. Pity about the rest. . ..

Chosun Juan · Jan 4, 2018

Chosun Juan said:
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!

You still haven't answered the question.

Regardless, care factor zero.
You are going to have to go and get your jollies elsewhere.

Let me make it crystal clear to you. Don't ever call me Daphne again, refer to me as such, obliquely or implicitly, or in any way associate me with the term or anything like it.

That's the line - you know what will happen if you cross it.

fugl said:
It sure is, Daphne, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! .....

Nobody is throwing your 'disability' in your face.

Your behaviour is pejorative and shameful in the extreme - Just because it is named Narcissistic Personality Disorder in no way makes it acceptable.

It is in no way disparaging to give BF members (and indeed the broader public who stumble upon your verbiage) a heads up as to your self-admitted nature and true intentions.

Chosun :gh:

litebeam · Jan 4, 2018

fugl said:
Now, now, calm down. You need to learn to roll with the punches and not let little things get to you in this way. In other words, follow my example. . ..

Chosun asked for quarter with the name calling, and conceded she never meant to intentionally throw any 'disability' in your face. And yet there you go again.

We may banter about here anonymously, but there are boundaries; and you've stepped way over the line.

Shameful.

elkcub · Jan 4, 2018

MTem said:
Not by me.... and the far more reputable sources I have had personal access to mentioned above.

Disputed yes (isn't everything these days), but 'heavily'? ???
Hmmm.

Anyway I think when we get to the point where the empirical data and basic science is not a point of agreement then it becomes like a 'faith' argument - pointless. As fugl says above - a waste of breath (well typing anyway)

HNY

Mick

Yes, heavily disputed by heavyweights in the field. Here is the bio of the author of the attached article, which is very much worth reading.

Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949. University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo. Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA. At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, with responsibility for stable isotope geochemistry. He is past head of the Mineralogical-Geological Museum at the University of Oslo; and past Director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo. He is a member of different international and national professional working groups and committees

Ed

Nohatch · Jan 4, 2018

A rebuttal of Segalstad's article by fellow Norwegian scientists:
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronikk/2008/08/co2-okningen-er-ikke-naturlig
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronikk/2008/05/atmosfaerens-co2-okning-er-menneskeskapt
It's in Norwegian, but Google's translator does a decent job.

Sorry Ed, but there are no 'heavyweights in the field' disputing the causal relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature.

P.S. Chosun I still have to get back to you on your pre-Christmas post regarding the IPCC summary...simply haven't had the time!

Cheers,
Joost

MJB · Jan 4, 2018

fugl said:
It sure is, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I like your Marxian** allusion, but fear it has been missed elsewhere...
MJB

**Groucho, of course

fugl · Jan 4, 2018

litebeam said:
The guy asked for quarter with the name calling, and conceded he never meant to intentionally throw any 'disability' in your face. And yet there you go again.

We may banter about here anonymously, but there are boundaries; and you've stepped way over the line.

Shameful.

The “guy”?

fugl · Jan 4, 2018

MJB said:
I like your Marxian** allusion, but fear it has been missed elsewhere...
MJB

**Groucho, of course

Actually, “Welchian” (Joseph N. Welch) at the Army-McCarthy hearings, 1954. It was directed at the good senator and is thought to have marked a turning point in his fortunes, the beginning of the end. (but I somehow doubt that it will have anything like that effect on ******more’s the pity!

).

I am unfamiliar with a Marxian connection. What exactly is it?

elkcub · Jan 4, 2018

Nohatch said:
A rebuttal of Segalstad's article by fellow Norwegian scientists:
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronikk/2008/08/co2-okningen-er-ikke-naturlig
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronikk/2008/05/atmosfaerens-co2-okning-er-menneskeskapt
It's in Norwegian, but Google's translator does a decent job.

Sorry Ed, but there are no 'heavyweights in the field' disputing the causal relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature.

P.S. Chosun I still have to get back to you on your pre-Christmas post regarding the IPCC summary...simply haven't had the time!

Cheers,
Joost

My original statement in post #397 was: "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." Although the two Norwegian articles you posted are interesting, they do little more than support my point that the issues are heavily disputed.

I would appreciate any real-world statistical evidence you may have, exclusive of circulation modeling results, which demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is causally related to global temperature. Your reference to "Greenhouse gas levels" is too ambiguous as a scientific statement because greenhouse gasses are dominated by non-anthropogenic water vapor.

Thanks,
Ed

Nohatch · Jan 4, 2018

Sure, here you go:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

And this is a fun little article by my colleague Tom Anderson at the NOC, which gives an insight into the history of the CO2-temperature link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308

I can get the originals for you if you can't access them directly (curses be heaped on Elsevier and other publishers

)

There's lots more out there but I'll entrust you to the powers of Google for that as it's bedtime here in the UK...

And @Litebeam you may want to consider this as your homework for the weekend (sorry couldn't resist a little joke based on your earlier post #385

)

Cheers,
Joost

fugl · Jan 5, 2018

Ha! Bluffs being called right and left. Elkcub, Chosun, litebeam. . ..

elkcub · Jan 5, 2018

Joost,

The 2015 letter to Nature certainly acknowledges the problem:

...However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.

I would prefer if they had said 'measured temperature impact' rather than "radiative impact," as I'm looking for statistical evidence that global surface temperatures are causally changed by measured atmospheric CO2. In any event, you're correct, the full article would be needed to make a personal assessment.

Thanks,
Ed

I have several articles that review the history of the CO2 issue, and of course they differ. Litebeam, if you're interested ...

AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

Mad scientist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Mad scientist

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread