So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm?


#103

Even if all that were true, that still doesn’t explain how recent unprecedented warming began in the first place. When we look at the output from the sun, we see declining energy over the last 40 years. In the past, CO2 or methane, regardless of there impact on warming, do not start warming events. Warming has to happen for another reason to start the feedback cycle.

In the past, the sun has been primarily responsible, either because of increased output, or changes in the Milankovitch cycle, ocean current changes…

In this case, it was the release of CO2 that has caused the tip as we released from sources that were previously sequestrated. Now if Methane is more powerful than predicted, all that means to me is that the feedback effect triggered by CO2 release is going to happen more rapidly than the models predict.


#104

BJ, that is a really well thought out response. I don’t really have the time or the energy to research and refute all of that. If you want to claim victory, then it is yours, if you want to pick a paragraph or two you’d really like me to respond to, I’ll look and do the best I can to respond,

Respectfully,

CSB


#105

I notice “crickets” after Bobjam’s post . . .


#106

Read the post above yours.


#107

csbrown, babbles about “unprecedented warming”,yeah in your imagination since there is no such evidence in the Satellite data. Back in post #85,I pointed out the utter failure of the IPCC 1990 per decade prediction,which make clear there is no unusual warming trend going on. The Satellite data I posted make clear the AGW conjecture is failing simple tests right there in front of you.

Per decade rate, FAIL
Tropical hotspot, FAIL
Positive Feedback loop, FAIL

That is enough to show the utter failure of the AGW conjecture, why are you still defending it?

You write,

“Even if all that were true, that still doesn’t explain how recent unprecedented warming began in the first place. When we look at the output from the sun, we see declining energy over the last 40 years. In the past, CO2 or methane, regardless of there impact on warming, do not start warming events. Warming has to happen for another reason to start the feedback cycle.”

The main cause of warming in recent decades are coming form the OCEAN waters,which from strong El-Nino’s and High ENSO values creates the periodic burps of energy from the DENSE high heat capacity water to the thin, low density atmosphere,which is why the air warms up so quickly,then cool back down a lot. The effect from the unusually high solar output from 1900 to the 1950’s. There are many published science papers supporting this position,have you ever read any of them Brown?

Here is a LONG list of papers to chose from:

LINK

Your talk of needing something else to trigger warming for the never seen positive feedback to show up,it is a delusion that never seems to go away. I posted a data based chart in post #95 showing that over the last 10,000 years of large temperature swings, CO2 barely changed at all,no evidence of large feedback showing up,how do you explain that?

brown writes ignorantly,since CH4 rapidly changes to CO2,with a negligible warm forcing effect. Have you seen it’s tiny presence in the IR window,where it doesn’t even absorb much IR in it’s OWN bandwidth…

“In this case, it was the release of CO2 that has caused the tip as we released from sources that were previously sequestrated. Now if Methane is more powerful than predicted, all that means to me is that the feedback effect triggered by CO2 release is going to happen more rapidly than the models predict.”

CH4 absorption of outgoing IR is VERY low since it’s main feeble bandwidth are at the LOW energy end of the IR spectrum. I showed you the chart at post #93 about it. MODTRAN result confirm that even a DOUBLING of CH4 will produce a dribble of warm forcing effect. MODTRAN also show that CO2 doubling effect is very small too.

You wrote this,

“changes in the Milankovitch cycle”, which has for around the last 3,500 years been in NEGATIVE insolation trend territory,which means the world has been COOLING,we are now in the autumn part of the cycle,with Glaciation drawing near,with new glaciers showing up in the last 1,500 years in formerly NO ice field areas for previous thousands of years.

Warmists now live and die on the never seen in last 600 Million years,Positive Feedback Loop, it is all they have left now to rescue their from their mass delusions they fervently cling to,since CO2 Molecules by itself might dredge up a slight warm forcing increase in the next 83 years of around… he he…ha ha,ohhh I am scared… 1.0C warming. But with many recent published science papers showing two decade long reducing CO2 sensitivity levels, to less than 1C values,with a couple at ZERO effect.


#108

CH4 being 30 times that of CO2 is a misleading propaganda trick, since 30 times nearly nothing, is going to be nearly nothing anyway. Here is a comment from WUWT showing MODRAN results of CH4:

" Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2014 at 9:02 pm Edit

Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.

Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.

Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2

Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.

So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane.

w."

LINK


#109

That’s just to show how wrong the models can be in their underlying assumptions. A 600% error in a single variable. How many others are wrong and by how much? What effect does that have on the predictive value? Are the models any better than tea leaves or goat entrails?


#110

I have to admit that’s not the response I expected.

As much as we disagree . . . and the disagreements are many and strong . . . I will (GRUDGINGLY) return the good faith gesture.

And, NO, “winning” is not my intent . . . ever. It’s just not something I value on a discussion board.

All that said, I will remain OPPOSED to your positions.

Is there something particular I want you to respond to? NO.

Your intense, ardent, and fierce opponent, in good faith . . .

BJ


#111

The global warming issue is very simple. It is plot by the left to raise taxes. increase the size of the government, hire more government employees who will always vote Democrat and add regulations to control human behavior. In other words, it’s about expanding socialism and globalism. All of the other stuff is smoke, mirrors and lies. Once they get this into place, it will be in place forever, even if the science later proves them wrong. Science has nothing to do with it.


#112

Once again @Sunsettommy kicks ass and takes names on the climate religion!

I was hoping you had not forgotten us as you make your internet rounds slaying the dragons of pseudo scientists as they breathe their destructive fire upon the prosperity of man and the integrity of the scientific process.

Rock on oh patient warrior for the battle is turning to the favor of truth!


#113

I do make my rounds EVERY DAY on this topic,which I have done for many years now. I am Moderator on TWO of the largest climate blogs as well.

Here are the places I normally comment in:

http://notrickszone.com/

A great place for seeing the PAGE list,which is impressive. There is a list of 285 papers that shows the 1970’s cooling concerns was real. HUNDREDS of skeptical papers just in the last few years listed. 100 Solar effect papers on the climate,showing strong evidence that it is the Sun/Ocean connection driving the climate.

A place where a number of real scientists comment in including many who have the education to make credible comments.

This a place where I help destroy David Appell,and Nick Stokes,one was banned the other stay away. A few others I help destroy for their absurd comments,even exposed Jim and Andy as wild eyes liars.

Right now,he has a about 5 posts in a row showing the warmist failures in predicting ice free summers in the Arctic.

Tony Heller,is great on Sea ice posts.

Here is a link to a board link page of the best skeptical sites, I like Science Matters (Ron Clutz) on his sea ice presentations,Paul Homewood on his rebuttals of climate nonsense in England where he lives. C3 Headlines for his hundreds of charts. Jo Nova from Australia on energy topics and more.

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/

Enjoy!


#114

Thanks. This reminds me of the two “researchers” in Australia who were trying to determine the amount of methane emanating from termite mounds. They needed a method to re-calibrate their measurement instruments daily. They’d been told that Freon was “persistent in the environment” so soaked a patch of ground with it so they could use it to re-calibrate. For some reason, it didn’t work so they started trying to find out why not. They discovered that SOIL BACTERIA were CONSUMING the Freon, which, in turn, screwed up their measurements.


#115

If the government were in charge of the desert, there would be a sand shortage within six months.


#116

WAit a minute… I thought it was the hole in ozone layer caused by a/c units and cfcs?
I’m still waiting for that ice age the climate apes were hooting over.

Anyhow, it’s all a load of caca.

Just go plant some trees and all will be fine.


#117

Trees do nothing unless you’re planting them in the Tropics.

It’s not to act as carbon sinks (that doesn’t work) but because they’ll collect moisture that’ll get evaporated and turn into clouds, which are really white, and bounce back the suns rays out into space.

So you know what would really help the planet? Fly more planes. All those contrails they leave behind do the same thing.

All pilots, meteorologists, and astronomers know this to be true… never met an environmental who liked hearing it tho’.