------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by Paradox

CLOUD Experiment - CERN



Hundreds of the worlds most respected (and envied) scientists are 'devoting their time' and countries have invested billions of dollars into the 'resources making' the CLOUD experiment possible (although currently on hold due to glitches being worked out). Also Svensmark has written peer reviewed papers, written a book (outlining a new theory for climate change) and done numerous experiments -- in other words, try again.

Proving me wrong doesn't prove yourself right, frustrating but their you go. Anyway the picture seems to be the Large Hadron Collider and its about 11 million euros (still a substantial sum) thats been invested in the CLOUD experiment not billions.

Do you think that this research is going on means that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Do you think it has not increased in concentration since the industrial revolution? Are you not concerned about all that carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years suddenly released in the blink of an eye in geological terms? Do you think that the icecap is not shrinking year on year? Do you think that species of beetle are not being found 100s of miles north of where they historically abode? Do you think that Portuguese men of war and other types of marine life that normally live in Mediterranean waters have not been found off Cornwall? Do you think that hundreds of scientists conducting separate proxy reconstructions using different methodology's showing that this is the warmest period for at least 1000 years and probably much longer then that are all involved in a massive fraud, along with their reviewers? Are you not worried at all by the possibly of positive feedback from climate change such as methane release from permafrost? Is it possible that you could be mistaken?

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by spot1234

Proving me wrong doesn't prove yourself right, frustrating but their you go. Anyway the picture seems to be the Large Hadron Collider and its about 11 million euros (still a substantial sum) thats been invested in the CLOUD experiment not billions.

The LHC cost billions...I did not say the CLOUD experiment did.

Do you think that this research is going on means that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

No.

Do you think it has not increased in concentration since the industrial revolution?

No. I do believe that warmer periods produce more natural C02. Does science know which is which?

Are you not concerned about all that carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years suddenly released in the blink of an eye in geological terms?

Not really...I once was.

Do you think that the icecap is not shrinking year on year?

In Antarctica the largest sea-ice extent ever recorded happened last year and last time I checked glaciers were adding mass. In the North, Sea Ice extent most recently grew YOY and it is predicted that sever cold will hammer the region in the years to come. I doubt ice responses will be an argument moving forward. The Collapse of Larsen B (and maybe the wimpier Ayles) was the last hurrah.

Do you think that species of beetle are not being found 100s of miles north of where they historically abode?

Yawn.

Do you think that Portuguese men of war and other types of marine life that normally live in Mediterranean waters have not been found off Cornwall?

Could this be because of fluctuations in the Gulf Stream? Models and Ice-cores have identified periods where large energy transfers happen between North and South. The result is regions of the globe warming while others cool. Just because you are fixated on ever diminishing areas that are warming does not mean it is a global phenomenon.

Do you think that hundreds of scientists conducting separate proxy reconstructions using different methodology's showing that this is the warmest period for at least 1000 years and probably much longer then that are all involved in a massive fraud, along with their reviewers?

The Earth is cooling as a result of no Solar activity. Increased cloud cover as a result of GCR's may be to blame but CLOUD has not substantiated Svensmarks findings yet.

Are you not worried at all by the possibly of positive feedback from climate change such as methane release from permafrost?

Underwater Methane Cathrates were once of greater concern to me than PermaFrost because they are capable of just belching up billions of cubic tons of Methane in one pop (or something like that). But to answer your question, no...not at all anymore as a matter of fact.

Is it possible that you could be mistaken?

Of course. I doubt I am though.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

A few points:

1) If you desire to understand what is happening to the climate, demanding the the physics of optics and thermodynamics are wrong is not likely to achieve that in an meaningful way.

2) Scientific discourse is not stifled if there is a consensus. Journals are happy and delighted to publish paradigm-shifting papers.

3) There is a meaningful consensus.

4) There was no time during this millennium, nor the previous three, when scholars and scientists the world over were convinced that the world was flat.

5) Just because there is a consensus, doesn't mean that it's wrong. You don't seem to object to civil engineers building structures that will stand up under 1 G, even though there is a consensus that that is about what gravity will stay at.

6) Informed scepticism is good for science. Claiming that all research is fraudulent, that the physics of optics is wrong and that truth can only be found in the popular press and right wing blogs is less so.

I will concede that the so-called consensus is meaningful, just not to me and many others. As for the 'flat-earth', I am aware of how trivial the subject was until about the 19th century but it worked for making my point. The church did condemn the concept of a spherical Earth during a time of great power for them if I recall correctly.

Nobody is claiming that all research is fraudulent, and the press and blogs are not the sources for drawing conclusions which are contrary to your own...and to the 'consensus'. There is reasonable doubt about the theory. You deny this and I accept your denial. Time will tell here, my thought is that the tides will turn and support for global warming will wane and then disappear. Sever cold will be the main reason. Alternate theories will gain momentum and Ice Age alarmism will replace GW alarmism. People will not pay attention until it gets really, really cold.

Take care.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

No. I do believe that warmer periods produce more natural C02. Does science know which is which?

Yes it does. CO2 emissions from the oceans is less depleted in ¹³C than CO2 of organic origin, including fossil fuels.
Also CO2 from fossil fuels are depleted in 14C, whereas other carbon is not.

Also this is a current warmer period we are in, but the oceans and probably the terrestrial biosphere are absorbing carbon, not emitting it.

Also emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture would put about twice the CO2 into the atmosphere the would be responsible for the increase in concentration that we have seen. So there is no need to claim that the CO2 is natural, there is a sufficient anthropogenic source.

Also O2 has decreased in concentration, parallel to the increase in CO2, showing that this increase is from the combustion of something, which is unlikely to be natural over the time period involved. (A couple of centuries is a very long forest fire).

Originally Posted by Paradox

In the North, Sea Ice extent most recently grew YOY and it is predicted that sever cold will hammer the region in the years to come.

2007 was 25% less summer sea ice extent than the lowest ever before that.
2008 is close to that low.

Surely even you can see that that is significant.

Arctic Ice in "Death Spiral," Is Near Record Low
Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
September 17, 2008

The Arctic Ocean's sea ice has shrunk to its second smallest area on record, close to 2007's record-shattering low, scientists report.

The ice is in a "death spiral" and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. (source)

Originally Posted by Paradox

In Antarctica the largest sea-ice extent ever recorded happened last year and last time I checked glaciers were adding mass.

Yes, that can happen when Antarctica warms. You get more evaporation, so more precipitation, so faster moving glaciers, so more sea ice. The difference with Antarctic Ice is it nearly all melts each winter. So you don't get any of the old sea ice that you get in the north that is supposed to be robust ... multiple years make sea ice colder (more than 10°C in the middle) and give it a higher melting point (since it loses salt), so the loss of old ice is a much more significant climate barometer than the growth and loss of 1 year ice.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Yawn.

Why do you think that the movement of species ranges is insignificant?

Originally Posted by Paradox

Could this be because of fluctuations in the Gulf Stream?

Possibly. You do know that there has been warming though, don't you?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

As for the 'flat-earth', I am aware of how trivial the subject was until about the 19th century but it worked for making my point.

If your point is that science and the scientific method can be wrong when there is so much consensus, then it is not yet made.

Originally Posted by Paradox

The church did condemn the concept of a spherical Earth during a time of great power for them if I recall correctly.

I think your recall on this is incorrect.

I am aware of them condemning the concept of a heliocentric solar system, (or universe), but by the time they did that is was well enough established amongst scientists the world over.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Nobody is claiming that all research is fraudulent, and the press and blogs are not the sources for drawing conclusions which are contrary to your own...and to the 'consensus'.

If you are not claiming that all research (on the subject) is fraudulent, then you must accept some of it.
I'm curious to know what it is. Do you have an example of a paper on global climate change that you think is not fraudulent?

Originally Posted by Paradox

There is reasonable doubt about the theory. You deny this and I accept your denial.

Can you point me to a reliable scientific source that could enlighten me as to what this doubt is exactly?

It seems to me that there is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is a correct piece of optics.

That there is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

That there is no doubt that human activity has increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm.

That there is no doubt that this will make it warmer by about 1.3°C, plus or minus about 50%.

And that there is no doubt that this represents most of the warming since the middle of last century.

So I'm having difficulty seeing where this doubt might be. And although I don't read a lot of academic papers, I have read twenty or thirty papers on global warming over the last few years, and I am unaware of any doubt. So I find it unlikely that there is any.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Also emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture would put about twice the CO2 into the atmosphere the would be responsible for the increase in concentration that we have seen. So there is no need to claim that the CO2 is natural, there is a sufficient anthropogenic source.

Since up until recently ( 1998 ) we were warming. As seas warm, C02 is released (often in the form of Methane from cathrates). Also, warming permafrost (which is partially decayed organic matter in most cases) would contribute enormous amounts of C02 to the atmosphere. Add to this increased volcanic activity, increased fires, decreased absorption (of natural and manmade C02) and the ungodly amount of flatulence in the natural world and you have a natural recipe for disaster. Seriously. It is known that C02 increases when we warm. How do you account for this?

2007 was 25% less summer sea ice extent than the lowest ever before that.
2008 is close to that low.

Surely even you can see that that is significant.

Arctic Ice in "Death Spiral," Is Near Record Low
Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
September 17, 2008

The Arctic Ocean's sea ice has shrunk to its second smallest area on record, close to 2007's record-shattering low, scientists report.

The ice is in a "death spiral" and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. (source)

Thank you. This is great for illustrating spin. The headline could have read, "WE'RE SAVED !! DEATH SPIRAL REVERSING COURSE -- SEA ICE ADVANCES ONCE AGAIN"

Yes, that can happen when Antarctica warms. You get more evaporation, so more precipitation, so faster moving glaciers, so more sea ice. The difference with Antarctic Ice is it nearly all melts each winter. So you don't get any of the old sea ice that you get in the north that is supposed to be robust ... multiple years make sea ice colder (more than 10°C in the middle) and give it a higher melting point (since it loses salt), so the loss of old ice is a much more significant climate barometer than the growth and loss of 1 year ice.

So if we had a Snowball Earth it would have to be REALLY warm then I imagine. You actually make a valid point. The Northern Hemisphere was cold but ice-free until the closing of the Panama Isthmus and the formation of the Gulf Stream -- how warmer waters interact with colder regions is pertinent when wanting to use ice as an indicator of cooling. One thing is certain, more ice means more albedo. With Antarctica at a record high and the North changing course, and the sun on hiatus, your theory may actually have conditions optimal for rising above the noise and natural variability. If we warm now I'd have to take another close look at AGW.

Why do you think that the movement of species ranges is insignificant?

I don't. There are ebbs and flows which are quite acceptable and I am afraid we are going to see that the last few decades falls into that category.

Possibly. You do know that there has been warming though, don't you?

Yes. Now there is cooling. The ultimate test of the theory begins now...Winter is going to come early this year.

[The Bulvater]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

If your point is that science and the scientific method can be wrong when there is so much consensus, then it is not yet made.


I think your recall on this is incorrect.

I am aware of them condemning the concept of a heliocentric solar system, (or universe), but by the time they did that is was well enough established amongst scientists the world over.


If you are not claiming that all research (on the subject) is fraudulent, then you must accept some of it.
I'm curious to know what it is. Do you have an example of a paper on global climate change that you think is not fraudulent?


Can you point me to a reliable scientific source that could enlighten me as to what this doubt is exactly?

It seems to me that there is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is a correct piece of optics.

That there is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

That there is no doubt that human activity has increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm.

That there is no doubt that this will make it warmer by about 1.3°C, plus or minus about 50%.

And that there is no doubt that this represents most of the warming since the middle of last century.

So I'm having difficulty seeing where this doubt might be. And although I don't read a lot of academic papers, I have read twenty or thirty papers on global warming over the last few years, and I am unaware of any doubt. So I find it unlikely that there is any.

I find all these arguments interesting but there's plenty of p-reviewed 'flat earth papers' and some referenced in previous threads, this forum just goes round in circles on the whole debate. The global warming argument never really began unless of course you want to buy into the big long con . Global warming isnt the issue it is just a distraction from the real problems-we've been taken for a big ride.

It's irrelevant now anyway. And if you don't think it is now, it will be in the future.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

Paradigm shifts are welcome, when the data is valid

It is absolutely true that scientific journals welcome paradigm-shifting discoveries, and compete to be the first to publish them. There are some basic rules you have to follow, such as using undoctored data from the real world. It is also true that scientists dream of being the first to publish paradigm-shifting discoveries. If the data were there to support the Paradox theory, I have no doubt that there would be vicious competition among scientists to be the first to submit it.

In order to obtain data (especially for something like this) you would need funding. Where does one seek funding for 'paradigm-shifting discoveries' which fly in the face of conventional beliefs...and scientific consensus? Exxon Mobil? That study would be embraced...

However, you can’t just make shit up. The more radical/revolutionary the conclusion, the higher the standards for quality of proof required to support it.

That's the understatement of the year. The anticipated level of attack, scrutiny, belittlement and discrediting is enough to give any would-be pioneer (challenging GW theory) the warm and fuzzies. The irony here is that there are two major camps, those that promote GW alarmism and those who think everything is just fine and GW theory is overblown. Anyone forwarding my ideas would be blazing a new trail. I think the Sky Is Falling... just into cold.

And it is proper that the burden of proof be on the scientists who propose paradigm-shifting hypotheses.

Svensmark is one of these individuals. There were many papers based on observation (Sun wanes, more clouds) that were written prior to Svensmark's experiments quantifying the concept of GCR's creating clouds. It seems rather clear to me that the work is being ignored due to it's potentially devastating effects on the 'consensus theory'. That doesn't sit well with me. If scientists 'observe' increases in cloud cover when solar activity is low and a respected scientist says, "Hey, this is why...", AND he proves it through experimentation, why is it reacted to like a hornets nest had been stepped on? Is it really necessary to require a multi-billion dollar particle accelerator to gain support for a very compelling theory? Observation backed by experimentation should be enough.

I continue to wonder where all these “scientists” are who now doubt global warming.

Here's a short list of 31,000

That was the story, here's the list

I know that plenty of credible scientists debate different ways we may need to tweak one aspect or another of the model. I know of no credible scientist ANYWHERE who doubts the validity of the basic model. As far as I'm concerned, Oleg... (what's his name) doesn't count as a real scientist (did you see his 1991 paper, Global Evolution of the Earth)? Way before he got into the fray over warming, and he was pretty far beyond the fringe with his planetary interaction ideas (moon's gravitational field regulating plate tectonics, etc.)

Ok, so you hold yourself in such a high regard as to pick and choose who is a 'real' scientist... hmmm. That poses a challenge. The models are not advanced enough to prove the theory. It is that simple. Most (if not all) would agree that Anthropogenic C02 does contribute but the level of contribution is very unclear. Water vapor (the primary GH gas) is somehow minimized in all of this... considering the shift in our hydrological systems I find this very peculiar.

So, the big prize for the global warming skeptic scientist who wants to be famous would be to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Where do they go? Climatology and other environmental science journals have reviewers who actually understand global warming theory, so the "mavericks" don’t even try to publish there. What are they left with? Here’s the one I’ve seen touted as proof that “mainstream” scientists now doubt that global warming is really occurring, or that carbon dioxide is capable of causing it.

Robinson, et al. 2007. Environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12:79-90

Who could be more qualified than physicians and surgeons to judge climatology and environmental chemistry data?

Oh, only people that have attended the institutional learning facilities dedicated to teaching pretty much the same thing to everyone are qualified to challenge these teachings? Give me a break. The research and data is out there for anyone to examine. It is refreshing that intellectuals are realizing the failure of the Climatology field and stepping in. The field is complacent...Hanson has seen to that. Breakthroughs in climate science are not going to come from climatologists. They have drawn their lines in the sand and only stand to be discredited at this point. Some feel this has already happened, those that don't will not have to wait very long.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Since up until recently ( 1998 ) we were warming.

Right, I'm pretty much over you re-posting that rubbish. I have asked you ad-nauseum to get that from a scientific source, and I've posted all the global temperature reconstructions I can find, and they all show that you're wrong.

What value do you get out of such bollocks? Do you think that the more you post wrong things, they become right in your mind. If you were engaging in a genuine discussion you would have more care for how your credibility is perceived.

Originally Posted by Paradox

As seas warm, C02 is released (often in the form of Methane from cathrates). Also, warming permafrost (which is partially decayed organic matter in most cases) would contribute enormous amounts of C02 to the atmosphere. Add to this increased volcanic activity, increased fires, decreased absorption (of natural and manmade C02) and the ungodly amount of flatulence in the natural world and you have a natural recipe for disaster. Seriously. It is known that C02 increases when we warm. How do you account for this?

Yes, in the past CO2 has increased when we warm, and this causes the feedback loop that swings the climate from ice age to interglacial in such short order.

However, we have the technology to track CO2, and the oceans and probably the terrestrial biosphere are sinks. The source is human activity. I'm sure that I've posted links to carbon tracking websites, and papers discussing the carbon balance. I could do it again if you missed them?

The bottom line is we know where the carbon has come from, and it's human activity.

It is easy to account for this. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means the equilibrium is pushed towards more being dissolved in the ocean until the vapour pressure of the dissolved CO2 equals the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And we have only been warming for about 100 years. Geological history tells us that we need to wait 500-1000 years after a warming begins before the oceans start any serious degassing. Hopefully they won't because the equilibrium is pushed to far the other way. Of course hope hasn't worked so far. The northern summer sea ice is collapsing many times faster than believed possible.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Thank you. This is great for illustrating spin. The headline could have read, "WE'RE SAVED !! DEATH SPIRAL REVERSING COURSE -- SEA ICE ADVANCES ONCE AGAIN"

In a pigs eye. The last two years have had the lowest summer sea ice extents by tens of percent than the previous low, and the multi-year sea ice is down to 50% of it's area when satellite tracking began in the 70s. Your call: well there is one year that had a greater minimum extent than this year ... last year, and so the warming must be over.

I don't believe that you even believe that. The collapse of the Arctic summer sea ice was the first of the high impact, high cost, high casualty tipping points predicted by climatologists. It's happening, and happening hundreds of times faster than feared. Surely it is time to wake up and die right. This is the wake up call. If you can watch that as still say "no we need to wait a bit more before we do anything" then my only way to understand you is to assume that you're a shill for some fossil fuel interest.

If you're not, you've bought their line completely, and you could do yourself a favour and reconsider your sources of information.

Originally Posted by Paradox

So if we had a Snowball Earth it would have to be REALLY warm then I imagine.

No, it nearly all melts again each summer. Antarctic summer sea ice is about 10% of Antarctic winter sea ice.

Originally Posted by Paradox

You actually make a valid point. The Northern Hemisphere was cold but ice-free until the closing of the Panama Isthmus and the formation of the Gulf Stream -- how warmer waters interact with colder regions is pertinent when wanting to use ice as an indicator of cooling. One thing is certain, more ice means more albedo.

One more thing is for certain, this is a feather in the cap for your hated climate modellers, who predicted long ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time.

Originally Posted by Paradox

With Antarctica at a record high and the North changing course, and the sun on hiatus, your theory may actually have conditions optimal for rising above the noise and natural variability. If we warm now I'd have to take another close look at AGW.

The two years with the lowest northern summer sea ice extent happened in the last two years. The three lowest occurred in the last four. The four lowest occurred in the last four years. It is not changing course. It is melting much faster than anyone predicted.

Originally Posted by Paradox

I don't. There are ebbs and flows which are quite acceptable and I am afraid we are going to see that the last few decades falls into that category.

What I read and listen to would say the opposite, and that much of the recent drop in biodiversity, especially amongst amphibians is attributable to range changes of parasites. But also any sub Arctic or sub Antarctic ecological community that you care to read about is under threat from temperate species invasion.

Do you have a basis for you belief that this "ebbing" is "quite acceptable" from a scientific source, or is it just something that you made up to ease your conscience?

Originally Posted by Paradox

Yes. Now there is cooling. The ultimate test of the theory begins now...Winter is going to come early this year.

No it doesn't. It's been tested for 20 years and shown to be accurate enough. We know that the increased CO2 concentration is providing 2 W/m2 extra, and that this will, over 25-50 years warm the planet by about 0.6°C more.

Without adding any more CO2. The temperature of any few of those 25-50 years notwithstanding.

And we know with the collapse of the northern summer sea ice, with total disappearance likely some time next decade, the high cost impacts are pending,

Plus, I don't know where you landed, but winter's been. It was colder in the middle that the last couple of years, but not as cold as the ones from early this millennium. Summer is warming up fast however.