We Are Better Than This

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Recently there have been those responding to comments in the posts 'Total Nonsense in Climate Debate' (Renewables) and 'Visualizing How Much Oil is in an Electric Vehicle (Oil: General) who apparently feel that it is acceptable to insinuate that someone is less than knowledgeable about the issue, mentally challenged concerning the facts, or simply stupid. Others seem to feel that it does not violate literary decorum or simply good manners to say someone is lying.

We are better than this!

This type of behavior has 'crashed' similar forums as they simply become 'yelling matches' with neither side willing to accept that another viewpoint exists. Many viewpoints are strongly held and are vigorously defended, this is debate and is encouraged on OilPrice.com, but it should be done in a courteous manner. If you feel someone has an error in their logic, point it out. But be prepared to support your argument in a non-aggressive, logical manner.

Some of those who post feel it is okay to post reams of supporting documentation, which is their right on the forum but makes it very difficult for others who may be on the sidelines to follow the debate.

We need to accept the fact that on a social media forum such as OilPrice that you generally do not know anything about those who are replying to any issue. It could be an expert in the field or it could be some old roughneck having his Miller time at the keyboard. Regardless of who is posting, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt that they have something worthwhile to contribute. If you feel that they may not be at your intellectual level - you are not required to get into a debate with them.

There is no excuse for bad manners.

Okay, I need to go to the refrigerator and get another Millers Lite....I'm trying to watch my weight.

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently there have been those responding to comments in the posts 'Total Nonsense in Climate Debate' (Renewables) and 'Visualizing How Much Oil is in an Electric Vehicle (Oil: General) who apparently feel that it is acceptable to insinuate that someone is less than knowledgeable about the issue, mentally challenged concerning the facts, or simply stupid. Others seem to feel that it does not violate literary decorum or simply good manners to say someone is lying.

We are better than this!

This type of behavior has 'crashed' similar forums as they simply become 'yelling matches' with neither side willing to accept that another viewpoint exists. Many viewpoints are strongly held and are vigorously defended, this is debate and is encouraged on OilPrice.com, but it should be done in a courteous manner. If you feel someone has an error in their logic, point it out. But be prepared to support your argument in a non-aggressive, logical manner.

Some of those who post feel it is okay to post reams of supporting documentation, which is their right on the forum but makes it very difficult for others who may be on the sidelines to follow the debate.

We need to accept the fact that on a social media forum such as OilPrice that you generally do not know anything about those who are replying to any issue. It could be an expert in the field or it could be some old roughneck having his Miller time at the keyboard. Regardless of who is posting, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt that they have something worthwhile to contribute. If you feel that they may not be at your intellectual level - you are not required to get into a debate with them.

There is no excuse for bad manners.

Okay, I need to go to the refrigerator and get another Millers Lite....I'm trying to watch my weight.

You, personally, made many claims that had no merit in climate science, although you were not alone.

You, personally, continued to add some commentary that was somewhat meaningless to the issues being discussed.  Again, you were not alone.

It is apparent to anyone who understands climate science that a lot of what is posted at this forum is without reasonable foundation.  That's understandable as this is not a science forum.

Personalities aside, debating anything requires that the parties bring to the table reasoned information.   Just throwing up an opinion or a meme for reaction is not a debate.  

In climate science per se, there is no "debate."  Some things are well understood, and some are less well understood.

In these forums, clearly there is a willingness to debate.  And I agree, there is no excuse for bad manners, equally there being no excuse for being ignorant in this day and age.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Red
spellink

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Red said:

In climate science per se, there is no "debate."  Some things are well understood, and some are less well understood.

Incorrect.

As a moderator, I do grow tired of your persistent unwillingness to allow dissent by others.

I'm a volunteer moderator here, but am not Oil Price staff.

@Rodent @Selvedina over to you.

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Incorrect.

As a moderator, I do grow tired of your persistent unwillingness to allow dissent by others.

I'm a volunteer moderator here, but am not Oil Price staff.

@Rodent @Selvedina over to you.

I have nothing to do with what you or other post - dissent as you wish.

I made the point that if people enter into debate, then do so from an informed perspective.

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Red

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Red said:

I made the point that if people enter into debate, then do so from an informed perspective.

 

Red, I have debated this subject for more years than I care to recount. And what I find most frustrating is when someone on the pro-anthropological warming side continues to argue in the face overwhelming contradictory evidence. Science does not learn anything new from a consensus, but from dogged unrelenting skepticism. I once had a very heated debate with an acquaintance on this subject many years ago. He seemed incapable of understanding that if the climate model could not explain past climate fluctuations such as what occurred over the last 12,000 years, The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, The 8.2, Younger-Dryas, ect....ect... then it is a crappy model, no matter if even 100% of climate scientist think it is correct. And if you would like to see what dogged skepticism has done in these years since that heated exchange then please go and see for yourself. 

        Be warned this model can make predictions of observations that the standard models of climate and geology cannot. And I would be more than happy to debate you on which one can more accurately describe the natural world.  

[Red + 252]

28 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

And what I find most frustrating is when someone on the pro-anthropological warming side continues to argue in the face overwhelming contradictory evidence.

I only ask that if you have it, then offer it.

29 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

Science does not learn anything new from a consensus,

Consensus is not science.

31 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

...if the climate model could not explain past climate fluctuations....

If the model has the data, then it will provide projections, and tell you the probability of them being accurate.  It's really that easy.

33 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

And if you would like to see what dogged skepticism has done in these years since that heated exchange then please go and see for yourself.

Given I read about climate most weekdays I am curious as to what you think I would find.

 

 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

17 hours ago, Red said:

I only ask that if you have it, then offer it.

   And I would only ask that when someone is shown direct observational evidence that this model has made direct predictions of observations that it is given its rightful precedence over the generic “best fit” computer model.

17 hours ago, Red said:

Consensus is not science.

   No it is surly not, yet it is what I primarily receive as a response when my adversaries realize that their model’s rather inadequate abilities to explain the predictions this model produces.

17 hours ago, Red said:

If the model has the data, then it will provide projections, and tell you the probability of them being accurate.  It's really that easy. 

   This is more than just finding a correlation in some targeted projections made by computer modeling. This is about a model being capable of predicting that a correlation will be found between specific documented earthquake records and historic solar magnetic proxy measurements, in both timing and intensity.  And that these solar magnetic proxies will further align to historic climate temperatures going back through to the beginning of the Holocene, validating the model’s contention that there is predictable, and more importantly, observable, solar magnetic forcing of both plate movement and climate by proportional strain energy derived thermal and kinetic response of the mantle’s surface area materials.  

 

17 hours ago, Red said:

Given I read about climate most weekdays I am curious as to what you think I would find.

   You will find that this model’s abilities are unsurpassed by any other model. And that this currently observed and measured warming trend was predicted by this model and is proportional to the contemporary solar magnetic flux.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

      "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

 

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

22 hours ago, Red said:

I have nothing to do with what you or other post - dissent as you wish.

I made the point that if people enter into debate, then do so from an informed perspective.

 

We here at oilprice are happy to allow people to debate no matter how informed or uninformed they may be, as it is not our place to asses the someone's brain power or lack thereof. 

Everyone is entitled to share their opinion. 

We are less thrilled, however, to extend that invitation to those who are interested in debating by belittling other forum members.

 

[Red + 252]

55 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

And I would only ask that when someone is shown direct observational evidence that this model has made direct predictions of observations that it is given its rightful precedence over the generic “best fit” computer model.

ESMs use ensembles as the basis for projections, and these have quantifiable margins of error.  There is no single ESM, and there is no single run used in projections.

55 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

This is more than just finding a correlation in some targeted projections made by computer modeling. This is about a model being capable of predicting that a correlation will be found between specific documented earthquake records and historic solar magnetic proxy measurements, in both timing and intensity.  And that these solar magnetic proxies will further align to historic climate temperatures going back through to the beginning of the Holocene, validating the model’s contention that there is predictable, and more importantly, observable, solar magnetic forcing of both plate movement and climate by proportional strain energy derived thermal and kinetic response of the mantle’s surface area materials.   

ESMs do not factor in earthquakes, while the solar magnetic field is instead expressed as irradiance.

55 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

  "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. 

If you look at this, then the claim seems poorly founded. 

In any case, a more recent paper shows that TSI reconstructions do not correlate as strongly with sunspots as many might think.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Red
removed a doubled up word

[Red + 252]

6 minutes ago, Rodent said:

We here at oilprice are happy to allow people to debate no matter how informed or uninformed they may be, as it is not our place to asses the someone's brain power or lack thereof. 

Everyone is entitled to share their opinion. 

We are less thrilled, however, to extend that invitation to those who are interested in debating by belittling other forum members.

 

Others regularly belittle me, and I do not bite.  I note you and other moderators turn a blind eye when it's me in the firing line.

I comment on what others present in the forum and present evidence to support what I state.

I seldom offer my opinion.

 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

40 minutes ago, Red said:

ESMs do not factor in earthquakes, while the solar magnetic field is instead expressed as irradiance.

If you look at this, then the claim seems poorly founded. 

 

Unfortunately this is irrelevant to this model. 

From an earlier post;

This idea in a nutshell, based on the observation of the paliomagnetic record, is that the Sun’s magnetic field generator changes in intensity over million year time scales, and that the solar magnetic field generator imposes these changes into the Earth’s own magnetic field generator. This commonly understood process as you may know is called mutual inductive coupling. What is interesting is this increase and decrease in magnetic flux is proportional to the creation of current and field within the Earth’s field generator, which the evidence will show imposes molecular level thermal expansive and contractive forces on the core/outer core materials, and in turn will of course impose this displacement energy into the surrounding mantle. 

  So, over a period of millions of years, the Earth’s magnetic field generator and the mantle will slowly move incrementally out and then back, in sync with the solar magnetic generator's output. And of course, we would expect to see tension relieving mechanisms in the Earth’s crust that resemble the current divergent plate boundaries.

The resulting mantle displacement is central to this model and explains how this mechanism is responsible for climate change and plate tectonic movement. The mantle makes up 84% of the Earth’s volume and 67% of its mass. These mass and volume differentials between the mantle and the ocean is the most reveling difference between the two that in turn explains how the Earth's short and long term climate history can be driven by and timed with both plate movement and the solar magnetic history. 

   With the mantle's mass at 67% of the Earth's total, the ocean in contrast is a mere 0.022 percent of the total mass while the atmosphere weighs a little over a millionth or 1/1,200,000 of one Earth mass.  When the mantle is displaced outward, its thickness of 2,900 kilometers, causes it to be subjected to immense strain energy forces, that result not so much in an outward movement at the crust/mantle boundary, but as a forced lateral expansion of the mantle’s surface area, think inverse square law, causing tearing and decompression melting of the surrounding boundary area materials.

   This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline.  The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model! The PETM can be solved!

   The model predicts the simultaneous mountain building of the Plio-Pleistocene, where the vertical rise of the Himalayas, Andes and many other ranges were largely completed in the last several million years when the planet cooled and the mantle incrementally subsided.  And remarkably, the irregular size of the Mid-Atlantic ridge will be shown to coincide with these others and all of them together concurrent with our most recent Ice Age period. All of this is supported by the most recent evidence described by this model. These predictions will be supported by multiple sources that range from solar magnetic 14C proxies, Japanese earthquake records, ice core samples, to the most recent research papers that, again, show this model predicted these observations in advance of their discovery.  

 

41 minutes ago, Red said:

In any case, a more recent paper shows that TSI reconstructions do not correlate as strongly with sunspots as many might think.

 

This is completely irrelevant to how this model works. The solar magnetic generator output is what is producing, through mutual inductive coupling with the Earth's generator, the thermal expansive derived strain energy response in the Earth's mantle that can be precisely correlated to the Japanese earthquake record. I would suggest that you take a look at the the model at;  https://www.electroplatetectonics.com/

 The Japanese records are the cornerstone to this model and are coupled to the solar magnetic proxies in both timing and intensity. This coupling is remarkable.

This is from the link to my model;

This is a portion of the earthquake section. It gives the general outline of the strain energy displacement mechanism involved.

In the first graph below;

 the Japanese earthquakes increased dramatically at the end of The Little Ice Age and the model outlines the lower solar magnetic energy levels to that period of cooler climate that abruptly ended with increasing climate temperatures and earthquake activity. The base graph is a USGS solar magnetic proxy overlaid with climate and earthquake periods. 

This model intends to show that a thermal expansion or contraction in the Earth’s core/outer core would produce a short time frame signal, or more exact, an almost immediate response of the outer mantle and crust. This model would expect the compression from contraction and shear forces from expansion would impose stresses at divergent and convergent boundary areas. 

  This model also expects these forces would show as seismic events along the Pacific plate’s boundaries. It would be likely that a seismic event would occur when the stresses from expansion or contraction changed modes. And it would also be expected that during periods of unusually high magnetic flux lasting for extended periods, as seen to the right side of the graph, it would produce a substantial and measurable increase in seismic activity as the Pacific plate is exposed to the almost continual shear stresses as the mantle slowly displaces outward.

   We are fortunate that the Japanese have kept very accurate records of their seismic history. The record is listed below, each having a Graph Reference Number (GRN) corresponding chronologically to the graph.  The list contains all seismic events considered to be greater than 7.0 or which caused significant damage or casualties.

 

 As you can see the seismic activity is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, this is not temperature shown here, it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating an increase in magnetic field strength. The 14C content is inverted. It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, its content is inverted compared to the observed seismic activity seen in the Japanese records.  An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.  

   As you can clearly see the extreme solar magnetic flux activity is directly corresponding to the seismic activity, while almost all of the other events correspond to changes in the direction of magnetic flux.


   As the paper above was titled and alludes to, these are Mantle thermal pulses and they directly represent the degree and tempo of the strain energy thermo/kinetic response occurring in the mantle's outer surface, and by that the crust/mantle boundary. It is the periods of excessive mantle displacement, causing tension, or the excessive compression during mantle subsidence, that produce the rapid releases of seismic energy that are seen before and after the MWP.  
   
   Remember the original graph does not show actual movement, temperature, or any other content other than solar magnetic flux shown by proxy of 14C content in tree rings.  The earthquake source material from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan only lists earthquakes 7.0 and greater, and this does not eliminate the likelihood that there was a continuous occurrence of lower than 7.0 seismic events. I have checked other sources for these events and they are not easily located. If they did not kill people and cause tsunamis they may not have been recorded.  

 

 It could be argued that the increase of these events are simply concurrent with the seismic recording work by John Milne, James Alfred Ewing and Thomas Gray, who recorded in Japan from 1880 to 1895, and the observed increase is the result of that development of recording seismic events during and following that period. 

Referring to the second graph below;

I would counter this argument by examining the record with just the 8.0 earthquakes shown to have occurred in the modern seismology era. There were only five 8.0 earthquakes noted in Japanese records during the 265 years of the Edo period, on the graph they are 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13. Were these the only 8.0 earthquakes to occur during the Edo period or were they as numerous as the 11 quakes that occurred in the much shorter 164 years since 1850? Were the additional Edo records simply lost to history? 

  This works out to one single 8.0 earthquake every 53 years on average for the Edo period vs one single 8.0 earthquake every 15 years on average for the period that followed it to the most recent events. It would appear the Edo was by no (seismic) accident a time of great peace and prosperity.  

 http://www.earth-pri...02Ishibashi.pdf

 ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004
Status of historical seismology in Japan
Katsuhiko Ishibashi
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Faculty of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
 
3. Periodization of Japanese history and historical documents
 
Page 345.
"During the Edo period of long-term peace and stability, economic and cultural developments of Japan created mountains of primary documents, not only in the ruling class but also among the commoners of burgeoning cities and taxed villages.  These documents include official histories, records and diaries of the Tokugawa shogunate; histories, chronicles, records and diaries of 250-or-so regional lords; numerous records memoranda, letters and diaries by urban merchants and leading farmers in villages; and private writings of various kinds among the ruling warrior class."
 
"Because of national isolation under the Tokugawa shogunate, Japan had little contact with the West except for The Netherlands for more than two centuries during the Edo period and left behind the progress of modern science and technology. Instead however, bibliography, historiography, national and local history had been highly developed, many Ancient and Medieval documents were transcribed or published in wood-block prints, and thus rather plentiful high-quality data had been prepared for the historical research that followed the Meiji Restoration."
 
  So we must choose whether the contemporary accounts of the Edo period earthquakes by a society of "highly developed bibliography, historiography, national and local history" became misplaced and/or outright lost and destroyed, or was this period a time of lower plate energies that were interrupted at specific and pronounce times of sudden mantle displacement driven by, and specifically timed to, the solar magnetic record.
 
2.5   The ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004, Status of historical seismology in Japan; 
continued with this interesting revelation;
 
 Page 357.
"There are, however, serious problems in these books. One is that probably the collection is not complete, especially for the Edo period. Hence,Usami, for example, is very enthusiastic in further searching for buried historical materials and publishing them."
 
   It appears they are perplexed by the lack of records of seismic events of recordable scales. The massive earthquakes that they think should have occurred throughout this period that would be present in the records. Were they somehow lost? Or did they just not occur?

   The ones that this model say should be there, are there. Located where the solar magnetic record and seismic activity occurred and correlated.

http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/763/1/02Ishibashi.pdf
7. Some recent results of historical seismology in Japan
7.1. Recurrence history of great interplate earthquakes along the Nankai trough
Page 361.
"The 1707 Ho’ei and 1854 Ansei earthquakes took place in the Edo period causing widespread severe disasters due to strong ground motions and tsunamis , and an enormous number of records has been preserved."

  That is a remarkable statement in regards to 8.0 events 9, 12 and 13 on the graph, for the 1707 and the two 1854 events, an enormous number of records were not only made but preserved to the present. Yet where are just a few of the records of those many more missing massive earthquakes that they think also occurred throughout the Edo period? 

  If they existed, although individually scattered around all parts of the territory like the 1707 and 1854 records, why did those records disappear en masse?   
 
  The Edo 8.0 earthquake events are few but occur where the model would predict, at times of distinct change in solar magnetic flux. I believe this is simply remarkable evidence of a direct volumetric link between solar magnetic energy levels and crustal displacement as outlined in the model. This is concurrent to the already outlined link to atmospheric forcing by strain energy and resulting production of magma at the crust/mantle boundary area. 

And now referring to the bottom graph of the incredible solar magnetic levels previously shown.

 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

      "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. 

The

The solar magnetic energy levels of the last 1100 years followed quite accurately the climate variability seen in the MWP and The Little Ice Age, while the earthquake activity coupled quite accurately with solar and climate from the LIA up to the most recent extreme levels seen in the bottom proxy. 

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

Unfortunately this is irrelevant to this model. 

I read your link.  It referenced a paper 15 years old.

I saw nothing in your posts which are relevant to present climate.  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@Red this was in reply to someone else on this forum who was being a bit snarky with me, but met with these facts moved some goalposts and has disappeared. Perhaps you'll care to address these concerns instead? As one who spends so much time "in climate" whatever that means. 

Quote

Here's a way you can make as much as me: Bar bets. Go to a bar, and instead of calling them all sinners for the copious amounts of carbon dioxide they're consuming, then re-emitting, have yourself a nasty pint of foamy carbs and using the bar napkin, draw a line across it. Tell the person next to you that you'll bet them 10 quid they can't show you on that line where 1000 is, assuming the line is one million long. Everyone gets it wrong, including you. Invariably they will put a mark at the one third or at best one tenth location. But as any grade schooler knows, there are 1000 thousands in a million, and dividing your arbitrary line into a thousand leaves no room at all. You can even make it easier by marking said line 0 on one side and million on the other. People get fooled by that zero, which is almost exactly where the thousand point belongs. 

Why do I tell you all this? Because you're making the same scale and category error concerning AGW. I've read each and every one of the IPCC reports. In fact I used to link directly to chapter and verse within them, but I was causing the religion too much heterodoxy so they changed their method and force you to only search rather than allowing direct access. Needless to say, individual search terms are needle in haystack when every other word is the same. So they've stopped me there, but there are other sources…

Here's your homework assignment. First, determine the HUMAN component of global CO2 emissions annually. Don't go to Uncle Google and Aunt Wikipedia, they'll lead you astray. They'll tell you (a SWAG estimate) of mankind's total, while CAREFULLY neglecting to let you know what the denominator is. It's in the IPCC reports, deeply hidden for good reason. Because it is VERY MUCH like finding that thousand point on the million line. Not only is Total CO2 in the atmosphere a vanishingly small 400 parts per million, but mankind's percentage of THAT number is only 1/2 of 1% Let's take this a little further, because I'm certain you fancy yourself some kind of genius. The average of the global climate models indicate that DOUBLING CO2 will increase the watts per sq meter by 2 watts at the surface. Oh my gawd, that's horrible! But how many watts are hitting the earth's surface now? 1300 and change? Yet again, on a percentage basis, 2/1300 isn't a very impressive number, but it gets even worse when you (continue to) recognize that man is only contributing 0.05% of those measly 2 watts. 

Now let's play your mental masturbation game of forcing all mankind to meet the Paris Accord. Now we're talking about 15% of 0.05%, how meaningful is that? 

Not very impressive eh? We can all live in caves and eat grass and save a micro watt of heat energy. That's before I even talk about the error bars, or the dodgy way the models work, or the lack of legitimate experimental proof of the primary premise, which is that more CO2 will FORCE more water vapor into the atmosphere, water vapor being the REAL greenhouse gas. That's why what you think was a math error above was not, there's another term and another factor that needs consideration. But I'll leave that for the student. Cheers

 

 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

30 minutes ago, Red said:

I read your link.  It referenced a paper 15 years old.

I saw nothing in your posts which are relevant to present climate.  

And I rest my case.

22 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Red, I have debated this subject for more years than I care to recount. And what I find most frustrating is when someone on the pro-anthropological warming side continues to argue in the face overwhelming contradictory evidence.

You know this model is about geology and climate, and any paper that is relevant to this model is referenced. Do you know there are geology papers from the 1960's that are still referenced. I have one in the model from 1978. So what.

Given the opportunity to explore a new and exciting idea that may change how we understand this planet actually operates .  .  .  .  .  . 

BTW, I showed this model to a gentleman friend who is a PhD in geology, among many other accomplishments; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jorge_Costa-De-Moura

About; 886 Research items,     37,905 Reads, 128 Citations Introduction

Doctor of Sciences - Geology-geochemistry. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Master of Sciences - Environmental Engineering. Federal University of Espírito Santo. Bachelor of Laws. University Santa Úrsula. Attorney. Chemist. Senior Technologist-Geologist. Department of Nuclear Wastes. Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission. Licencing and decommissioning of nuclear and radioactive facilities regarding geology-geochemistry and environmental sciences.

     He taught geology for many years before joining the NEC. He said BTW that this model was the best he has ever seen.

[Red + 252]

On 6/1/2019 at 1:34 AM, Ward Smith said:

@Red this was in reply to someone else on this forum who was being a bit snarky with me, but met with these facts moved some goalposts and has disappeared.

The fact that only one one-billionth of the sun's total energy output reaches our planet sounds almost as meaningless as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is a bit more than 400 parts per million.  Yet those figures are largely responsible for the climate we experience.

The natural flux of the carbon cycle was only impacted by humans since the industrial revolution.  Your maths overlooked the fact that the entire change in levels of atmospheric CO2 is due to humans.  We can measure this isotopically, so we know the increases are not "natural."

We know which gases have a "greenhouse effect" and we know the planet has been on a warming trend as a result.

Your idea about water vapour fails a simple test of logic.  For water vapour to increase its forcing effect it requires more heat.  Water vapour is therefore a "feedback" as it cannot of itself increase global temperature.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Rodent
inflammatory

[Red + 252]

17 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

And I rest my case.

Which had nothing to do with present climate!

And geology is not climate science, so why it dominated your posts is curious.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 minute ago, Red said:

Which had nothing to do with present climate!

And geology is not climate science, so why it dominated your posts is curious.

Don't let it get you down, it scares the hell out of every other pro-anthropological-warmer in the same way. 

[Red + 252]

4 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

Don't let it get you down, it scares the hell out of every other pro-anthropological-warmer in the same way. 

Frankly I have no idea what you have been on about as it had very little to do with climate science.

You entered the thread saying, "Red, I have debated this subject for more years than I care to recount."  After that there was nothing debated, but you did post a fair bit.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

Don't let it get you down, it scares the hell out of every other pro-anthropological-warmer in the same way. 

Oooh nice, I'm going to steal that phrase, pro-anthropological-warmer.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Oooh nice, I'm going to steal that phrase, pro-anthropological-warmer.

I was thinking about having some t-shirts made up .  .  .  .  .  they would buy millions of them, then I could spend the money on a anti-anthropological-warmer pod-cast. It's pure evil .  .  .  .

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, Rodent said:

Everyone is entitled to share their opinion. 

At the substantial risk of putting too fine a point on it, Rodi, I rather suspect you intended to convey:

"Everyone is entitled to share their thinking." 

Cheers, and my very best to you and family.

From your admirer, Jan.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Marc Linquist said:

I was thinking about having some t-shirts made up .  .  .  .  .  they would buy millions of them, then I could spend the money on a anti-anthropological-warmer pod-cast. It's pure evil .  .  .  .

Bwahahahahahahahah

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

At the substantial risk of putting too fine a point on it, Rodi, I rather suspect you intended to convey:

"Everyone is entitled to share their thinking." 

Cheers, and my very best to you and family.

From your admirer, Jan.

A rather fine point indeed. 

From your admired, Rodi

[Marc Linquist + 63]

11 hours ago, Red said:

Which had nothing to do with present climate!

And geology is not climate science, so why it dominated your posts is curious.

First; Besides the fact that a vast number of the scientists that publish on the subject of climate, and who's names are batted around in all aspects of climate debate, are first and foremost Geologists. 

Second; The absolute inability of the current paradigm to address those fluctuations in past climate expresses more than any other example that a very large wager of time, materials and treasure are being wagered in this debate. Take another look at those graphs and imagine what will happen when that, as stated;  "level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode." , comes to an end.  When this very brief 10% solar magnetic/warming period is over, whatever the minuscule quantity of warming we are receiving from our Co2 input may be just enough to keep the northern latitudes still somewhat habitable to the degree we would endure.  

On these graphs below I plotted the points of both the solar magnetic flux and temperature in synchronized chronological order between the two graphs referred as D1 and D2.

 What stands out is the extremely high solar magnetic energy at 1 to the left on graph D2, the energy level is higher than even the unusually high solar magnetic level mentioned above and shown as the red vertical line extending above and to the right of Pt. 23.   

 Pt. 1 on the far left side of the graph occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas cold period that saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12.9–11.5 ka BP. The high solar magnetic energy of Pt. 1 of D2 correlates to when the temperature climbed out of the Younger Dryas cold period at Pt. 1 of D1.  

The 8.2 Kyr Event at Pt. 3 is very easily seen in graph D2, the energy level decrease from the graphs 4th highest peak of Pt.2 is clearly shown.
To many of us in the high latitudes, I'm afraid our time in the warmth of the Sun is about to end.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

22 hours ago, Red said:

Climate science does not limit contributions from the gamut of scientific fields.  However, if you know of a geologist who has an explanation of current warming, then offer up their work.

What is most relevant here is when a PhD geologist who is also a chemist, and not to mention a lawyer with years of teaching geology at a university cites my work as the best answer available. 

 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jorge_Costa-De-Moura

About; 886 Research items,     37,905 Reads, 128 Citations Introduction

Doctor of Sciences - Geology-geochemistry. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Master of Sciences - Environmental Engineering. Federal University of Espírito Santo. Bachelor of Laws. University Santa Úrsula. Attorney. Chemist. Senior Technologist-Geologist. Department of Nuclear Wastes. Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission. Licencing and decommissioning of nuclear and radioactive facilities regarding geology-geochemistry and environmental sciences.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Rodent
inflammatory