We Are Better Than This

[James Regan + 1,776]

43 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Hello, you have reached the oilprice mailbox of Rodent. I can't come to the phone right now, but if you leave your name and number....

Good God, Tom! I'm a moderator not a miracle worker!! 😁

The next person to surprise the heck out of me by responding to someone else with an opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner (maybe try imagining debating with your dad on a subject over which you disagree, for those of you who are lacking in the social graces department) will get a good sport medal. 

The next person to carry on as usual with your bratty digs will find themselves escorted out of here at least temporarily. 

Please remember that we have a substantial number of lurkers who come to oilprice for information and debate. As evidenced by data that shows which threads are most popular, most people are not interested in these climate pissing contests where posters are more concerned with being right than sharing information.

It is my duty (and only duty) to maintain an environment (no pun intended) that is welcoming to the many people who visit the site. I will do as I must to make that happen.

As for the question as to whether we can set up a special place for certain posters, I think not, at least to my knowledge. Not sure how that would work. It would be great if everyone could just put on their big boy britches for a moment to consider that their approach might be off. 

No one is reading these threads and going "Aww man! Why didn't I think of that! Clever chap!" 

Instead, it's probably more like, "Aww man! What an #$_&-$$#!" 

Meanwhile, back at the climate.....

Hi Rodent,

I see my post was deleted I expected it to be. If my wording was in any way offensive beyond the limits then I apologize. The word which probably offended where I was brought up and the native tongue I speak is English refers to a person being obnoxious and alike.

Hands up I took the bate.....

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, James Regan said:

@Douglas Buckland It seems your thread is being held hostage in typical fashion can the moderators not set up a special place for those with a single agenda can reside In order to keep the focus as it’s actually trolling.

Infiltrating any topic with a narrow mind is disruptive and easily brings down the debate which inevitably ends in pages of personal insults.

I am guilty of taking the bait but when you see the same people pushing their agenda the point comes when they will set the hook.

After lasts weeks thread of shale oil breakeven we managed to circumnavigate the oil industry and ended up near Armageddon.

Maybe this is debating and I’m not an experienced debater so I may be wrong.

👌🏻👌🏻

 

Irony meter redlines

The sub heading of this thread (Climate nonsense)  is clearly an attempt to try and shut down the counter arguments to the usual drivel so prevalent on this site along the lines of we found a cli-mate kon-spi-racy......tax scam.....Green Com-un-ists....etc etc

Most of these threads are started by the denial brigade who then get very offended when people like Red etc robustly counter the arguments being made, with a mix of bonafide science and logic. 

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

IPCC’s CO2 Climate Forcing Values 200% ‘Too Sensitive’, Water Vapor Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

Ollila, 2018

Ollila has no climate science credentials and writes to "open source" sites where there is virtually no critical assessment of content.

This links to a site which did assess a paper from Ollila on "sensitivity." Amongst many scathing comments made by SCIENCEDOMAIN International when rejecting his paper is the following:

• On line 175 the author(s) claim that prior researchers included a positive water vapor feedback. There really is no doubt about this. Are the author(s) claiming the magnitude is unknown? The discussion related to Figure 4 appears to confuse the sign of water vapor feedback with short term changes in the term. This is like confusing a derivative with the value of a function.

The reason peer review exists in science is to weed out papers which have no sound basis.  Ollila's works lack credibility and to post them into forums where others do not have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff merely perpetuates the echo chamber mentality that exists in the world of confirmation bias.

[James Regan + 1,776]

11 minutes ago, NickW said:

Irony meter redlines

The sub heading of this thread (Climate nonsense)  is clearly an attempt to try and shut down the counter arguments to the usual drivel so prevalent on this site along the lines of we found a cli-mate kon-spi-racy......tax scam.....Green Com-un-ists....etc etc

Most of these threads are started by the denial brigade who then get very offended when people like Red etc robustly counter the arguments being made, with a mix of bonafide science and logic. 

100% on the Irony meter - My Bad 🤗 

I will be quiet for a while (🙏🏻🙏🏻) 🤫 as I have to go back to work now and make sure we keep exploring for more black gold.

🙄

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Red said:

Ollila has no climate science credentials and writes to "open source" sites where there is virtually no critical assessment of content.

This links to a site which did assess a paper from Ollila on "sensitivity." Amongst many scathing comments made by SCIENCEDOMAIN International when rejecting his paper is the following:

• On line 175 the author(s) claim that prior researchers included a positive water vapor feedback. There really is no doubt about this. Are the author(s) claiming the magnitude is unknown? The discussion related to Figure 4 appears to confuse the sign of water vapor feedback with short term changes in the term. This is like confusing a derivative with the value of a function.

The reason peer review exists in science is to weed out papers which have no sound basis.  Ollila's works lack credibility and to post them into forums where others do not have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff merely perpetuates the echo chamber mentality that exists in the world of confirmation bias.

I understand this to be too deep for your understanding, but the PEER REVIEWED IPCC PAPER Ollila quotes IS THE ONE TALKING ABOUT CO2 CAUSING WATER VAPOR FORCING. Ignore Ollila and my point still stands. 

[Okie + 83]

45 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 CAUSING WATER VAPOR FORCING

Here is a primer:

https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I understand this to be too deep for your understanding, but the PEER REVIEWED IPCC PAPER Ollila quotes IS THE ONE TALKING ABOUT CO2 CAUSING WATER VAPOR FORCING. Ignore Ollila and my point still stands. 

Water vapour is a "feedback."  What more can I say?  Feedback processes rely on external factors.  Ollila and you do not seem to understand what this means in terms of climate.

Here's what IPCC AR4 says:

• Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change.

Ollila's work was rejected by an open source publisher due to many basic failings relating to misunderstanding the climate system, many of which were in my earlier link.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

You guys (the fact-speaking ones), have you not learned facts slide off the indoctrinated brain?

(I'm feeling inclusive today, not singling out anyone on any side). The way you've twisted the point of this thread is truly astonishing as is every twisted thread here and elsewhere. Personally, I support @Douglas Buckland's call for civility. Is it really so hard? Yes, I know it is, don't tell me.

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You guys (the fact-speaking ones), have you not learned facts slide off the indoctrinated brain?

Maybe people who deal in facts do not have an alternative.  We don't get to change basic maths, the laws of physics and all those things which rely on well established principles to do what they do.

The OPs thread proposes "We are better than this."  Exactly who are "we" are when posters claim things which cannot be relied on because they are consistently proven to be unsound?

 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Like water off a duck...

It's interesting and a little sad to watch how strong opinions replace facts in all sorts of arguments. No, it's very sad to watch actually.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

19 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You guys (the fact-speaking ones), have you not learned facts slide off the indoctrinated brain?

^this can be used as an excuse for the most outragous of opinions... 

p.s. I too am feeling inclusive today, so I will not single out any one opinion either. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 6/2/2019 at 8:47 PM, Okie said:

Here is a primer:

https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Heat/Pressure causes the water vapor forcing. Not CO2.  Water vapor entering atmosphere actually causes radiative COOLING to space when cloud cover % increases.  But you know... calling it a feedback loop because of CO2 sounds nice if you do not use science.

  There is a feedback loop.  It is called the Sun, cloud cover % and Albedo to space.  Everything else is an epic joke.  Its like saying Venus's Temperature is caused by CO2(96% atmosphere, 9200kpa) not the sun.... 🙄   Why?  Critical pressure of CO2 is 7300kPa and 31C.  So, land albedo does not exist on Venus.  We look at Venus and all we see is clouds and uniform albedo.  So, Venus maintains its temperature vai Radiative energy flux of upper atmosphere and solar insolation.  This is achieved via ol' via the 4th power of upper atmospheric temperature.   Why this matters?  Because at 96%CO2 9200kpa  Venus's lower "atmosphere" is a super critical fluid and we are able to send probes to its surface and measure its temperature gradients all the way down and it MAINTAINS its temperature gradient all the way down to the surface. 

Combine extra solar insolation due to Venus being closer(1.91 more solar energy than earth) and take its 4th root = 1.176.  As it is radiative albedo to space which maintains Venus's temperature just as it is on earth. 

So, since PV=nRT compare at identical pressures.  1 atm(Why) = Venus radiates 100% via upper atmosphere lets check if the EARTH also radiates equally via its atmosphere and NOT by its land. 

Earth 288K(STP)@ 1atm solar insolation =1 4th root of 1 = 1

Venus 340K@1atm(Vega 2, Vanera 7 probes among others) solar insolation = 1.91 4th root of 1.91 = 1.176

340K/1.176 = 289K

288K vrs 289K is as close as it gets when one accounts for small number of probes into Venus's atmosphere for data to work off of. 

I do not know about you, but it would appear that indeed, radiative forcing is NOT tied to CO2 as Venus has near 100% CO2, the earth does not, yet, when you use a straight radiation heat transfer model the two planets are IDENTICAL in temperature.

Oh wait, this also works for the planet(moon) Titan.    

And no, you cannot claim CO2 greenhouse blanket as the "day" on Venus is 58 days long...   and Venus surface receives LESS energy from the sun than the earth even though it has 1.91X more solar insolation to start with Why?  Because Physics is the same on Venus as on Earth.   Same reason when Neptune radiative temperature has increased directly in line with the earths, one takes notice. 

Thanks guys, but its the sun directly tied to upper atmospheric albedo and radiative forcing via clouds. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Wastral

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

^this can be used as an excuse for the most outragous of opinions... 

p.s. I too am feeling inclusive today, so I will not single out any one opinion either. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, opinions differ from facts -- a fact that is lost on a growing number of social media addicts that mistake the former for the latter consistently, including on this forum. Confirmation bias at its worst. Or best, depending on your perspective.

[tldpdb1 + 24]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:34 PM, Red said:

n 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.

"Ignorance is Bliss"....and Extremely "Profitable" in Certain Geographical Areas and Segments of our Economy😃

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 5/31/2019 at 10:34 AM, Red said:

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

There IS a huge debate. On one side are the climate change radicals who run around like chicken little screaming, "The sky is falling!" Their main purpose is to say, "Look at how smart I am. Honor me! Worship me! The world cannot live without my intelligence." These are most climate change advocates. They don't care about the people who will live in the future. These nattering nabobs of negativity only care about their own fame and fortune.

Then, there are people like me who say, "O.K., so what do we do to prosper in the coming years? How do we adapt? How do we prepare a good life for our children?" The reason we are looked down upon is that it requires the chicken littles to actually expend some elbow grease instead of bloviating in their air conditioned citadels. 

-Utilize Northwest Passage
-Settle Canada, Greenland, and Siberia
-Shift crop production, like grapes, to northern climates
-Put Antarctic Stations on giant skis (like the British) so they stop getting buried by the increased snow in Antarctica.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 6/2/2019 at 8:48 PM, Red said:

Water vapour is a "feedback."  What more can I say?  Feedback processes rely on external factors.  Ollila and you do not seem to understand what this means in terms of climate.

Here's what IPCC AR4 says:

• Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change.

Ollila's work was rejected by an open source publisher due to many basic failings relating to misunderstanding the climate system, many of which were in my earlier link.

Your beef is with the authors of the IPCC reports, who use that terminology constantly. Your cherry picked statement is specific to the troposphere, which is why they specified it right there in the sentence, stating that water vapor THERE is not a forcing. 

I for one am all done talking to you. @Rodent was offended I said your understanding wasn't deep enough and banned me for 3 days. Perhaps with careful reading your understanding will get deeper. Cheers

Edited June 4, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Red + 252]

14 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

It's interesting and a little sad to watch how strong opinions replace facts in all sorts of arguments. No, it's very sad to watch actually.

I agree.

That's why I usually do not bother with opinions.  But thanks for sharing yours.

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Your beef is with the authors of the IPCC reports, who use that terminology constantly. Your cherry picked statement is specific to the troposphere, which is why they specified it right there in the sentence, stating that water vapor THERE is not a forcing. 

I do not have a beef with the science in IPCC Reports, because... that's climate science and that's what forms the basis for the best understanding of what is happening.  I am not sure why you believe I should not be using climate science terminology to explain climate change issues as there are not many other options that I am aware!

With regard to what you say is a "cherry picked statement", just remember there is no meaningful water vapour presence beyond the troposphere so, again, there is no point in discussing any climate forcing impact of water vapour beyond the troposphere.

 

 

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Your cherry picked statement is specific to the troposphere, which is why they specified it right there in the sentence, stating that water vapor THERE is not a forcing. 

I tried to find where your idea was tabled and thought this could be it:

No luck with that one, so I went to IPCC AR5 and found this:

While you can find "H2O" in the above chart, it's actually a result of methane breaking down in the upper atmosphere, rather than through a "feedback" process.

Water vapour cannot drive climate change, but remains an important GHG through its feedback mechanism.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Red said:

there is no point in discussing any climate forcing impact of water vapour beyond the troposphere.

Which I've never once done. You're the one claiming to be a climate expert, how you're missing this simple point is beyond me. I'm not going to keep quibbling with you. You're either being purposely obtuse or you really are that obtuse. You're not even addressing a single point I made earlier other than to make a ridiculous assertion about solar radiation.

Meanwhile I clearly pointed out how the models are written, Programmed to increase water vapor in the atmosphere "Forced" by greater concentrations of CO2. The grid sizes are too gross to handle clouds so those are parameterisations added in an ad hoc manner. I'm not quoting skeptic sites I'm talking about base principles. You clearly don't even know what those are while you pretend to be some kind of expert. I rather doubt you've even passed a  physics class in university unless there was one in your what, sociology major? Don't bother responding, you'll just misinterpret and move goalposts. Meanwhile you've ignored Every salient point while grasping at straws. Typical for your religion, which I'm happy to be a heretic of. No afterlife for you Red, this is as good as it gets. Cheers. 

[Red + 252]

21 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You're the one claiming to be a climate expert, how you're missing this simple point is beyond me.

Ok, I have no idea what your point is because I can only work from what physics allows.

22 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You're not even addressing a single point I made earlier other than to make a ridiculous assertion about solar radiation.

Exactly what assertion are you referring to?

25 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Meanwhile I clearly pointed out how the models are written, Programmed to increase water vapor in the atmosphere

The models cannot increase water vapour unless climate climate forcings increase the planet's temperature.  Again, that is why water vapour is a feedback.

How about you link to the science papers which explain what you are suggesting rather than keep making the same points, which I have addressed.

 

[Red + 252]

This is cut from your earlier post:

On 6/3/2019 at 2:43 AM, Ward Smith said:

The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes.

And here is why the claim is one of many which led to Ollila's paper being rejected by science publications:

Despite Ollila's paper being written in 2018, he's omitted 18 years of data which prove his ideas false - yet this was from a paper you have relied upon.

The above chart comes as no surprise given that most years this century comprise the warmest of the modern temperature record.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Red
past tense

[specinho + 467]

8 hours ago, Red said:

 

 

While you can find "H2O" in the above chart, it's actually a result of methane breaking down in the upper atmosphere, rather than through a "feedback" process.

Water vapour cannot drive climate change, but remains an important GHG through its feedback mechanism.

 

On 6/3/2019 at 11:48 AM, Red said:

Water vapour is a "feedback."  What more can I say?  Feedback processes rely on external factors.  Ollila and you do not seem to understand what this means in terms of climate.

Here's what IPCC AR4 says:

• Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change.

Ollila's work was rejected by an open source publisher due to many basic failings relating to misunderstanding the climate system, many of which were in my earlier link.

 

On 6/3/2019 at 12:43 AM, Ward Smith said:

IPCC’s CO2 Climate Forcing Values 200% ‘Too Sensitive’, Water Vapor Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

Ollila, 2018

The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”

 

This is not trying to self-sabotage our own sales of fossil fuel but........ generally - a burning process can be depicted simply as below:

Fuel + O₂ --> CO₂ + H₂O + heat

Increase burning activities by drastic increase of human population has increased all three wastes of carbon dioxide; water vapour and heat in the air........... Therefore.... the emission of water vapour might not as easily be overlooked or neglected as it wanted to be.....

Hence....... the assumption "humidity is constant" might be with flaw. Humidity might fluctuate with the degree of activities in an area at the recorded time...

How water vapour could possibly drive climate change could be as follow:

1. Water vapour absorbs waste heat generated. The microclimate of an area turned more humid when direct radiation of sun is constant. Hence more cloud generated and may be more rain...... and more cooling environment.........

Direct sun radiation can be increased due to the presence of ozone holes (UV light that was used to be blocked by the ozone is penetrating directly into the earth surface. It heats up not only the atmosphere it passes through but also heating up the earth crust and melting the ice. To validate this effect try to consider this formula : Energy = hc/λ    i.e. the heat brought in by a radiation is inversely proportionate to its wavelength. Shorter length hotter radiative effect). This changes the retention ability and hence humidity of the same area..... Carbon dioxide in the air facilitates the formation of acid rain. I witnessed rain that bleached leaves of a tree in two or three days time.

2. Heat capacity of water in the air has been the only factor that can drive changes in terms of heat availability; clouds availability; influence the amount of rain etc..... Hence..... water vapour is the driving force of climate change. No vapour - draught.....

3. Imagine the earth is covered by 70% of water. Before massive development evaporative factor could probably be considered constant. Increase in global temperature increases the rate of evaporation could be true. But this fact could be counteracted by the diminished of forests area due to development especially for the inland areas where riverine is dried off and coastline or the sea is far off. Nothing could be evaporated. Hence micoclimate is changing because there is no vapour to mediate the heat in the atmosphere.

That's all for the moment....... and Smith has probably been right about water......

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by specinho

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 hours ago, Red said:

Ok, I have no idea what your point is because I can only work from what physics allows.

Exactly what assertion are you referring to?

The models cannot increase water vapour unless climate climate forcings increase the planet's temperature.  Again, that is why water vapour is a feedback.

How about you link to the science papers which explain what you are suggesting rather than keep making the same points, which I have addressed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

Meanwhile: Venus with near 100% CO2 atmosphere, 100% cloud cover, zero ground albedo, follows simple radiative forcing IDENTICAL to the earth for solar insolation value.  So, it does not matter if Earth's CO2 goes from 350ppm of the atmosphere to 100,000ppm.  The earths temperature will remain the same at 1 atm, albeit with more cloud cover and a more uniform temperature from the equator to the poles as unlike Venus, the earth is not 100% cloud covered.  Of course by 100,000ppm we will all be dead🤔   Who knew, simple basic

Stefan–Boltzmann law of PHYSICS

heat transfer saves the day from the religious fear mongers.