[Daniel1960]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-25, 11:05, said:

Yeah, that explains very well. But most energy companies prefer the AI_U graphics for obvious reasons.

Strange that Bloomberg would have a graph showing no solar variance of the time period, when solar scientists show a much different result. Solar activity was quite low from 1875 - 1930, and much higher since 1950.

http://solar-center....pot-co2.svg.png

Also, the IPCC stated in their 2013 report that, "natural climate variability, such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and “redistribution of heat within the ocean” are the most likely causes of the short-term hiatus in warming." I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2015-June-25, 10:50, said:

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

Funny that this occurred just after ths release:

http://vencoreweathe...than-a-century/

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-25, 11:32, said:

I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

The accompanying article provides links to explanations of the methodology and data used.

[MrAce]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-25, 11:32, said:

Strange that Bloomberg would have a graph showing no solar variance of the time period, when solar scientists show a much different result. Solar activity was quite low from 1875 - 1930, and much higher since 1950.

http://solar-center....pot-co2.svg.png

Also, the IPCC stated in their 2013 report that, "natural climate variability, such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and "redistribution of heat within the ocean" are the most likely causes of the short-term hiatus in warming." I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

http://cmip-pcmdi.ll...ailability.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php
http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/
http://pubs.giss.nas...s/mi08910y.html
http://www.bloomberg...-like-it-s-1997

Check it out yourself, PassedOut did not only provide a fancy graphic but the sources behind it and how it is measured. But Idk why I am being involved in this discussion, it has been going on here in watercooler for so many years and I do believe both parties will defend their position to death. What purpose does a topic serve when it is so obvious that no one will agree with other party. Why not call it "let's agree to disagree" and get over with this pissing contest of graphics?

You can easily disregard my suggestion if you are being paid for this of course or if you have no other interest in BBF, such as Bridge.

[Daniel1960]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-25, 13:05, said:

http://cmip-pcmdi.ll...ailability.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php
http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/
http://pubs.giss.nas...s/mi08910y.html
http://www.bloomberg...-like-it-s-1997

Check it out yourself, PassedOut did not only provide a fancy graphic but the sources behind it and how it is measured. But Idk why I am being involved in this discussion, it has been going on here in watercooler for so many years and I do believe both parties will defend their position to death. What purpose does a topic serve when it is so obvious that no one will agree with other party. Why not call it "let's agree to disagree" and get over with this pissing contest of graphics?

You can easily disregard my suggestion if you are being paid for this of course or if you have no other interest in BBF, such as Bridge.

I believe that they are more than two parties involved. Bloomberg, et. al. are of the belief that all the warming observed recently is manmade. The opposite party believes that all the warming is natural. There exists are large faction of us in between, who contend that both natural and manmade forces are at work, affecting the temperature. As opposed to the two divergent parties, who maintain high degrees of certainty in their belief, the middle faction acknowledges a large uncertainty in our knowledge of the entire system. Some will even suggest that either extreme position has a change of being correct.

The major problem involved is politics. Al Gore, etc. are championing the way for mankind, while Jame Inhofe is leading the way for the naturalists (the irony is my terminiology). Many from the major political parties have lined up behind their respective leaders, to push for support for legislation favoring their beliefs - and benefitting corporations. When you delve deeper into the science, one finds that neither parties has a high probability of being correct. Of course science has its own form of politics; astrophysicists believe that the sun is the dominant player, vulcanologists maintain volcanoes play a larger role, oceanographers point to the world's ocean as the major source, ecologists claim that deforestation and land use changes are primary, and climatologists hold strong to carbon dioxide. Each of these disciplines has research and data supporting their case, just as Bloomberg referenced. There exists enough data to selectively support any of these claims. The question is why would one dismiss the data relating to other areas, and focus soley on one discipline. The climate of this planet is simply too complicated to reduce to a simple scientific equation. Long term, temperatures have been rising. But not at the rate some have claimed, and there is currently no acceleration thereof. Will they continue at the current rate? Possibly. Possibly not. I defer to Newton's first law that an object will stay in motion until an external force acts upon it. The temperature is likely to maintain its current oscillating rise of ~06C per century until such time.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-26, 05:24, said:

Will they continue at the current rate? Possibly. Possibly not. I defer to Newton's first law that an object will stay in motion until an external force acts upon it. The temperature is likely to maintain its current oscillating rise of ~06C per century until such time.

Does dumping tons and tons of C02 into the atmosphere not constitute such an external force?

[billw55]

While my technical knowledge on climate science is mediocre, I'm pretty sure that temperature is not an object.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2015-June-26, 05:53, said:

Does dumping tons and tons of C02 into the atmosphere not constitute such an external force?

No, unless that force changes over time. The CO2 is already accounted for in the current trend. A significant change, either up or down, would alter the force.

[Daniel1960]

 billw55, on 2015-June-26, 06:19, said:

While my technical knowledge on climate science is mediocre, I'm pretty sure that temperature is not an object.

Techincally, no. However that does not negate Newtonian physics.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-26, 06:40, said:

No, unless that force changes over time. The CO2 is already accounted for in the current trend. A significant change, either up or down, would alter the force.

As I recall, when additional C02 gets emitted into the atmosphere, it takes some considerable length of time for the impulse to fade. (When I say a "considerable amount of time" I'm talking centuries).

Each additional year that you dump large amounts of additional C02 represents a change to the system.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2015-June-26, 07:12, said:

As I recall, when additional C02 gets emitted into the atmosphere, it takes some considerable length of time for the impulse to fade. (When I say a "considerable amount of time" I'm talking centuries).

Each additional year that you dump large amounts of additional C02 represents a change to the system.

The "considerable length of time" scenario is based on theory only. Data still supports a realtively short residence time of about 5 - 15 years:

http://www.cprm.gov....GC/1345952.html

http://jennifermaroh...idence-time.jpg

http://www.eike-klim...13315-in-essen/

[billw55]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-26, 06:41, said:

Techincally, no. However that does not negate Newtonian physics.

Indeed. But it does mean that Newton's laws of motion do not apply to temperature.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-26, 07:53, said:

The "considerable length of time" scenario is based on theory only. Data still supports a realtively short residence time of about 5 - 15 years:

http://www.cprm.gov....GC/1345952.html

http://jennifermaroh...idence-time.jpg

http://www.eike-klim...13315-in-essen/

Take a look at athe Marohasy chart. There is a reason that there is such a sharp skew between the the IPCC and the other studies. (Hint: Its not that the IPCC is lying, its that you are comparing apples and oranges)

The studies that you are citing that talk about residence times of 5 years are talking about the residence time for an individual atom.
The IPCC number is talking about the total amount of time for the impulse to dissipate from the system

Very different things.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though!

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2015-June-26, 08:42, said:

Take a look at athe Marohasy chart. There is a reason that there is such a sharp skew between the the IPCC and the other studies. (Hint: Its not that the IPCC is lying, its that you are comparing apples and oranges)

The studies that you are citing that talk about residence times of 5 years are talking about the residence time for an individual atom.
The IPCC number is talking about the total amount of time for the impulse to dissipate from the system

Very different things.

Nice try moving the goalposts though!

Actually, the IPCC long time of dissipation is based on a long residence time of carbon dioxide. Their assumption is that the initial impulse will remain for a considerable time. However, we know that only about half of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere initially. If not, then the measured atmospheric levels would be approaching 500! This is a critial component of the theory.

This is not apples and oranges. Maybe a single apple vs a bushel, but a bushel is just the summation of individual apples. The goal posts have not moved, the IPCC just missed.

[y66]

From Power to the People. Why the rise of green energy makes some companies nervous. by Bill McKibben:

Quote

Mark and Sara Borkowski live with their two young daughters in a century-old, fifteen-hundred-square-foot house in Rutland, Vermont. Mark drives a school bus, and Sara works as a special-ed teacher; the cost of heating and cooling their house through the year consumes a large fraction of their combined income. Last summer, however, persuaded by Green Mountain Power, the main electric utility in Vermont, the Borkowskis decided to give their home an energy makeover. In the course of several days, coördinated teams of contractors stuffed the house with new insulation, put in a heat pump for the hot water, and installed two air-source heat pumps to warm the home. They also switched all the light bulbs to L.E.D.s and put a small solar array on the slate roof of the garage.

The Borkowskis paid for the improvements, but the utility financed the charges through their electric bill, which fell the very first month. Before the makeover, from October of 2013 to January of 2014, the Borkowskis used thirty-four hundred and eleven kilowatt-hours of electricity and three hundred and twenty-five gallons of fuel oil. From October of 2014 to January of 2015, they used twenty-eight hundred and fifty-six kilowatt-hours of electricity and no oil at all. President Obama has announced that by 2025 he wants the United States to reduce its total carbon footprint by up to twenty-eight per cent of 2005 levels. The Borkowskis reduced the footprint of their house by eighty-eight per cent in a matter of days, and at no net cost.

I’ve travelled the world writing about and organizing against climate change, but, standing in the Borkowskis’ kitchen and looking at their electric bill, I felt a fairly rare emotion: hope. The numbers reveal a sudden new truth—that innovative, energy-saving and energy-producing technology is now cheap enough for everyday use. The Borkowskis’ house is not an Aspen earth shelter made of adobe and old tires, built by a former software executive who converted to planetary consciousness at Burning Man. It’s an utterly plain house, with Frozen bedspreads and One Direction posters, inhabited by a working-class family of four, two rabbits, and a parakeet named Oliver.

[MrAce]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-26, 05:24, said:

I believe that they are more than two parties involved. Bloomberg, et. al. are of the belief that all the warming observed recently is manmade. The opposite party believes that all the warming is natural. There exists are large faction of us in between, who contend that both natural and manmade forces are at work, affecting the temperature. As opposed to the two divergent parties, who maintain high degrees of certainty in their belief, the middle faction acknowledges a large uncertainty in our knowledge of the entire system. Some will even suggest that either extreme position has a change of being correct.

The major problem involved is politics. Al Gore, etc. are championing the way for mankind, while Jame Inhofe is leading the way for the naturalists (the irony is my terminiology). Many from the major political parties have lined up behind their respective leaders, to push for support for legislation favoring their beliefs - and benefitting corporations. When you delve deeper into the science, one finds that neither parties has a high probability of being correct. Of course science has its own form of politics; astrophysicists believe that the sun is the dominant player, vulcanologists maintain volcanoes play a larger role, oceanographers point to the world's ocean as the major source, ecologists claim that deforestation and land use changes are primary, and climatologists hold strong to carbon dioxide. Each of these disciplines has research and data supporting their case, just as Bloomberg referenced. There exists enough data to selectively support any of these claims. The question is why would one dismiss the data relating to other areas, and focus soley on one discipline. The climate of this planet is simply too complicated to reduce to a simple scientific equation. Long term, temperatures have been rising. But not at the rate some have claimed, and there is currently no acceleration thereof. Will they continue at the current rate? Possibly. Possibly not. I defer to Newton's first law that an object will stay in motion until an external force acts upon it. The temperature is likely to maintain its current oscillating rise of ~06C per century until such time.

I was talking about parties in this forum.

[Al_U_Card]

The Bloomberg graphic is nice but...surely they are not "in" on the scam? Perhaps just following along like good little acolytes that don't question the high-priests (unlike real journalists)? Here is one commentary on this "presentation" by the crooks errr climatologists at GISS.

"There are lots of people getting excited by a new animation put out by Bloomberg, which seeks to persuade people that only carbon dioxide can explain the temperature history of the last century or more. It's nothing new - just a prettier version of arguments that have been put forward in the past. I have to say I am greatly amused by the fact that the models stop in 2005. I wonder why that could be?

The simulation was put together by Gavin Schmidt and Kate Marvell of GISS, using GISS Model E2, a climate simulator with a relatively low TCR of 1.5 but a rather strong aerosol forcing of -1.65 Wm-2. However, the IPCC's best estimate of aerosol forcing is only -0.9 Wm-2 and the recent Bjorn Stevens paper put the figure at just -0.5 Wm-2. What this means is that had the GISS model had an aerosol forcing in line with recent best estimates, it would have warmed much too quickly. The resulting embarrassment would have been greater still had the model data not ended ten years ago. I really would like to know why this is."

The agenda drives the presentation. Don't be duped. They want your money and they want you to toe the(ir) line.

[Daniel1960]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-26, 17:16, said:

I was talking about parties in this forum.

Sounds like there are more than 2 parties involved here also.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-27, 08:39, said:

Sounds like there are more than 2 parties involved here also.

This feels like the point in time when Daniel tries to claim that he's not troll. He's a misunderstood centrist, trying to bring balance to this discussion.

Let me head this off at the pass:

1. You are trolling a bridge forum, posting unwanted crap about climate change. You might like to pretend that you are the voice of reason. In fact you're an annoying nobody who seems so desperate for human contact that you'd rather have people call you an asshole than than go through your life being ignored.

2. The only reason that this thread exists is that a small number of trolls continue to post a bunch of crap and some of us feel obliged to point out that they are full of *****. Without the efforts of you and Al to keep this thread alive, it would have died years ago.

3. You might want to note that your only ally on this thread spend 5 years trolling us about the "truth" behind the 911 bombings before he got bored and decided to start posting on climate change.

4. The only purpose that you serve on this forum is to make other people unhappy. Some life that you live...

[Daniel1960]

Sorry that feel so put out Hrothgar, that you resort to such derogatory remarks. Especially since you were the you who invited me in the first place.

While you seem to disagree, I felt that this was a natural calling. As an avid bridge player and regular here, combined with my science background and environmental concerns, this seemed perfect. Maybe you are just annoyed that I do not share your personal convictions.

What is so wrong with trying to present a scientific viewpoint and data that is different from your own? After all, that is the basis for scientific advancement. Where would we be without the Galileos, Einsteins, and Marshalls of the world?