Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Geoff.D]

Sorry, but given what we know about Wiki editing nobody should use Wikipedia for anything. It is a flawed model used for propaganda.

I have never understood what the hang up is about wikipedia. There is a huge amount of data and information in wikipedia, accessible to all. It was created precisely because research data was trapped behind all sorts of barriers created by governments mostly, but also be scientists. The science fraternity tries to ignore wikipedia, or they did. They do so now at their own peril. Far better to embrace it and instead of criticising it, those in the know should edit it to get the facts straight. Us ordinary plebs get super irritated by all this firewall nonsense.
Blocking access to data is one of the key drivers that led to the Cimategate fiasco.
Criticising anyone for using the resources available to them is not an argument for or against what is being discussed.

 

[rietrot]

I have never understood what the hang up is about wikipedia.

People that don't really know assume it is because everyone can edit it. And that has somewhat catch on, unfortunately that's not correct. The real reason why is because it isn't the primary source for anything. It's just a collection of information. So in propper research or academic writing you can't quote it. You need go through to the real primary source of the information.

But there's nothing wrong with quoting it here.

 

[Gordon_R]

It goes both ways. You can't knock the sources you don't like and then complain when someone does the same to you.

No, its not the same. You can't just knock Wikipedia without coming up with some specific factual errors.

If every source of information is in doubt, then this discussion will be cut short (maybe it should have stopped at post #1 or #2).

That is part of the denialist agenda, promote false-sources, and undermine legitimate ones...

People that don't really know assume it is because everyone can edit it. And that has somewhat catch on, unfortunately that's not correct. The real reason why is because it isn't the primary source for anything. It's just a collection of information. So in propper research or academic writing you can't quote it. You need go through to the real primary source of the information.

But there's nothing wrong with quoting it here.

Edit: Schizophrenia today?

 

[rietrot]

No, its not the same. You can't just knock Wikipedia without coming up with some specific factual errors.

It's the same. This goes for everything. Your sources aren't special.

 

[Gordon_R]

It's the same. This goes for everything. Your sources aren't special.

Wow, this kind of trolling could go on forever...

 

[Geoff.D]

People that don't really know assume it is because everyone can edit it. And that has somewhat catch on, unfortunately that's not correct. The real reason why is because it isn't the primary source for anything. It's just a collection of information. So in propper research or academic writing you can't quote it. You need go through to the real primary source of the information.

But there's nothing wrong with quoting it here.

True. We are not a research organisation. We do not have access to the Primary Data Sources because it is all behind all sorts of barriers. Even the IPCC reports were behind a barrier in the beginning. I have read plenty of the IPCC reports. You pick up a reference there and then you look it up, follow the link, and 9 times out of 10 you will hit a firewall/paywall/security block requiring a registration process, whatever.
That is why the "public" ends up at alternative sites, and those sites may or may not be as reliable as one would hope. It does not mean one should reject Wikipedia outright.

 

[Geoff.D]

No, its not the same. You can't just knock Wikipedia without coming up with some specific factual errors.

If every source of information is in doubt, then this discussion will be cut short (maybe it should have stopped at post #1 or #2).

That is part of the denialist agenda, promote false-sources, and undermine legitimate ones...



Edit: Schizophrenia today?

You can't just knock Wikipedia Whatsupwitthat without coming up with some specific factual errors.

 

[access]

lol. just link wikis sources instead then

 

[Geoff.D]

I already said its not worth my time and effort to address the points:


I'm sure that you aren't actually interested in the answers, but I already dealt with some of these earlier in the thread, and quoted one link that addresses some of the points in the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Another is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity



Sentence #1 is debatable on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin:
It diminishes logarithmically is correct in a narrow technical sense, but misleading over the scale of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is already included in the calculation for radiative forcing, and is not little known:

The climate sensitivity to a rise in CO2 depends both on transient absorption by the ocean, as well as feedbacks in the system:

The total climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is not known exactly, but is estimated to be between 1.5C and 4.5C:


Sentence #2 is correct in a narrow sense, but completely misleading:
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, but it is not man-made, and has a short lifetime in the atmosphere. Of the remaining greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4 (methane) are the largest components, with rather different lifetimes. The increase in CO2 has come to dominate all of the other anthropogenic sources:

BTW, The plural of gas is gases. Not that spelling is critical, but it does indicate a lack of attention to detail in a scientific paper.

That lengthy post only begins to discuss the first two points in the article. The rest would take even longer, and be even more pointless.

Back on topic.
I am interested in the answers and yes I have looked at those references, which are sections of the IPCC reports. Some of the Wikipedia stuff is outdated and needs revision based on the new information tabled in later IPCC reports and new research results.

So I appreciate your response. This is the only way to do a fair evaluation of the ED Berry paper (which is the source of the article.) No point in addressing the article without first getting to grips with the writer's primary source.

 

[access]

a simple example of man made climate change.

coral reefs create clouds to control the climate. we are killing coral reefs.

 

[Geoff.D]

a simple example of man made climate change.

coral reefs create clouds to control the climate. we are killing coral reefs.

Reference, please.

Yes? we are killing coral reefs? Therefore we are preventing cloud formation. Therefore we are altering the weather patterns? Therefore we are reducing cloud cover. Therefore we are allowing more radiative heat to escape from the earth as a result of the reduction in cloud cover. Therefore the earth is cooling down. Therefore we are helping to reduce global warming ...
Looking forward to the interesting set of of time series correlations that has come up with this one!

 

[access]

Reference, please.

Yes? we are killing coral reefs? Therefore we are preventing cloud formation. Therefore we are altering the weather patterns? Therefore we are reducing cloud cover. Therefore we are allowing more radiative heat to escape from the earth as a result of the reduction in cloud cover. Therefore the earth is cooling down. Therefore we are helping to reduce global warming ...
Looking forward to the interesting set of of time series correlations that has come up with this one!

yoh, i dont have the enthusiasm to go so deeply into this. corals(rain forests of the sea) create clouds, clouds are part of the climate. we affect coral therefor and change the climate. we affect rain forests too which also form clouds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs

Human impact on coral reefs is significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world

that cloud cover thing about heat escaping is at night though isnt it? also during the day some clouds reflect some radiation cooling the earth, not just warming by absorbing the infrared radiation. isnt the overall affect of clouds cooling at the moment?

in any case, i dont think preventing cloud formation is all good as you almost make it seem there. no clouds, no rain, no vegetation...

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I have never understood what the hang up is about wikipedia. There is a huge amount of data and information in wikipedia, accessible to all. It was created precisely because research data was trapped behind all sorts of barriers created by governments mostly, but also be scientists. The science fraternity tries to ignore wikipedia, or they did. They do so now at their own peril. Far better to embrace it and instead of criticising it, those in the know should edit it to get the facts straight. Us ordinary plebs get super irritated by all this firewall nonsense.
Blocking access to data is one of the key drivers that led to the Cimategate fiasco.
Criticising anyone for using the resources available to them is not an argument for or against what is being discussed.

As a spectator on the climate issue, not arguing either side, I have much insight into the Wikipedia issue and processes.

They will accept existing much published material as references . Remember the "dogpark/sex" article? That will make it's way into the Wiki as it''s meets it's reference policies. However new controversial studies not meeting thise the view of those that drives the discussion, will be slanted, eventually be removed. Political correctness etc plays a big part in it as well. While it's good for superficial understanding, it's by no means a source for serious arguments.

 

[Geoff.D]

As a spectator on the climate issue, not arguing either side, I have much insight into the Wikipedia issue and processes.

They will accept existing much published material as references . Remember the "dogpark/sex" article? That will make it's way into the Wiki as it''s meets it's reference policies. However new controversial studies not meeting thise the view of those that drives the discussion, will be slanted, eventually be removed. Political correctness etc plays a big part in it as well. While it's good for superficial understanding, it's by no means a source for serious arguments.

In the absence of anything else, most of us will be stuck with what we can find on Wikipedia.

 

[Gordon_R]

In the absence of anything else, most of us will be stuck with what we can find on Wikipedia.

There are several problems with relying on primary published sources (assuming they are factually correct).

The first is that they are really hard to understand, even for those in the field. Prestige journals have a premium on space, so they rely a lot on concise jargon, and don't allow pages of flowery language. They also discourage repetition of what is already known, so most of the good stuff is hidden in the footnotes.

The second is that a single paper tends to focus on a very narrow issue. It is hard for the average person (let alone an expert) to understand the context in which the findings are new, or relevant to the broader field.

Popular science articles do often attempt to provide coverage of important stories, and periodically do reviews of the whole field, though always in a limited way.

There is no single source where all the latest information is collated in one place, in a format which is understandable to average readers, though Wikipedia makes a good attempt.

 

[Geoff.D]

yoh, i dont have the enthusiasm to go so deeply into this. corals(rain forests of the sea) create clouds, clouds are part of the climate. we affect coral therefor and change the climate. we affect rain forests too which also form clouds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs



that cloud cover thing about heat escaping is at night though isnt it? also during the day some clouds reflect some radiation cooling the earth, not just warming by absorbing the infrared radiation. isnt the overall affect of clouds cooling at the moment?

in any case, i dont think preventing cloud formation is all good as you almost make it seem there. no clouds, no rain, no vegetation...

The link between coral damage and cloud formation is the one I deduced from your post, yet none of the references you quote makes that link.
So far the Climate change to coral damage link is all about increased CO2 absorption by the Oceans, leading to decreasing pH which affects the formation of Calcium Carbonate, which coral and other shellfish require to form their exoskeletons.
Busy looking for a reference on the above which will hopefully not attract derision from anyone.

In the meantime here is an extract out of a reference I have which I, unfortunately, did not note down the source. Could have been out of one of the IPCC references, though I am not sure.

The “lysocline” is the depth below which a rapid dissolution of carbonate material occurs.
The “carbonate compensation depth” (CCD) is the depth at which the deposition and dissolution of carbonate material are equal.
The depths of the lysocline and CCD are controlled by:

Water temperature​

Warming deepens the lysoclne & CCD​

Depth (pressure)​

CO2 concentration​

Increasing CO2 concentration shoals (makes shallower) the lysocline & CCD
pH (high pH values aid in carbonate preservation) - Lowering pH shoals the lysocline & CCD

Amount of carbonate sediment supply - Increasing carbonate sediment supply deepens the lysocline & CCD

Wikipedia to the rescue! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification


BTW, you want to get many geologists hot under the collar -- talk about Ocean Acidification. They absolutely hate the term. For them, it is all about the Lysocline and the CCD. The Oceans are not acidic and have never ever reached a pH of 7. The lowest pH that has been found is about 50 - 60 million years ago when the ocean pH has been estimated to have been 7.4- 7.9

The person who coined the term "Ocean Acidification" is Ken Caldeira a software developer, turned Climatologist with a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences. He has no qualifications in Geology or Marine Biology. Yet he "chose" to come up with a term dealing with an aspect of Geology already well documented and understood.

This is, unfortunately, the trend amongst the "Climatologists" They know how to upset their fellow Scientists. Instead of drawing experts in their field into the fold when necessary, the CC lot will just blunder on, on their own.
The outcome is he might be "revered' as some sort of "tin god" in the Climatology field, but in other science disciplines he is spoken about with derision.

 

[access]

The link between coral damage and cloud formation is the one I deduced from your post, yet none of the references you quote makes that link.
So far the Climate change to coral damage link is all about increased CO2 absorption by the Oceans, leading to decreasing pH which affects the formation of Calcium Carbonate, which coral and other shellfish require to form their exoskeletons.
Busy looking for a reference on the above which will hopefully not attract derision from anyone.

In the meantime here is an extract out of a reference I have which I, unfortunately, did not note down the source. Could have been out of one of the IPCC references, though I am not sure.



Wikipedia to the rescue! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification


BTW, you want to get many geologists hot under the collar -- talk about Ocean Acidification. They absolutely hate the term. For them, it is all about the Lysocline and the CCD. The Oceans are not acidic and have never ever reached a pH of 7. The lowest pH that has been found is about 50 - 60 million years ago when the ocean pH has been estimated to have been 7.4- 7.9

The person who coined the term "Ocean Acidification" is Ken Caldeira a software developer, turned Climatologist with a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences. He has no qualifications in Geology or Marine Biology. Yet he "chose" to come up with a term dealing with an aspect of Geology already well documented and understood.

This is, unfortunately, the trend amongst the "Climatologists" They know how to upset their fellow Scientists. Instead of drawing experts in their field into the fold when necessary, the CC lot will just blunder on, on their own.
The outcome is he might be "revered' as some sort of "tin god" in the Climatology field, but in other science disciplines he is spoken about with derision.

i remember watching a documentary on this at some stage where they explained this in very layman terms, had pretty pictures and animations and satellite images to show what they meant. ...lol

here are some links where it seems to be done by some professionals in the field.

http://ammrf.org.au/featured/clouds-from-coral/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6953-coral-reefs-create-clouds-to-control-the-climate/

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ratures_and_Climate_in_the_Great_Barrier_Reef

https://m.scirp.org/papers/77020


all i am implying by this is that we do have some affect on it. surely all of these small affects we have on different things add up around the world. i personally do not think that our various actions are so insignificant that it almost "dissolves" in the greater scheme of things. maybe a few hundred years ago yes.

 

[Gordon_R]

BTW, you want to get many geologists hot under the collar -- talk about Ocean Acidification. They absolutely hate the term. For them, it is all about the Lysocline and the CCD. The Oceans are not acidic and have never ever reached a pH of 7. The lowest pH that has been found is about 50 - 60 million years ago when the ocean pH has been estimated to have been 7.4- 7.9

The person who coined the term "Ocean Acidification" is Ken Caldeira a software developer, turned Climatologist with a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences. He has no qualifications in Geology or Marine Biology. Yet he "chose" to come up with a term dealing with an aspect of Geology already well documented and understood.

This is, unfortunately, the trend amongst the "Climatologists" They know how to upset their fellow Scientists. Instead of drawing experts in their field into the fold when necessary, the CC lot will just blunder on, on their own.

The outcome is he might be "revered' as some sort of "tin god" in the Climatology field, but in other science disciplines he is spoken about with derision.

Sorry, but your comments about Ken Caldeira are malicious and libellous, and look like they have been copied from a climate denialist website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira

Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification,[2] climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate system.[3][4][5][6][7] He also acted as an inventor for Intellectual Ventures, a Seattle-based invention and patent company headed up by Nathan Myhrvold.[8][9][10]

Among Caldeira's key contributions to science are his relatively early recognition of the threats posed by ocean acidification,[16] his pioneering investigations into the environmental consequences of intentional intervention in the climate system ("geoengineering"),[17] and the first peer-reviewed study to estimate near-zero-emission energy needs consistent with a 2 °C climate stabilization target.[18] He has also played a central role in helping to elucidate what our understanding of long-term geochemical cycles implies for the fate of today's carbon dioxide emissions.[19] Caldeira served as a member of the committee producing the 2015 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report "Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts".[20] He is also a contributing author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.[21] In 2010, he was a co-author of the 2010 US National Academy America's Climate Choices report,[22] and was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.[23] He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009[24] and ocean acidification panel in 2005.[25] Caldeira was coordinating lead author of the oceans chapter for the 2005 IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage.[26]

Yeah, he's just a software developer /sarcasm

 

[SaiyanZ]

From what I've seen, the concern about ocean acidification is that sea life might not be able to adapt fast enough. Not that acidification is bad for the planet. Life first evolved in the oceans when the CO2 levels on earth were the highest (more than 10 times current level) and thus the oceans would have been the most acidic back then.

The species that can adapt or make use of the extra CO2 will create more biomass and everything else will adapt around this.


Something else I've also been thinking about is that people/scientists tend to over-exaggerate a lot of things. Like say earth being exactly the right distance from the sun "goldilocks" to have liquid water and support life. However the distance actually varies from 146mill km to 152mill km each year and is closest in January and furthest in July. That's a 4% difference in distance and I haven't noticed the oceans boiling in January or freezing over in July. So the so-called "exactly the right distance" is not quite true. We could be 10% closer or further and still be fine with minor changes.

 

[Geoff.D]

From what I've seen, the concern about ocean acidification is that sea life might not be able to adapt fast enough. Not that acidification is bad for the planet. Life first evolved in the oceans when the CO2 levels on earth were the highest (more than 10 times current level) and thus the oceans would have been the most acidic back then.

The species that can adapt or make use of the extra CO2 will create more biomass and everything else will adapt around this.


Something else I've also been thinking about is that people/scientists tend to over-exaggerate a lot of things. Like say earth being exactly the right distance from the sun "goldilocks" to have liquid water and support life. However the distance actually varies from 146mill km to 152mill km each year and is closest in January and furthest in July. That's a 4% difference in distance and I haven't noticed the oceans boiling in January or freezing over in July. So the so-called "exactly the right distance" is not quite true. We could be 10% closer or further and still be fine with minor changes.

The Scientists and Science Fiction writer Isaac Asimov did an excellent job of putting these things into perspective in language that ordinary people could understand.
He wrote extensively about why the earth's position relative to the sun is so critical for life and gave the tolerances.
He also was probably the first one to try and put things together (all the sciences) and describe what drives our climate. He also described why a carbon-based life form was more likely to form than any other life form. (The next most likely candidate for being the basis of life is Silicon). He also postulated that carbon-based life ( which we are) would be the only life form to be able to synthesize a silicon-based life form (AI).

He did it in simple short stories with plenty of attention to detail when it came to getting the science correct.