Why can’t you share where you found that, let us read the full context.
How about it? Full citation please.
Not much of a haitus bro.
I’m going to bet either he provides nothing, or a long video with little or no facts
And you are sure that General Groves spoke with permission from authority?
It seems that the article is critical of the rogue general. Do you notice those things or do you seek out rare “incidents” that are unacceptable and have since been debunked?
Meanwhile, back to the reality of our global heat and moisture distribution engine that we depend on for everything we value, such as sustaining this planet that has nurtured us.
Does honesty matter in public dialogue?
How about good faith efforts?
How about the ability to accept and process new information?
Learning and growing, is that a good thing?
Again, good faith participation, how important is that?
Should hating taxes justify maliciously and tactically slandering serious scientists and their work?
What should one think of a society that can’t muster enough concerned citizens to proactively defend scientists and their efforts to inform the public, with the best available evidence, on a, frankly f’n existential, problem? Not that I should let a little something like the state of my children’s and grandchildren’s future matter to me on an emotional level. Then again, it does matters!
Remember science is the only realm where, dishonesty, lies, misrepresentation are actively ostracized, rather than blithe acceptance as business a usual (as has been society’s want for the past half century of me being a engaged observer). Just say’n. Back to the main show,
No one here said it doesn’t. The issue is civility. We are short on that. Democracy thrives on diversity, including diversity of opinion.
A post that lacks facts is an opportunity to provide facts, not a chance to attack the integrity of the poster.
What I see you doing @citizenschallengev4 is posting in a way that encourages more combative posting. The way you respond to a firehose of lies is to select one, address it thoroughly, and ask for a response, if none comes, point that out, if you get personal attacks and deflection instead of answers, point that out. At some point, point out that the person is not arguing in good faith, that nothing can be accomplished with them, and move on. At this forum, we have the power to ban bad actors.
What you indicate, by your actions, is that you want people to come here and give you a ton of anti-AGW memes, so you can return with your flood of links, data, logic, truth, and personal speeches. That’s not what this forum is for. There is a difference between providing reasonable information versus dumping it and repeating it because someone is obviously not reasonable and not interested in civil discourse. If you want to argue with unreasonable people, go to some other forum and find them. There are plenty out there. Destroying one member here with your massive database of truth will not alter the course of the AGW debate. More likely, it will attract people who want to argue for the sake of arguing.
It’s your citation. You quoted it into your post.
That’s why it is a quote from you in this interface.
You wrote it.
Worst of all we’ve already had the discussion.
simply search this thread for ‘progressively less effective’ and now with this post there will be six entries.
I don’t know what you think is so incoherent here.
Worse yet though it is stretching off topic and I’ve posted this elsewhere, but:
I assure you lausten that the incoherence is yours.
And it really wouldn’t surprise me if this site is running interference:
I can believe it was aerosols, but as to the source of the aerosols to ignore the military efforts that were well under way is, well, unbelievable. Based on the amnesia that you all portray I can surmise that there will be no record here. All that I can do is hold up my own authenticity, but as the propaganda of our nation has sunk to such lows as it is now, and I see that low hitting a high brow, I don’t really know what to believe. Please remember, it is not I who went OT here. Still, this does relate indirectly back to the hiatus discussion, which was brought up as a dodge by cc4 some way back. You might want to ignore the lowess on this one. 1945 is spot on.
I quoted the incoherency. What is “dip of the 40s”, what’s a “grand haitus”, the godzilla thing is just weird.
I’m not sure that is self-evident.
And outside of our little forum, that isn’t at all self-evidence, in fact the contrary seems to hold sway for quite a large portion of us.
But, I won’t belabor the point.
Civility is important, and expected from all sides. I agree and sorry I’m not always so good with civility when it comes to . . . (well I did say I won’t belabor the point)
1 Like
Yes, it’s clearly a “dogbone” thrown to the pack.
You’re missing the point.
I’m working under the assumption this is a good faith discussion. I asked you to produce the quote with the context around as an exercise - that is, for you to actually take the time to read the full context,
To absorb it for a moment,
and then for you to continue the discussion into what ever direction you want.
So would you care to try it?
Because it’s an important part of the discussion and not simply a mile marker to drive by and ignore.
8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
Climate change: evidence and causes
No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.
Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths.
CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands.
As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.
Page last updated: March 2020
timbandtech, it would be nice to know what you think of the above quote.
So we can at least know what we’re arguing about.
Okay I do know you like this “hiatus” idea a lot.
Do you understand that our climate is all about heat moving around?
Oscillations are a natural part of that. It is the cause of the warming trend of these oscillations which matter to us.
But Earth lives by the seasons and years and decades and centuries and beyond. Gotta look at the whole picture, especially since scientists have gotten to understand it so well, especially over the past half century.
We don’t always live in today, trust me the decades fly by plenty fast.
It matters.
“Hiatus” is a term that’s been used to brainwash the unfortunate, fluctuations happen.
Have you ever seen a river that’s straight, or ocean level that remains the same from one moment to the other? Oscillations permeate our Earth like a fractal.
We already had this discussion. The side bands are negligible. There is no statement here as to how much surface temperature will rise. You can see form the analysis that it is minimal. They are confessing the saturation claim is true while artificially falsifiying it. Yes: I am accusing the Royal Society of climate change propaganda.
We’re in August now, and there is hype out there about the heat. It’s an El Nino year as well. If 2023 doesn’t rise above 2016 then in simple terms we will be on a seven year hiatus. As to how long this needs to go on for before we consider saturation and negative feedbacks… is it possible that +1.0C is a new setpoint? Sure would be nice.
How do you know those bands are negligible.
I know that people who actually study this stuff point out that it may seem small, but it isn’t negligible, at all. But, it’s complicated, and simple assumptions, simply aren’t valid.
But, what do I know, okay, how about listening to a real physicist:
Of particular interest for your specific intellectual challenge:
Of course, there is also the proof is in the pudding way of looking at all the available information, for instance, this is what’s actually been recorded:
Jun 4, 2020
There has been a close correlation between changes in global temperature and the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 170 years. Here’s an animated history of temperature vs. carbon dioxide. Visit our website for more unbiased independent climate data and to support our research: http://berkeleyearth.org/
Happy learning.
1 Like
There is no 7 year hiatus.
Global Temperature
LATEST ANNUAL AVERAGE ANOMALY: … 2022…0.89 °C 1.6 °F
This graph shows the change in global surface temperature compared to the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. The year 2020 statistically tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). NASA’s analyses generally match independent analyses prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other institutions.
This was predictable. We are expericing a string of the hottest years, but because this one is not quite as hot as the record, that’s considered cooling. This type of talk will continue forever, after any number of fires, hurricanes, and disappearing islands. Ignoring facts and visible effects is what got us here. Waiting for everyone to agree it’s happening is not what will get us out of it.
I like to think that Tim is thinking about some to the information he’s been offered.
In a lab experiment side bands might seem negligible, in the real atmosphere other factors come into play, as explained in some of the articles shared earlier in this thread. Here’s another enlightening graph video that puts our situation into a realistic light.
Apr 30, 2020
This animation shows how the distribution of temperature anomalies on the Earth’s surface has shifted over the last 170 years. Since the first Earth Day, 50 years ago, the Earth has warmed about 0.9 °C (1.6 °F). Berkeley Earth is a source of reliable, independent, non-governmental, and unbiased scientific data and analysis of the highest quality. Please support our efforts. Learn more: http://berkeleyearth.org/
Don’t see no slowing down happening.
Incidentally, this Berkley Earth outfit started out as skeptical towards manmade global warming science and findings, once they had a chance to review all the evidence, they have became AGW believers.
As for Hydrological Cycle, check out the walloping southern California received, and this was a fast tropical storm, rather than full fledged hurricane, and it kept on moving north, none of this parking over the area for two, three days of torrential rains. But, still, it’s ugly, damages extensive, especially roadway, and I’m wondering how much damage to irrigation ditches and gates and farm lands .
Lausten, it’s heading your way, what are temperatures like up in the mountains? Will the glaciers be receiving rain or snow? Let us know about it. Good luck.
Happy to take a beating here. It’s just that as I try to dig into these issues there is evidence of politicization. There is evidence that the saturation claims are accurate. They get countered by a vague claim of amplification, which then induces clouds, which are known to be the primary controller of weather.
As I interpret some of the works, it is as if they are getting heat form nowhere. This is one way to explain ‘amplification’. I believe we should be open to some breakthrough in the modeling. Sometimes backing out away from the embedded position is helpful. For instance some pretty basic assumptions are made about the Earth as a black body radiator as regards the spectroscopic analysis.
While attempting to get a grip on these details it becomes apparent that we are not going to become climate scientists on this forum. We can try, and I think we should try to deepen our understanding, and as I have done so on the saturation issue I find it is corroborated by the likes of Schmidt at NASA, who is considered mainstream. As to characterizing the ‘amplification’ effect and how much additional radiation is coming from those sidebands: I do not see anybody really exposing these details very well.
I believe there is actually a scientific tension now between WAW and Schmidt, let’s say, to keep the names simple. One has done a tremendous amount of physics to arrive at some answers which do not require cell based modeling of weather systems and the entire Earth, really. This would be WAW, or Willian A. Wijngaarden, to be more precise.
Here in central NH we’ve had the coolest August I can remember. I normally think of August as hot and humid; particularly early in the month. Maybe just two hot days. Meanwhile the central U$ is locked in a heatwave that won’t budge. The earlier predictions of weather patterns lengthening from two weeks to four week have literally halted this year. As to whose model predicts a complete halt to jetstream dynamics; did they write it out of their code because it looked wrong? That’s a lost prize, I’m afraid, sir.
If 2016 was a peak, and it already was, if we believe the data anyways, could it stay a peak for a while longer? How much longer? That this is an El Nino year is supposed to be relevant as I understand it, but it shouldn’t be too overarchingly declared, apparently. If this year doesn’t break the 2016 record, then maybe next year will. But what if saturation is true, the sidebands are negligible, and we do reach negative feedback? Isn’t this a possibility?
Then too, the accusatory finger and the statement: “That’s not climate change; that’s weather!”
And what to the computationally intensive climate change models do but break it down into as many cells as possible and integrate the result?
It’s a lovely subject and I am concerned, but I have learned now to tread more carefully, and rather than act as one in a herd, though my social animal instincts do naturally lead me that way, I am happy to take the black sheep position here and be your whipping boy. If 2023 exceeds 2016 then will you really have something? It feels more and more like we are sitting in a casino gambling. As to who is hoaxing who: it is possible to expose such things. That the dynamic could be of a stampede rather than a high form of truth: this seems to be the human way. Where we all ought to land is in the problem as open; a more modest position ultimately than the stampeding madman approach.
Here is a model of causes.
WORLD POPULATION
8,055,735,853 Current World Population
85,505,325 Births this year
169,895 Births today
38,690,256 Deaths this year
76,876 Deaths today
46,815,069 Net population growth this year
93,019 Net population growth today
GOVERNMENT & ECONOMICS
$ 7,697,975,614 Public Healthcare expenditure [today]
$ 5,145,310,557 Public Education expenditure [today]
$ 2,194,204,861 Public Military expenditure [today]
54,408,384 Cars produced [this year]
99,690,496Bicycles produced [this year]
149,913,413 Computers produced [this year]
SOCIETY & MEDIA
1,775,065 New book titles published [this year]
213,658,193 Newspapers circulated [today]
311,298 TV sets sold worldwide [today]
3,425,451 Cellular phones sold [today]
$ 147,813,608 Money spent on videogames [today]
5,837,909,099 Internet users in the world today
137,129,863,375 Emails sent [today])
4,579,095 Blog posts written [today]
427,824,421 Tweets sent [today]
4,662,801,081 Google searches [today]
ENVIRONMENT
3,311,373 Forest loss [this year] (hectares)
4,458,004 Land lost to soil erosion [this year] (ha)
23,274,793,382 CO2 emissions this year]
7,640,859 Desertification [this year] (hectares)
6,235,182 Toxic chemicals released in the environment [this year] (tons)
FOOD
872,117,876 Undernourished people in the world
1,748,765,744 Overweight people in the world
842,198,790 Obese people in the world
14,149 People who died of hunger [today]
$ 300,444,523 Money spent for obesity related diseases in the USA [today]
$ 87,461,243 Money spent on weight loss programs in the USA [today]
WATER
2,919,701,267 Water used [this year] (million L)
536,165 Deaths caused by water related diseases [this year]
770,531,594 People with no access to a safe drinking water source
ENERGY
215,939,893 Energy used today (MWh), of which:
183,820,231 - from non-renewable sources (MWh)
32,518,665 - from renewable sources (MWh)
1,353,090,104,096 Solar energy striking Earth [today] (MWh)
44,289,224 Oil pumped today (barrels)
1,394,355,579,630 Oil left (barrels)
14,541 Days to the end of oil (~40 years)
1,073,244,750,125 Natural Gas left (boe)
56,487 Days to the end of natural gas
4,281,973,800,191 Coal left (boe)
147,654 Days to the end of coal
HEALTH
8,265,381 Communicable disease deaths [this year]
320,849 Seasonal flu deaths [this year]
4,839,545 Deaths of children under 5 [this year]
28,421,691 Abortions [this year]
196,795 Deaths of mothers during birth [this year]
44,801,111 HIV/AIDS infected people
1,070,323 Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS [this year]
5,229,118 Deaths caused by cancer [this year]
251,074 Deaths caused by malaria [this year]
7,003,044,054 Cigarettes smoked [today]
3,182,854 Deaths caused by smoking [this year]
1,592,431Deaths caused by alcohol [this year]
682,757 Suicides [this year]
$ 254,708,674,962 Money spent on illegal drugs [this year]
859,471 Road traffic accident fatalities [this year]
Share This! https://www.worldometers.info/
Indeed,
The politicization is rooted in one bedrock issue, has been from the beginning.
What’s more important, low taxes, or honestly learning about climate science?
The argument is, “I don’t care about no facts, I demand lower taxes damn all else.”
Do you actually read scientific studies?
What works are you interpreting?
Perhaps more important, what are your qualifications for judging the work of teams worth of life long experts?
