I'll agree with this, I am not that smart. Even so, pretty much any available metric puts me way above the vast majority of people.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Global Warming - It's Our Fault
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
I'll agree with this, I am not that smart. Even so, pretty much any available metric puts me way above the vast majority of people.
Feel free to. And please point out where these two posts are contradictory? I already know I'm an ass. I don't need you to tell me that. One thing I generally am not guilty of is acting like I am above someone else, or smarter than them because I believe differently than they do. Hell, Jimmy M. barely talks to me anymore, but I bet he would even concede that point.
I understand that a bunch of you believe pretty much all energy companies are evil and all natural resources are harmful to the environment. I do not believe that. The difference is you never heard me compare you to a flat earther or suggest we all marginalize you and your kind one by one.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I thought even Oklahoma had stopped using marginalization as capital punishment by now. Are we still such animals?
My point was that the vast majority of humans are arrogant and stupid. Myself included.
Same.
Well...your band has a great set-list, so you can't be ALL bad.
So, to throw your quote back at you, "shut up and play yer bass"
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Science has a conspiratorial bias that goes through all the different levels from geology up through space started centuries ago, and kept silent despite the many thousands of people who studied hard and believe in the stated function.
Occham's razor would certainly agree that's a much more reasonable answer than businessmen building cynicism about the data because they feel it's dangerous to their bottom line.
That's an excellent summation of what I've been getting at, all along.
As I've said, the IPCC reports contain excellent science when it comes to calculating climate sensitivity using the direct radiative forcing input variables, which are (as you've said) fairly well understood, along with scientifically tenable assumptions regarding the more important feedback processes. A range of about 1 C to 3 C for ECS is what they come up with using this general method and the bulk of the report is dedicated to it. I'm taking them at their word.
Yet, the IPCC alternatively considers the less well understood feedback processes, such as "transfer of heat between ocean and atmos" - as you noted, but also the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is understood conceptually but is exceedingly difficult to put a number on.
The computer models rely crucially on these input variables and there is simply no practical way to model them. Consider that water vapor in the atmosphere is a positive feedback (warming) when it occurs as humidity. But when water vapor manifests as clouds, it becomes a very large negative feedback (cooling) - but only in the daytime. At night, clouds then become a positive feedback.
A similarly problematic feedback variable is the rate at which CO2 is taken up by oceans and the rate at which it gives it back up. This also is well understood conceptually yet is exceedingly difficult to put a number on and it has a huge affect on the output of the computer models.
The solution the IPCC employs is to use all reasonable assumptions regarding input variables that lie within the margin of error and run multitudes of simulations using the entire range. Unfortunately, this results in ECS calculations that range from a low of 0 (zero)C warming - or even actual net cooling - to absurdly high warming of 15 C - or even higher in some models. This is obviously useless to anyone unless there is a way to calibrate the computer models and constrain the results to reasonable numbers.
The method employed is actually relatively simple. The IPCC:
1) uses the paleo-climate proxy data from the past millennium to determine a normal baseline temperature
2) uses the measured data from the 20th century to determine how much the climate has warmed above the baseline
3) assumes that the entirety of the warming is man-made and no natural causes had any significant effect
4) correlates the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 with the increase in temperature
5) uses this relationship to assume a virtual ECS (a range from about 1.5 C to 4.5 C, with a median of 3 C)
6) finally uses this result as a benchmark to determine which computer models to accept and which to reject. Those that give results outside of this range are rejected and those that give results within this range are accepted.
So which numbers do they go with for ECS? The 1 C to 3 C result as calculated using the well understood and quantifiable processes? Or the 1.5 C to 4.5 C result from computer models using assumptions based on poorly understood and virtually impossible to quantify feedback effects? They go with the second option. And the reason the authors give is that it's better to err on the side of being too pessimistic because the consequences for possibly underestimating the magnitude of the crisis would cause people to not take the issue seriously enough. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
You assume everyone is an unethical type of businessperson whose sole focus is short sighted selfish profit. That's a sad and more importantly inaccurate view of the world.
Sunspot activity correlates to more than TSI. It is directly related to the sun's magnetosphere and this directly affects the Earth's magnetosphere. This is independent of TSI and the relationship has held throughout the 20th century. [Will cite source from NASA when the U.S. government starts working again and the site comes back up]
An unknown mechanism is not the same as no mechanism. The Earth's magnetosphere undergoes significant changes during times of high sunspot numbers and it appears that energy is being transferred to the Earth's atmosphere by some unknown mechanism via these changes . . . independently of TSI.
Actually, they have been considered. Atmospheric methane is an important greenhouse gas and animal flatulence is a large source of this compound. The IPCC considers the effect of raising cattle, sheep, pigs and other mammals for the meat industry as a factor in global warming. The report attempts to calculate the amount of extra methane in the atmosphere due to domestic animal farming, as compared to the natural supply of animal farts.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
But it's true! 
