All Things Environment

[RedFromMI]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

Ah, timescale. Things only happen now at a rapid pace.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120605.htm

2.5m/century sea level rise. Why didn’t the smart ones back then tell everyone to tone down their campfires?

Let’s start with having Chemours keeping GenX out of our water supply.

If the seas are rising so fast (they're not, but so what, I'll play), how come we can't desalinate a s-ton of that liquid and put the fires out in California....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

You should be able to figure this one out by yourself - but dropping water is a pretty minor part of forest fire fighting practice. Slight problem of getting enough to the right places... Far bigger than getting the water.

[cradleandshoot]

You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.
Do these fit the bill that Dr Spencer is a real scientist? 30 reviewed papers ain't too shabby for a hack like him.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/yes ... apers-too/

Yes, I'd call Dr. Spencer a scientist. Not necessarily an excellent scientist, but at least he's engaged in the exercise. He does do peer-review articles from time to time, albeit he has a tendency to greatly exaggerate the conclusions and importance of his actual work. Very little of it actually refutes or seriously calls into question the massive amount of other data and science, and he's had some interesting tendencies to be sloppy in his own data.

Do I hold some of his "intelligent design" pronouncements against him? Well, other than like the climate change blog and interviews, these views are mostly opinion and/or belief than any sort of actual science. He definitely has a tendency to want to be on the very edge of hyper-contrarian.

However, I think that's actually a quite positive thing to have 'contrarians' in the science world.

It's very important that orthodoxy is challenged.
However, it does need to be more than conjecture and the data does need to support whatever hypotheses are put forward as alternatives.

His actual 'science' is not particularly compelling.

If you read the link you would have noticed that most of Dr Spencer's peer reviewed papers were co-authored with other scientists. These are not just his own opinions . They involve quite a bit of research done with other scientists. Everybody on this forum believes Dr Spencer to be a quack, or worse yet... fudging his data. If that is true then some one here prove it. I respect him because he lets his research speak for itself. At the end of each blog the eggheads debate what he just wrote about. None of the folks there that disagree with him have ever accused him of lying. They debate substance and argue the fine points. Great stuff. I dont understand a lot of it but I love the debate.

[jhu72]

Most of Spencer's papers don't deny or refute AGW. Also not all of them appear in peer reviewed journals. This has been noted in the past.

[MDlaxfan76]

Most of Spencer's papers don't deny or refute AGW. Also not all of them appear in peer reviewed journals. This has been noted in the past.

Exactly. This stuff that he does publish is indeed 'science'.

It's the unsupported contentions in his non-peer reviewed 'work' that represent issues.

Glad you enjoy reading it, though, cradle.

[runrussellrun]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

[RedFromMI]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

Joe Rogan says otherwise

[jhu72]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

When deniers can demonstrate a "coupling mechanism" between magnetic fields and the atmosphere, apart from atomic fine level splitting have them get back to you.

[runrussellrun]

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

PROBABLY......... PROBABLY


whats with these future tense words used by believers. And, suddenly, "little" changes aint' a big thing.....like the sea rising a few millimeters.

[runrussellrun]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

Joe Rogan says otherwise

Have you seen Rogan's guest list? Watched his interviews ? (or listened ) Driving to Maryland for some hunting (Sitka ) be listening to some podcasts.

He had ED Snowed Inn for an interview. ANderson Coooper? Exactly

Get OFF the networks.....such a waste of time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Not talking wobbles .........talking actual shifting of the poles (over a thousand miles in the last 100 years. )

Appreciate the normal response.

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

Joe Rogan says otherwise

Have you seen Rogan's guest list? Watched his interviews ? (or listened ) Driving to Maryland for some hunting (Sitka ) be listening to some podcasts.

He had ED Snowed Inn for an interview. ANderson Coooper? Exactly

Get OFF the networks.....such a waste of time.

Giving you a hard time. Joe isn’t a nut job. If I am driving to Maryland, it’s all jazz.

[jhu72]

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

PROBABLY......... PROBABLY


whats with these future tense words used by believers. And, suddenly, "little" changes aint' a big thing.....like the sea rising a few millimeters.

So explain exactly how the Zeeman effect (the effect of a magnetic field on atoms) macroscopically changes anything in the atmosphere. Unless you have some magic and fairy dust explanation for the interaction of a magnetic field and the atmosphere.

[ABV 8.3%]

Then you are referring to the magnetic pole shift. Probably very little change in weather for such a shift - the effects of the magnetic poles on the weather are fairly small. And still to slow to account for any of the recent climate shifts...

PROBABLY......... PROBABLY


whats with these future tense words used by believers. And, suddenly, "little" changes aint' a big thing.....like the sea rising a few millimeters.

So explain exactly how the Zeeman effect (the effect of a magnetic field on atoms) macroscopically changes anything in the atmosphere. Unless you have some magic and fairy dust explanation for the interaction of a magnetic field and the atmosphere.

Zeitgeist effect more like it...... what is it with vacuums with you? Static energy....exists where ? But, to play along........without dihydrogen monoxide and it's dipole moment.......STRONG bonds.........life may not exist on earth. (apprently "bothered" by Zeemans observations )
\
earth's magnetic field repel solar radiation....at all?

[RedFromMI]

earth's magnetic field repel solar radiation....at all?

No. Not the light anyway.

The only interaction between the Earth's magnetic field and the Sun is basically through the interactions between the magnetic field and the solar wind, which is a mixture of electrons and ions escaping the solar plasma in the corona and heading out into space in all directions.

The solar wind flux (amount) is connected to surface activity on the Sun which are generally connected to the magnetism of the Sun. Scientists have found a very weak correlation between the average Earth temperature and the peaks/valleys in the sunspot cycle. Sunspots when more frequent create a higher solar wind flux from what I remember.

Most of the incoming solar wind to Earth is corralled by the Earth's magnetosphere - but some fraction reaches the Earth primarily near the magnetic poles - the well-known aurora phenomena.

(really weird side note - a scientist with whom I shared a research grant years ago was the son of the astronaut who actually took the first pictures in space of the aurora)

There has been a significant amount of speculation connecting the Maunder Minimum (a period of very low solar activity, including sunspots between 1650 and 1715) to the Little Ice Age (really over a much longer time period of 1440 to 1920), but the solar activity part is not the largest effect (from J. Space Weather Space Clim. 2017, 7, A33):

The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations
Mathew J. Owens, Mike Lockwood, Ed Hawkins, Ilya Usoskin, Gareth S. Jones, Luke Barnard, Andrew Schurer and John Fasullo

Abstract

The Maunder minimum (MM) was a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715. In the solar physics literature, the MM is sometimes associated with a period of cooler global temperatures, referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA), and thus taken as compelling evidence of a large, direct solar influence on climate. In this study, we bring together existing simulation and observational studies, particularly the most recent solar activity and paleoclimate reconstructions, to examine this relation. Using northern hemisphere surface air temperature reconstructions, the LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480 year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

[jhu72]

fatty,

This has been studied. The effect of ionizing radiation (charged particles) follows the solar cycle - as expected. The magnitude is buried by the climate change signal, in short is doesn't cause climate change. Effects of charged particle radiation on global temperatures.

You are proposing a mechanism (ionizing particle radiation) to cause climate change that concentrates on a small fraction of the sun's energy spectrum. Visible, IR and UV light is where the energy is contained; not particle radiation. So I ask again, what effect does a magnetic field have on the absorption of these electromagnetic wavelengths. The Zeeman effect; unless you have some other "magic beans".

Don't waste your time with neutrinos either.

[ABV 8.3%]

It's interesting stuff........and while you and others may see "insignifigance" in your observations, others ,not so much.

Gordie Howe dissects a little taste of this complecated subject. Sounds like you two would be fine if the welfare system CUT off funding to "butterfly effect" , fractals or chaos theory research.

Minimal effects and all

[jhu72]

Magische Bohnen!

[RedFromMI]

It's interesting stuff........and while you and others may see "insignifigance" in your observations, others ,not so much.

Gordie Howe dissects a little taste of this complecated subject. Sounds like you two would be fine if the welfare system CUT off funding to "butterfly effect" , fractals or chaos theory research.

Minimal effects and all

Au contraire - those are quite valid endeavors. However - they have little to do with climate. Maybe much more with specific weather - like exactly where will it rain today and for which times.

But not so much for climate - which is connected much more to averages and how big the deviations are from those averages.

[ABV 8.3%]

It's interesting stuff........and while you and others may see "insignifigance" in your observations, others ,not so much.

Gordie Howe dissects a little taste of this complecated subject. Sounds like you two would be fine if the welfare system CUT off funding to "butterfly effect" , fractals or chaos theory research.

Minimal effects and all

Au contraire - those are quite valid endeavors. However - they have little to do with climate. Maybe much more with specific weather - like exactly where will it rain today and for which times.

But not so much for climate - which is connected much more to averages and how big the deviations are from those averages.

....so, we won't find ONE climate warming model that uses fractals, chaos or any other type of "butterfly" effect math

[RedFromMI]

It's interesting stuff........and while you and others may see "insignifigance" in your observations, others ,not so much.

Gordie Howe dissects a little taste of this complecated subject. Sounds like you two would be fine if the welfare system CUT off funding to "butterfly effect" , fractals or chaos theory research.

Minimal effects and all

Au contraire - those are quite valid endeavors. However - they have little to do with climate. Maybe much more with specific weather - like exactly where will it rain today and for which times.

But not so much for climate - which is connected much more to averages and how big the deviations are from those averages.

....so, we won't find ONE climate warming model that uses fractals, chaos or any other type of "butterfly" effect math

How about a more detailed answer from Quora where the following question was asked:

Does the Butterfly Effect pose a challenge to climate change predictions?

Roger Fjellstad Olsen
Roger Fjellstad Olsen, Knows the peer reviewed climate science.

Updated Aug 31, 2018 · Author has 1.5k answers and 867.5k answer views

The Butterfly Effect is not related to climate change predictions, but with weather, which is chaotic. A number of unpredictable influences such as ocean and solar cycles have short-term influences on climate. Over the long term, these effects average out, which is why climate models do so well at long-term predictions.

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time.

Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time. When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.

Climate can be thought of as average weather, including weather’s variability over long time periods. Natural changes in climate happen over the course of decades, centuries and many millennia. Global Circulation Models (GCM) are able to account for the many factors that influence climate over long periods, such as changes in the sun’s energy and the level of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. These models tell us what the average weather is likely to be but are not able to identify specific weather events.

Or to clearify:

Climate models don't "predict." They project what will happen given a set of initial conditions. And they have done that very well.

Part of the problem here stems from people either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting how predictive models work. Many people have the unrealistic expectation that the observed data need to be a near perfect match for the prediction line, but that’s not actually how things work.

Some are still "under the mistaken impression that concern about global warming is based on climate models, which in reality play little role in our understanding -- our understanding is based mainly on how the Earth responded to changes of boundary conditions in the past and on how it is responding to on-going changes."- Dr. James Hansen

Some people argue that climate models are unreliable if they don't make perfect short-term predictions. However, a number of unpredictable influences such as ocean and solar cycles have short-term influences on climate. Over the long term, these effects average out, which is why climate models do so well at long-term predictions.