Skeptics Safe Haven- Free Speech

By: zampaz , 2:51 PM GMT on July 11, 2013

Share this Blog
2
+

I've created this blog where people can safely discuss doubts about climate change being man made.
I'll try to answer questions about science directed towards me if I can, but I won't argue.

Is climate change really happening?
If the climate is changing and it's not caused by increasing CO2 levels what is your favorite reason that explains the cause?
There are lots of theories.

We share the same planet, we need to talk about what is happening and skepticism deserves a voice that can be heard even if it opposes a scientific consensus.

I want to get to know you, where you are from, what the weather is like in your area, do you have unusual weather where you live?

All comments are welcome on any of my blog posts.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 9 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

9. zampaz
12:48 AM GMT on July 27, 2013
Thank you for your post Snowlover!
"What I disagree with is how much of the warming is human caused. There is a significant solar effect that has been observed in many, many proxies, and with solar activity increasing dramatically over the last 100 years, it makes sense for at least some of the warming to be laid at the fault of the sun."
Please expand upon this!
I try to keep things very simple.

Again, while I hold the consensus in high regard there is always room for thoughtful speculation with regard to what we are observing and what the future holds.

While we should take action based upon what the current consensus is telling us...action is antithetical to the desires of those corporations with vast wealth and power and bad science is pushed by the same industries that denied the harmful effects of tobacco. Congress and the Administration cut science and NASA budgets across the board as scientists crave more data about our planet and solar system.

Unfortunately speculation that goes against the consensus is typically labeled as misinformation purveyed by big energy industry. In some cases, but not ALL cases, this is justified.

Hard ideological lines are drawn in the sand and even creative speculation just for fun is measured against these lines.
But there is room for fun in learning about diverse ideas.

As I mentioned elsewhere;
"I think there is room for plenty of discussion...for example; is it possible that increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere could possibly lead to cooling due to increased conduction and re-radiation of heat?
What if deep oceans were actually cooling and warming of oceans surface is a result of conduction?
Regardless it's fun to speculate and to hear alternatives.

I respect consensus, but I also respect there is always room for speculative hypothesis and imaginative ideas.

The only limit to science is hard data and rational imagination and even data is subject to revision based upon evolution of physics. Physics is always subject to skeptical debate and fun postulation:)."

Dr. Rood's blog is good for debating and debunking...
Here speculation free from ideology is welcome...and while debunked science may deserve a tut tut, this is not the place to criticize honest skepticism.

Our models are crude, lacking data and maturity, and while some criticize the models they fail to take into account that 50 years ago we didn't have pocket calculators and were just getting into space.

Atmospheric physics and the understanding of our planet in terms of modeling is immature. Likewise modeling of the sun's natural cycles is immature. We understand our planet's orbit quite well.
The physics of our orbit, including the relativistic effects of space, relative velocities and mass is trivial to the point where we can accurately target a small landing area on Mars.

We understand the overall physics of the energy balance of our planet but lack enough measurements and funding to make detailed atmospheric physics models quickly.

Snowlover, I'm interested in Solar input and proxies you mentioned.

Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
8. Snowlover123
1:31 AM GMT on July 25, 2013
I agree that it has warmed 0.7 Degrees C. I agree that Anthropogenic influences have played some role. I agree that Greenhouse gases have increased, and this increase is likely caused by Human Activity. I also agree that we should get a 1.1 Degree C doubling of CO2 without any feedbacks. What I disagree with is how much of the warming is human caused. There is a significant solar effect that has been observed in many, many proxies, and with solar activity increasing dramatically over the last 100 years, it makes sense for at least some of the warming to be laid at the fault of the sun. This also means that it takes a larger forcing to cause the warming we've seen, implying a less sensitive climate system.

In addition, there is this paragraph from the IPCC's section on Feedbacks in GCMs:

This is from the IPCC section 8.6.2.3:

"Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (%uFFFF1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9%uFFFFC %uFFFF 0.15%uFFFFC (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2%uFFFFC %uFFFF 0.7%uFFFFC) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude. "

This means that without any influence from the Cloud Feedback, we should expect a Climate Sensitivity of 1.9 Degrees C. This would mean that we should expect a little over a Degree C of future warming, which would not be too much of a problem. If the Cloud Feedback is negative, then we can get a sensitivity below 1.9 Degrees C. There is some observational evidence supporting Negative Cloud Feedback.

Because High Clouds overall warm the Earth, and Low Clouds overall cool the Earth, a decrease in Cloud Height in response to rising temperatures means that this would be a negative feedback. This is exactly what has been observed by Davies and Molloy 2012.

They write in the conclusions:

"If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a
significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature
."



This means that the Cloud Feedback is negative, at least with the Cloud Height, and it attenuates Global Warming. Thus, the 1.9 Degree C sensitivity is likely lower. How much lower, is up for grabs.

The decadal variability observed over the 20th Century is likely due to the PDO/AMO amplifying and attenuating the long term Global Warming signal on a multidecadal timeframe.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
7. zampaz
8:01 AM GMT on July 17, 2013
Quoting 5. JustDucky251:

894. zampaz 11:51 PM GMT on July 16, 2013 +0
Quoting 846. JustDucky251:


I suspect our understanding of all the various transfer mechanisms.

Yes, and storage as well.
I have a blog perfect for speculation....you would be most welcome there.
Skeptics Safe Haven- Free Speech
Skeptics don't seem to want to drop by, so it's a great place to speculate wildly without getting caught, and without upsetting Tropics bloggers who would rather not confront the realities that climate change implies.
Drop on by...let me know though via WU Mail as I don't check this blog but about every other day.

I posted on WU and am, as suggested, posting here as well.

The issues with Global warming are not as simplistic as some would think. There are many ways to both heat and cool the atmosphere. Fortunately for life, the oceans do not let the atmospheric variations get too wild. Since 80% of the heat stored on the surface (including atmosphere and water bodies) resides in the oceans, not much drastic will happen in a short term. There are various self regulating mechanisms which will eventually slow the heating. It will however get warm enough probably to raise the sea level a good bit. Since geopolitical economics will preclude anything serious being done until the melting is well along, the best thing to do is prepare for it. There are a number of practical things we can do that will avoid undue expense which I will expound upon at a later post.

Looking forward to it, thanks for dropping by JustDucky251!
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
6. zampaz
7:40 AM GMT on July 17, 2013
Quoting 4. galvestonhurricane:
"This is a place where people are free to discuss their doubts, skepticism and opinions regarding climate change and it's causes without feeling threatened or put down."

I don't think I believe you. I'm not interested in sharing my opinions with someone who is condescending and arrogant.

Well alrighty then, can't argue with that. I'm glad we agree!
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
5. JustDucky251
3:57 AM GMT on July 17, 2013

894. zampaz 11:51 PM GMT on July 16, 2013 +0
Quoting 846. JustDucky251:


I suspect our understanding of all the various transfer mechanisms.

Yes, and storage as well.
I have a blog perfect for speculation....you would be most welcome there.
Skeptics Safe Haven- Free Speech
Skeptics don't seem to want to drop by, so it's a great place to speculate wildly without getting caught, and without upsetting Tropics bloggers who would rather not confront the realities that climate change implies.
Drop on by...let me know though via WU Mail as I don't check this blog but about every other day.

I posted on WU and am, as suggested, posting here as well.

The issues with Global warming are not as simplistic as some would think. There are many ways to both heat and cool the atmosphere. Fortunately for life, the oceans do not let the atmospheric variations get too wild. Since 80% of the heat stored on the surface (including atmosphere and water bodies) resides in the oceans, not much drastic will happen in a short term. There are various self regulating mechanisms which will eventually slow the heating. It will however get warm enough probably to raise the sea level a good bit. Since geopolitical economics will preclude anything serious being done until the melting is well along, the best thing to do is prepare for it. There are a number of practical things we can do that will avoid undue expense which I will expound upon at a later post.
Member Since: May 13, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 45
4. galvestonhurricane
3:25 AM GMT on July 17, 2013
"This is a place where people are free to discuss their doubts, skepticism and opinions regarding climate change and it's causes without feeling threatened or put down."

I don't think I believe you. I'm not interested in sharing my opinions with someone who is condescending and arrogant.
Member Since: June 18, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 530
2. zampaz
4:46 PM GMT on July 11, 2013
Quoting 1. FLwolverine:
(snip)
I am sorry for your loss. Although I have not suffered such a loss, I have spent many years dealing with depression, sometimes very deep depression. I hope it helps you to have friends here.

Thank you for your thoughts and sharing about yourself FLwolverine.
W/R to debate, this really isn't a place to debate climate science, Dr. Rood's blog already does that.

There is doubt in the minds of many regarding climate change, about half of the American public as I recall.
This is a place where people are free to discuss their doubts, skepticism and opinions regarding climate change and it's causes without feeling threatened or put down.

I hope to share and communicate with people personally as you have shared personally with me.
I'm sad to hear you're personally familiar with deep depression FLWolverine. So we learn about each other's feelings by gently sharing what we have in common and that is a good basis for communication.
Can we work together to provide a warm supportive environment where people don't feel threatened when expressing their doubts and legitimate concerns?
I hope so.



Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
1. FLwolverine
3:49 PM GMT on July 11, 2013
I'm really tired of arguing on Wunderyazuka's blog, so I've excused myself and will respond to your post over here.

I cannot consider the public discussion of climate change as a debate. In a debate, there is a proposition and each side supports it or attacks it, with evidence. What do the challengers to CC/AGW have? Lies, distortions, biased publications and web-sites, arguments that "god won't let this happen", "man is too puny to have any influence", "it's all a plot for the liberals/UN/Jews/government to destroy the economy/take over the world/tke way our freedoms.

You are right about trying to educate, but you might as well "debate" about creationism.

I do not think we should talk about "debating" climate change on WU. Skye could just as easily say "we allow all viewpoints on climate change on WU" and not leave the impression that there is actually some debate.

I am sorry for your loss. Although I have not suffered such a loss, I have spent many years dealing with depression, sometimes very deep depression. I hope it helps you to have friends here.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2371

Viewing: 9 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About zampaz

My name is Sean, I'm 54 and live in Winchester VA. I'm a former Scientist, Engineer, Database Architect and Project Manager. Learning to write sci-fi

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
77 °F
Mostly Cloudy