AGW Theory - Discussion

Have you prepared any tax returns using factual data?

Every single one of my tax returns I prepared over the years have factual data.

If the information given to you is incorrect and you know it's incorrect, you find out what the correct information is. It's that simple.

Uh, sure you do. It's called a sensitivity analysis. It's actually the entire point.
Sure you can. What you can't do is obscure the fact. You need to make clear what exactly it is that you have done. That's why providing the data and methodology is such an important basis.
There's a difference between unconditional acceptance, knowledgeable practice, acceptance of authority, and unconditional non-acceptance. There are problems with either extreme (of either kind).
No, it seems to come down to a very politicized issue where people have a concept of absolutes which doesn't exist. Absolutes don't exist in science. You won't get an absolute dataset. You won't get an absolute match between equations and reality. You get a damn good model/approximation, which is far better than anything you had before, and you chase down the error factors to figure out why it deviates.

If you want absolutes, go see religion.

And if you don't know that is incorrect?
How do you determine if that data is incorrect?

It's still garbage data. How come you are so adamant in using made up numbers that are used to push an agenda? Why can't you just use the original numbers that should not have been altered at all?

You are condoning junk science.

With 1099-Bs, it's very easy to determine what the actual amounts should be, as everything in the statement foots to the actual 1099-B. I'm guessing you never seen one in your life. It's the tax form you receive when you buy or sell securities (aka stocks and bonds).

1099-INT and 1099-DIVs are generally the same. So are W-2s, 1099-MISC, 1099-R, and most other tax forms.

The inconsistencies usually lies with K-1s, and those are prepared by other firms. You shouldn't have Box 5a lower than Box 5b on a K-1 (1120S Version) or Box 6a vs. Box 6b on the 1065 version.

Or have higher qualified dividends on a 1099-DIV than ordinary.

It's obvious stuff like that that you question. And in today's recordkeeping world, it's very easy to find the correct information.

tl:dr version - There's a statement for that.

No, because sampling errors happen all the time.
Let's not go into the more obscure single event upset errors/radiation errors/alpha decay bit flips.
Let's look into a slightly less obscure event, like the sampling site picking up intermittent EM from a welding shop down the way.
Let's look into something even less obscure, like electromagnetic pulses from electromechanical relays in the proximity impacting an analog to digital converter.
Or the effects of voltage ripple and voltage regulation tolerances with regards to the aging of capacitors (which should be taken into account with regular calibration, and shouldn't be relevant here).

There are an incredible amount of potential errors depending on the sensing system and potential failures.

There are known and accepted ways of handing these errors. This isn't junk science.

Junk science would be to substitute your own numbers, without acknowledging when, why, and where substitutions occurred.

This is why you hear people harping on about providing the methodology. Data sanitization and handling is part of the methodology. Without having that, you can't reproduce results, which means that any kind of work is utterly worthless.

So what do you do if someone claims their income is higher than what is listed in the statements available to you?

The type of data corrections being talked about aren't unique to climate science. Perfect data sets are a luxury in practice and when the data sets become larger and larger, such as a global temperature record, there WILL be issues that need correction.

There's nothing shady about the process. The methods for temperature data processing are publically available (NOAA) and have been thoroughly reviewed. If you don't want to be treated like an idiot then at least try to understand these fundamental concepts.

What do you think?

Wouldn't those issues stem from the method of recordkeeping and need to be addressed there? Still doesn't give climate scientists the excuse to make ***up.

If you don't want to be treated like a zealot, you should question things like "What can we do to improve the methodology of recordkeeping where the error ratio is near zero?" and "Why are we using made up numbers again that have no basis to reality?"

Keep praying that those next batch of numbers come close, I'm sure your God (Al Gore) will listen.

This is questionable at best, dishonest at worst.

Total ice in the Antarctic is actually growing not shrinking. What's happening is the ice is moving from one side to the other as our climate goes through it's natural cycles. Ice in one area thins out while ice in another thickens. Remember there was a time when the world was cold enough for ancient people to cross over from Asia into North America, did their burning of fossil fuels cause that ice to vanish?

Much of AGW theory rests on hypothesis's that have very little evidence other then a hand waiving "trust me on this". That works fine for doing theoretical work, when your just working on possibilities and ideas. It's even ok when your asking for money and trying to conduct additional research. It's most certainly not ok when your attempting to use it as a reason to establish global carbon taxes and take control of economies.

Someone asked what it would take for me to regain my trust in the climate establishment. First and foremost is complete transparency, everything gets published in the open for anyone and everyone to see. Not just the briefs but the entire research documentation including every bit of data that was discarded or altered. The altered data must include the original raw data prior to alteration along with the method that was used with the explanation of precisely why it was used. All attacks from the climate establishment on non-supporters cease's immediately, no more black balling, no more ostracizing, no more targeting of funds and there needs to be similar funding made available to research alternative theory's then "CO2 is responsible". This needs to happen for a period of no less then ten years with any attempt by the climate established to obfuscate their research or manipulate perception of their findings constituting a breach of trust.

None of that is happening right now, tons of money is being given for climate research that only supports the theory with little to none being given for research into alternative theories. Anytime someone questions the hand waiving and "just trust us" mentality they are viciously attacked, both in public and in their professional life. These attacks aren't from some rogue extremist on a holy crusade but from the climate establishment / lobby themselves and amount to censorship or coercion.

Still have not seen anything even close to an accurate prediction of the climate.

Still have not seen any evidence of a model ever working correctly in the slightest. They cannot even use Data sanitation and come up with anything other than hugely misleading studies.

Why have they not been able to come up with an accurate climate model then!?!?

There is significant melting, just that there is also a considerable amount of ice gain from compacting snow. This snow isn't from regular precipitation, but rather from 10,000 years of accumulation. Regular precipitation can't keep up with the rate of melting though, so these ice gains won't last.

Huh? This makes no sense.

Climate data is much more standardized now. There are also other methods of collection (satellites were mentioned before) that corroborate the data.

You keep using the phrase "made up numbers" and it's just a red flag that you just don't *** get it. The funny thing with you especially is that cannot seem to fathom expertise or knowledge outside of your little realm of personal experience so everything gets filtered through your myopic views.

I've never claimed to be an expert on this topic but I have a fairly good grasp of climate science basics and plenty of experience in science in general. I repeatedly see you flaunt your business experience as some impeachable quality yet others are not allowed to know things that you clearly dont. I'm not asking for blind acceptance of anything I post but for ***'s sake, try to read/listen. Science isn't accounting and direct comparisons can't always be drawn. There are plenty of science-minded people here willing to explain things but no *** are given when the responses are nothing but and endless cycle of petulant obstinance.

What does "now" have to do with 50-100-200years ago. You claim the Earth is warming, yet all the evidence you point at is current and the past temperatures are quite literally made up.

King actaully posts about his knowledge quite well. You do nothing but post "studies" and say "I'm smarter" then when challenged you always say something along the lines of
You are easier to predict than the weather. Dare I say Climate.

They have:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/cm2-global-coupled-climate-models-cm2x

And that's just one of many. Unlike what Saevel thinks, data such as these are freely available. Give it a look and get back to me on how inaccurate you think it is.

You realize this is an illogical statement. You can't suddenly have 10,000 years of snow growth, it takes 10,000 years to get that. Also snow just doesn't magically appear, it's sea ice that has evaporated, traveled into the atmosphere and dropped back down again. And the final statement, that it "won't last" is something entirely made up and added as a form of unwarranted dismissal.

As the year goes by Antarctica loses ice due to evaporation and then later gains it back. Thus the ice is constantly shrinking then growing then shrinking again with small reversals and disruptions depending on the global weather cycle. Also the western ice shelf is the one that's thinning but it represents the smaller ice mass while the eastern ice shelf is expanding and thickening. Also the eastern ice shelf receives almost zero snow, it's far too cold for snow to form regularly and most of it's expansion is from ice water circulating nearby and refreezing. See the eastern ice shelf is cold, I mean down under -85C cold, and it's getting colder. The formation of the eastern ice shelf creates an area where circulating ice water slows down and thus, when exposed to such cold temperatures, will start to freeze over.

This is one of those area's that needs more funding because the climate lobby only wants to research how the western ice shelf is thinning with very little research money spent on the eastern ice shelf.

There is much belief among glaciologists that we are witnessing the Antarctic ice restructure itself as it's done in the past. The time scales for these restructuring events are measured in the thousands of years and thus it takes decades of observation to witness them for what they are.

5 million years of glaciation events taken from ice cores



540 million years of glaciation



We can see the sheer volatility as it swings from one extreme to another. We are merely witnessing the transitory period of one of these swings. We don't be able to get a full picture for another thousand years though.

Antarctica is a massive landmass covered in ice and snow. There are different parts where there is a greater amount of melting, which is going into the ocean. Meanwhile, other locations have snow accumulations that are 10,000 years old. The snow is compacting (melting and then refreezing as ice), which is technically contributing to the net gain of ice on the continent. This melting and refreezing is happening at a greater rate than the overall melting, and also at a greater rate than the snowfall can account for.

Totally off-topic, but do you happen to live somewhere that rarely ever experiences snow/ice?

It's actually not.

The total amount of ice mass in Antarctica has gone up down down. The area with the greatest increase rarely receives any snowfall. It's the area that's shrinking that receives the most precipitation.

That kinda shoots a giant hole in what you said.

Now I'm sure you can google foo yourself something to respond with, it won't make much sense or it'll rely on some very large assumptions. There is an old saying, If you search for something hard enough you will always find it, even if it doesn't exist.

No need to Google, the only link I need was from like 10 pages ago or whatever.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

It's not my fault that you never bothered to read my links when we went over this stuff a few months ago.

Read the study very carefully again, this time try not to have any biased filters in place.

Notice they mention "sheet" instead of total ice mass while I never said sheet.

The ice sheets are in a constant state of freezing and thawing, the ice in them is newer then the sheet itself. As currents alter course slightly the ice distribution will change. The central ice mass in east Antarctica is much larger then all the ice sheets combined by over an order of magnitude. That central mass is growing by a greater amount then the individual ice sheet's are shrinking. That would cause the earth's oceans to actually lower as the ice in the middle is resting on bedrock and isn't part of the ocean itself. Also the overall ice sheets are growing with most of the growth happening in the East with most of the shrinking happening in the West.

You kinda of just proved your own argument wrong by not paying attention to the details and thinking critically about your subject of research.

Here is a map I pulled from wiki that shows the East / West divide with the ice sheets indicated.




Now as to why the Ocean's are rising. This one is really simple and has nothing to do with frozen ice. We can all agree that the earth is naturally warming as part of it's long term climate cycle. We can argue about how much of that warming is caused by fossil fuels vs how much is solar / climate driven, but it is a known fact that the earth is indeed in a long term warming phase. Water contracts when it's colder up until right before the freezing point and then expands when it's warmer. The amount of expansions from 0.5C of warming doesn't seem like much, but when applied to the vast quantity of water in the world you can get some significant amounts. The expansion isn't equally distributed, places with warmer natural water will experience more expansion then places with colder natural water. Also places that are in the middle of an ocean will also experience a larger then average rise due to the gravitation effect of all that water. Yes the worlds water isn't equally distributed, and it's flow is large enough to create it's own micro-gravitational effect similar to how the Moon effects tides work but on a much smaller scale.

Thermodynamics has a pretty good explanation for everything we've observe so far, without needing magic "secret sauce" coefficients and unproven "warming feedbacks" being added.

That's actually interesting. I'll have to give it a more involved look through some time in the near future.

Now people may be wondering why in the past all we hard was "The ice sheets are melting and that water is making the Oceans rise!" yet now we're hearing a completely different story that has it's time line extending back into the alarmist timeline. This is due to how measurements were done before. In the past they would measure the sea ice extent, which is how far out the sheet froze during it's winter and how far back it thawed during it's summer. They would take these measurements and back calculate how much ice must of been present and how thick it must of been. Those calculations required some assumptions about how that ice formed in the first place and how it was distributed.

Well now we have satellite records that can not only detect the growth / shrinkage more precisely, but can also detect the temperature, mass and density of those growths. Those satellites can also detect area's that were previously not researched and assumed to be static, like the interior of Eastern Antarctica and the East Antarctic ice shelves. Well that satellite data is in stark disagreement to the previous calculations on what is happening, just like it's in stark disagreement with the worlds average temperature as recorded by NASA / NOAA. Turns out those assumptions were wrong and the way we though ice formed and moved was quite inaccurate. Previously we though the climate of the East Antarctic was stable and didn't change much, turns out we were wrong. It's a very robust climate that does change, though at a very slow pace almost imperceptible to us humans. The Eastern Antarctic climate system seems to act like a giant ice shovel that scoops up, and freezes, additional sea ice that's added to the Ocean from other glaciers. The effect is so strong that it's believed to offset 1/3rd of the natural thermal expansion of the rest of the Ocean as it slowly warms up.

It's been discussed before though they are being a hit inaccurate about the power generated. The potential power generated doesn't translate directly into the actual power received due to various inefficiencies.

Virtually every power system in the world currently relies on the heating of some fluid to turn a turbine on an electric dynamo. Hydro, wind and PV solar are the only ones that don't though each has it's own drawbacks. PV solar particularly is difficult because our atmosphere scatters and diffuses incoming solar radiation such that it's virtually impossible to create a material that converts those photons into electron movement. So while PV may have a high conversion rate of collected energy into produced energy is has an abysmal rate of potential energy into collected energy.

Thermal solar is actually better, provided the system is large enough to warrant the additional cost of thermal conversion equipment. You use a large set of mirrors or other highly reflective material to concentrate sunlight on a single area that is covered with a black body collector that converts all that solar energy into thermal energy while reflecting very little. It's like a giant deep black panel, think asphalt on a hot summer day multiplied by 100. Behind this panel is either water in a single liquid solution, or a special high density fluid in a bi liquid solution. In either case, you eventually get hot water turning into steam and via thermal expansion turning a turbine that turns a dynamo and generates electricity.

Oil / gas has something like a 30~50% maximum thermal efficiency rate due to some physics involving rapid thermal expansion. Cars rarely see more then 30% due to not being able to run in the more efficient high temperature ranges.

So lets look at this algae, it can convert solar sunlight into biological energy which is then stored as chemical energy. Now how do we get that energy out of it in an efficient manor? Burning it doesn't seem like a good idea, though Scientists have discovered a way by which an algae can use sunlight to convert Carbon and Water into hydrocarbons, though the climate folks don't want to talk about that. Direct electrical usage might be possible, but we're no where near the technology required to do something like that on a mass scale. Engineering and maintenance would ruin any surplus energy you produced.

What role if any does the melting of ice (north and/or south poles I'm referring to since you're on the topic of those) play in the release of CO2 that was absorbed into the ocean previously, like 100+ years ago or so, whatever the time span is on the absorption and release of CO2 from and into the ocean?

Seavel you probably know what I'm talking about here. Like would CO2 absorbed into the ocean, say like 100 years ago, then frozen would now be melting thus releasing more or higher concentrations of CO2? Any way of or evidence of this or how it contributes?

I'm going off the theory that states the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere happens because of higher global temperatures (increase solar activity), rather than the reverse model of higher CO2 levels causing a rise in global temperatures.

That was kinda what I was wondering as I glanced over the article real quick. How to effectively convert, or release the stored energy.

Well the first thing to note is that the ice sheets are always melting and freezing so the ice inside is new, and the dissolved CO2, is also new. In the Antarctic summer the ice thaws releasing the CO2 that was trapped, which in the grand scale of things isn't much. During the next Antarctic winter the ice then refreezes and traps CO2 back into the ice.

Now Ice sheets only account for a small fraction of the total ice mass in Antarctica. Most of the ice is long frozen ice in the Central and Eastern parts of the continent. That stuff too thaws and refreezes but on a scale measures in hundreds of millions of years not thousands. If the total ice mass, both sheets and land mass, increases within a year, then the Antarctic is storing more CO2 then previously. If the total ice mass decreases then it's storing less and the deficit has been released into the atmosphere. You would have to suddenly boil off most of the Antarctic's ice mass in order for there to be a huge swing in atmospheric CO2. Of course doing so would have cataclysmic effects as most of the ice mass serves as a weight holding the Antarctic continent down and the sudden removal of that weight would cause the continent to surge upwards and the tsunami's, earthquakes and weather events created would be very bad for the rest of the world. CO2 in the atmosphere would be the least of our concerns.

A side note on CO2 absorption of the Ocean. Ocean water can hold somewhere around 10,000x the mass of CO2 then the atmosphere can in the same volume. The Oceans act like gigantic CO2 sinks that absorbs excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. I've gone over it before, but due to this density difference, any sudden significant change to the CO2 balance of the Oceans would necessitate a dramatic life-ending event happening in the atmosphere / surface.

CO2 had really been nothing but a red hearing for over a decade now. It's popular among the climate lobby because it gives them reason to argue for large transfers of wealth and power that further their own political agenda.

I'm all for environmental protection. I don't like industrial buildings dumping toxic sludge into rivers and lakes. Don't like waste material being piled up and then buried without some form of sorting or processing done. I like reusing materials whenever possible, processing and rendering inert all toxic or harmful materials before storing them under hills. Hell in my next post I'll go over one of the greatest inventions ever made for processing human waste.