The Boca Theory

[Boca]

Brace yourselves....global warming could actually be anthropogenic. Yeah, yeah, I've flip flopped. Happens to the best of us. At least give me credit for facing up to it.

Anyway, this theory will take years of scientific experimentation to prove. I will not settle for a consensus of my friends or business associates. That's not science. So I've sworn to be thorough and will not accept under any circumstances grants and kickbacks from any government dedicated to global wealth distribution. And I will absolutely not ridicule, demonize, or threaten anyone who disagrees with my theory.

So here it is in a nutshell..... billions of microwave ovens.

Before you laugh consider that it took "scientists" 17 years to isolate and explain a mysterious signal from outer space.

This could be a planet saving breakthrough. I could be immortalized. After all Galileo didn't save any planet, he just figured out there were such things, and he's still a big deal.

 

[zzigzzag]

Brace yourselves....global warming could actually be anthropogenic. Yeah, yeah, I've flip flopped. Happens to the best of us. At least give me credit for facing up to it.

Anyway, this theory will take years of scientific experimentation to prove. I will not settle for a consensus of my friends or business associates. That's not science. So I've sworn to be thorough and will not accept under any circumstances grants and kickbacks from any government dedicated to global wealth distribution. And I will absolutely not ridicule, demonize, or threaten anyone who disagrees with my theory.

So here it is in a nutshell..... billions of microwave ovens.

Before you laugh consider that it took "scientists" 17 years to isolate and explain a mysterious signal from outer space.

This could be a planet saving breakthrough. I could be immortalized. After all Galileo didn't save any planet, he just figured out there were such things, and he's still a big deal.

"Billions" of microwaves?

That explains the oversight. We had previously assumed that only humans were using them.

 

[Lukey]

Well I think only a fool would suggest none of it is anthropogenic. The question we have to answer (and I don't think we have as yet) is how much of it is anthropogenic.

 

[as seen on tv]

the failure of the left to make believers out of the broader population on climate change is attributable to several things . .. none of which involve microwave ovens, as i know you're kidding. here are the main problems

1. the left is unable to draw a clear demarcation line between the last ice age, the "maunder minum", and the recent (last 500 years) of temperature variations, as to cause and effect
2. the focus is 100% on "carbon" with a complete disregard for other potent climate factors such as atmospheric water vapor (an even more potent greenhouse gas than co2); urban heat islands; variations in solar output; particulate matter in the atmosphere which both intensifies and reflects solar radiation.
3. the equations are always "1:1" on carbon, and are thus ALWAYS wrong, when predictions fail to align with actual results

 

[Arkady]

Well I think only a fool would suggest none of it is anthropogenic. The question we have to answer (and I don't think we have as yet) is how much of it is anthropogenic.

We certainly haven't nailed that down with precision. But most climatologists believe humans are responsible for the majority of the observed warming.

In an odd way, you could argue that there's a greater urgency to control the human contribution to global warming if it's in the minority than if it's in the majority. Consider the following analogy. You're in a sailboat where the bilges are filling up with water faster than the bilge pump can clear them. Eventually, if that doesn't change, the ship will sink, and you're far from land. Almost everyone agrees that part of the problem is that you have too much sail out, which is causing the ship's wooden hull to buckle, creating gaps between planks, and letting in water. However, is that the majority of the problem or a minority?

If it's all of the problem, then there's no great rush to do anything about it. You can let the water in the bilge rise until it's about to cause a problem, then reef the sails for a while, to let the pumps lower the water level, and once things look better, you can let more sail out again. Since the entire problem is anthropogenic, you have control over it, and can confidently play it closer to that level where the ship might founder. But, let's say that it's actually a minority of the problem. Without knowing what percentage it is, it would be suicidal to wait to reef the sails until you were close to the danger point, because the water might keep rising even after you do. The conservative move (in the classic sense of the word) would be to pull in sail immediately, until you had a feel for how much control you have over the water coming in.

 

[Arkady]

the failure of the left to make believers out of the broader population on climate change is attributable to several things . .. none of which involve microwave ovens, as i know you're kidding. here are the main problems

1. the left is unable to draw a clear demarcation line between the last ice age, the "maunder minum", and the recent (last 500 years) of temperature variations, as to cause and effect
2. the focus is 100% on "carbon" with a complete disregard for other potent climate factors such as atmospheric water vapor (an even more potent greenhouse gas than co2); urban heat islands; variations in solar output; particulate matter in the atmosphere which both intensifies and reflects solar radiation.
3. the equations are always "1:1" on carbon, and are thus ALWAYS wrong, when predictions fail to align with actual results

This isn't about "the left" making these arguments. It's about scientists versus the anti-science right. The scientists have very clearly explained why this isn't just a matter of coming out of the last ice age, why it's not about the end of the maunder minimum centuries ago, and why carbon is the most important variable in our control. But with the anti-science right entombing themselves within a conservative media echo chamber (rather than, say, actually reading the IPCC report), that won't get through to them. How does one educate the willfully ignorant? I don' think anyone has yet come up with a good answer to that question.

 

[Lukey]

We certainly haven't nailed that down with precision. But most climatologists believe humans are responsible for the majority of the observed warming.

In an odd way, you could argue that there's a greater urgency to control the human contribution to global warming if it's in the minority than if it's in the majority. Consider the following analogy. You're in a sailboat where the bilges are filling up with water faster than the bilge pump can clear them. Eventually, if that doesn't change, the ship will sink, and you're far from land. Almost everyone agrees that part of the problem is that you have too much sail out, which is causing the ship's wooden hull to buckle, creating gaps between planks, and letting in water. However, is that the majority of the problem or a minority?

If it's all of the problem, then there's no great rush to do anything about it. You can let the water in the bilge rise until it's about to cause a problem, then reef the sails for a while, to let the pumps lower the water level, and once things look better, you can let more sail out again. Since the entire problem is anthropogenic, you have control over it, and can confidently play it closer to that level where the ship might founder. But, let's say that it's actually a minority of the problem. Without knowing what percentage it is, it would be suicidal to wait to reef the sails until you were close to the danger point, because the water might keep rising even after you do. The conservative move (in the classic sense of the word) would be to pull in sail immediately, until you had a feel for how much control you have over the water coming in.

On what, a hunch? I'm sure that was before the recent temperature plateauing. After the plateau it seems more likely not that much is caused by man's activities, or even cow farts, but rather just the natural temperature cycle of the planet. We always get these kinds of dire forecasts of "irreparable" damage to the environment every time there is a spill of some sort, but the effects are always less lasting than these ominous predictions. You guys have cried wolf way too many times for me to take that sort of vague "assurance" as "fact."

 

[Arkady]

On what, a hunch?

Based on their mountain of research and analysis, obviously.

I'm sure that was before the recent temperature plateauing.

If by "temperature plateauing," you mean the recent slowing of the trend of surface warming, then no. Some of the polls and surveys showing a majority of support for the idea that humans are the majority cause post-date the start of that "plateau." What you need to remember is that there's been no plateau at all in global heat gain. There's just been a variation in the distribution of that gain as between the surface and the oceans. So, there's no absence of heat gain to suggest humans weren't causing most of the former heat gain. The oceans have vastly more heat capacity than the atmosphere, so that's where the real action is, and the gain continues uninterrupted:

And even when it comes to surface temperatures, the plateau meme has fallen apart with the records set in 2014.

After the plateau it seems more likely not that much is caused by man's activities

According to whom? Specifically, which scientists who previously thought much was caused by man's activities, but after the so-called plateau now say not much is? Can you come up with even a single prominent scientist? Even one? I follow this pretty closely, and it seems to me that the denialists today are the same as the denialists ten years ago -- they just swap out their arguments from time to time, to make use of whatever new item they think is most likely to convince the lay people.

We always get these kinds of dire forecasts of "irreparable" damage to the environment every time there is a spill of some sort, but the effects are always less lasting than these ominous predictions.

What makes you think that?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3465261/bp-oil-spill-coral-reefs/

 

[Lukey]

Based on their mountain of research and analysis, obviously.



If by "temperature plateauing," you mean the recent slowing of the trend of surface warming, then no. Some of the polls and surveys showing a majority of support for the idea that humans are the majority cause post-date the start of that "plateau." What you need to remember is that there's been no plateau at all in global heat gain. There's just been a variation in the distribution of that gain as between the surface and the oceans. So, there's no absence of heat gain to suggest humans weren't causing most of the former heat gain. The oceans have vastly more heat capacity than the atmosphere, so that's where the real action is, and the gain continues uninterrupted:

And even when it comes to surface temperatures, the plateau meme has fallen apart with the records set in 2014.



According to whom? Specifically, which scientists who previously thought much was caused by man's activities, but after the so-called plateau now say not much is? Can you come up with even a single prominent scientist? Even one? I follow this pretty closely, and it seems to me that the denialists today are the same as the denialists ten years ago -- they just swap out their arguments from time to time, to make use of whatever new item they think is most likely to convince the lay people.



What makes you think that?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3465261/bp-oil-spill-coral-reefs/

...they just swap out their arguments from time to time, to make use of whatever new item they think is most likely to convince the lay people.

You mean like switching from surface temperature to a "handoff" of surface warming to ocean temperatures? So now suddenly scientists have "discovered" that since the turn of the century the warming shifted from land to water? Has anyone bothered to ask why that happened? You know they are using estimates, right? Because there's not much historical data. Hmmmm, I wonder?

Anyway:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/


So basically, it looks like the (anti-capitalist) proponents of AGW were stumped as to why surface temperatures had plateaued so they looked around and came up with this theory that the warming decided to stop heating up the land and go instead into the water. And they figured they could get away with it because so much of it is based on their (completely unbiased I'm sure) "estimations" of historical ocean temperatures. Count me a skeptic...

 

[Arkady]

Has anyone bothered to ask why that happened?

Of course. Were you honestly unaware of the work done on this? If so, it might be helpful if you did a little reading.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-interaction-atlantic-pacific-oscillations-false.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...wn-probably-due-to-natural-cycles-study-finds

So basically, it looks like the (anti-capitalist) proponents of AGW were stumped as to why surface temperatures had plateaued so they looked around and came up with this theory that the warming decided to stop heating up the land and go instead into the water.

For others reading the thread, I'll put that through the bullshit-to-English translator:

So basically, it looks like the people who study climate for a living were stumped as to why surface temperatures were rising at a slower pace than they had been, so they analyzed the data and found a pattern suggesting that a lining up of two multi-year cycles of ocean circulation in the Atlantic and Pacific had caused more of the heat to be absorbed into the oceans in the last couple decades than was typically the case, resulting in a greater pace for ocean warming than normal, and a slower pace for surface warming.

 

[Lukey]

Of course. Were you honestly unaware of the work done on this? If so, it might be helpful if you did a little reading.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-interaction-atlantic-pacific-oscillations-false.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...wn-probably-due-to-natural-cycles-study-finds



For others reading the thread, I'll put that through the bullshit-to-English translator:

So basically, it looks like the people who study climate for a living were stumped as to why surface temperatures were rising at a slower pace than they had been, so they analyzed the data and found a pattern suggesting that a lining up of two multi-year cycles of ocean circulation in the Atlantic and Pacific had caused more of the heat to be absorbed into the oceans in the last couple decades than was typically the case, resulting in a greater pace for ocean warming than normal, and a slower pace for surface warming.

My bullsh*t detector is going off here so I think your "translator" backfired. It is almost completely based on estimated (read: made up) data. The decline in arctic sea ice recovered from its low in 2012 in 2013 & 2014.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30399079

I smell something fishy (pun intended).

 

[Arkady]

My bullsh*t detector is going off here so I think your "translator" backfired. It is almost completely based on estimated (read: made up) data. The decline in arctic sea ice recovered from its low in 2012 in 2013 & 2014.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30399079

I smell something fishy (pun intended).

Arctic sea ice shows a great deal of variability from one year to the next. But, even in periods like this, when it's been growing for a few years, it's still been lower than the modern mean.

 

[Boca]

.. none of which involve microwave ovens, as i know you're kidding....

Actually it was a bit of sarcasm.

It took 17 years for "scientists" and experts to figure out the microwave in the break room wasn't a mysterious signal from outer space. But we're supposed to believe scientists and experts have figured out what sea levels will be in 50 years. On that I'm not kidding...

 

[fairsheet]

the failure of the left to make believers out of the broader population on climate change is attributable to several things . .. none of which involve microwave ovens, as i know you're kidding. here are the main problems

1. the left is unable to draw a clear demarcation line between the last ice age, the "maunder minum", and the recent (last 500 years) of temperature variations, as to cause and effect
2. the focus is 100% on "carbon" with a complete disregard for other potent climate factors such as atmospheric water vapor (an even more potent greenhouse gas than co2); urban heat islands; variations in solar output; particulate matter in the atmosphere which both intensifies and reflects solar radiation.
3. the equations are always "1:1" on carbon, and are thus ALWAYS wrong, when predictions fail to align with actual results

The only significant "opposition" in the entire world, to the "global warming consensus", comes from Foxfarts. That suggests that maybe "the problem" has less to do with the science itself, and more to do with the "thinking processes" of those Foxfarts.

 

[Lukey]

Arctic sea ice shows a great deal of variability from one year to the next. But, even in periods like this, when it's been growing for a few years, it's still been lower than the modern mean.

What, exactly, is "the modern mean," and why is that relevant to this effort? What about the 100 year mean? Or the 500 year mean? As long as the AGW crowd gets to define the parameters, we'll never get the facts on the table. You all will keep us searching furtively for the pea as you move the cups about...

 

[Lukey]

The only significant "opposition" in the entire world, to the "global warming consensus", comes from Foxfarts. That suggests that maybe "the problem" has less to do with the science itself, and more to do with the "thinking processes" of those Foxfarts.

Or maybe it's an artifact of the liberal bias in the media?

 

[fairsheet]

Or maybe it's an artifact of the liberal bias in the media?

Per your "logic", America endures LESS media bias than any other nation.

 

[BitterPill]

My bullsh*t detector is going off here so I think your "translator" backfired. It is almost completely based on estimated (read: made up) data. The decline in arctic sea ice recovered from its low in 2012 in 2013 & 2014.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30399079

I smell something fishy (pun intended).

You must understand that fresh water freezes more readily than sea-water.

So, if glacier run-off is responsible for much of the recovered Antarctic sea ice, what explains the extreme loss of sea ice in the Arctic?

 

[Arkady]

What, exactly, is "the modern mean," and why is that relevant to this effort?

The modern mean would be the average ice extent for the period for which we have measurements. It's relevant because it gives us an idea for whether ice extent is growing or shrinking. Although there is a lot of "noise" -- growth or shrinkage from year to year -- the overall trend has been one of continuing shrinkage.

 

[Boca]

The only significant "opposition" in the entire world, to the "global warming consensus", comes from Foxfarts. That suggests that maybe "the problem" has less to do with the science itself, and more to do with the "thinking processes" of those Foxfarts.

And the only significant support is 95% of the 20% or less of the climatology experts that the UN hand selected to be on the UN commitee that is supposed to investigate. And if the premier group of them at East Anglia shreds their raw data so what?

I understand it's TGIF Happy Hour out there. What I don't understand is mental masochists who get a thrill out of being lied to and maipulated time and time again? Have you no respect for your intelligence?

Anyway enjoy...get back to me Monday.