Supporting: www.skepticalscience.com

So I was busy reading "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis" in 'Chapter 4.4 Earths Radiation Laws' and wanted to find details about the solar flux. A little Googling and I found:
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Not only did it have the information I was seeking, I found a wealth of information. But what made me 'open up my wallet was finding what others had posted:

Skeptical Science website is full of LIES | PriusChat​

There could be no better endorsement!

Source: Paypal receipt

Thanks!
Bob Wilson

 

A good site although it'll take a little time to understand how to use his 'filters.' In one respect, his collection of data pretty well confirms what even Spencer has conceded . . . the climate is growing warmer. What I didn't see were the corresponding data for radiant energy, aerosols, atmospheric gas distributions, and any other counter and supporting metrics. I like a broader view, not just temperature, as important as it is.

I like scepticalscience because it includes a fairly extensive review of the mechanics, the physics behind global warming. I knew the basic physics and chemistry but lacked ties to planetary studies that tie them to global warning. Between the freshman level Climate Change Science: A Modern Sythesis and scepticalscience, I'm getting the details that complement my 40 year old, mechanical engineering studies.

Bob Wilson

Thanks, I needed another excuse:

I'm already up to page 135 of the 486 page, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, Volume 1 - The Physical Climate by G. Thomas Farmer and John Cook, ISBN 978-94-007-5756-1. An undergraduate course book, I'm finding it is tying my engineering skills and knowledge to what has been going on in Climate Science. In effect, a survey course well worth the money spent.

source: Paypal e-mail receipt

BTW, I recently got a nice $700 oil royalty check . . . poetic justice.

Bob Wilson

 

I have to admit amusement that I bought a Prius for fuel economy and found the technology fascinating. Yet year after year, the halo "green" label had been used as an explanation for why anyone would buy a Prius. So the number of commercially available hybrids and EVs remained a niche market with a handful of serious contenders. But something changed this year, a tipping point.

We're seeing Arctic, commercial shipping starting, a little more than 'demo' voyages. This is the third year and the Northeast passage is opening up in spite of "hair on fire" reports of Arctic surface ice increases. Heck, one bulk carrier even took the Northwest passage in spite of claims it was closed this year. So it makes sense to catch up on global warming, to understand how well established science and engineering connects with the current observations.

The Arctic shipping routes are going to close in month. In the future, the duration will change from year-to-year. There will be cold years where few get through but every time they do, the shippers learn what works and doesn't. They are figuring out the puzzle and as longer shipping seasons interlace with Arctic ice melting, we are seeing the early predictions of global warming becoming an undeniable fact.

Now that hybrids, serious hybrids, are taking off in just about all manufactures, "green" as a halo appears to finally beginning to evaporate. As evidence, the European manufacturers have recognized their diesel dreams and denial of petroleum price hikes are not working and finally broken through their anti-hybrid bias.

We're at the beginning of the end of the climate warming, denier nonsense . . . and their desperation is showing.

Bob Wilson

 

"Ignore" is like squelch on a CB radio. Sometimes it has to turned up but conditions change and it can be turned down. But thanks for the reminder as I found two on my list who have not posted since July. Perhaps they found another place to pester.

I always pointed out my "green" interest is in keeping my "greenback Yankee dollar" in my wallet and not the gas station.

I'm fairly calm about global warming as it doesn't even notice our little chats in this nook of the Internet. Heck, global warming has no interest in the "hot air' various members of our species babble spout. But an engineer by training and attitude, I like the study of heat engines and in the past, I've known many of the basic, "back of the envelope" facts:

• Venus in run-away, CO{2} green house - hot enough to melt lead on the surface
• Fossil fuel burning is rapidly returning us to paleo-era atmosphere
  • the bio-layer does not grow fast enough to fix the now free CO{2}
• Random articles including the northern migration of tropical critters, plants, and pests

I came to the Prius because I'm frugal and found an interesting mechanical marvel. Along the way, I noticed some chat about Global Warming which ordinarily, no sweat off my brow because the physics and chemistry of Global Warming works by natural laws. But then I noticed articles about Arctic shipping and remembered polar melting was one of the earliest predictions of Global Warming. Then Doug mentioned an undergraduate book, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, Volume 1 - The Physical Climate, by G. Thomas Farmer and John Cook that sounded like a good survey read. For example:

• black body radiation - the Earth should be at -19C versus the observed +13C, a 32C difference due to the existing mix of atmospheric gasses. In effect, we survive on this planet because of existing Global Warming against the reality of space.
• bore hole temperature measurements - something I was not aware of but upon reflection, what a great way to take out surface sampling errors.
• I'm only at page 185 of 486 . . . more coming

The problem with books and formal papers are they 'snapshot' what is known on the date a publication. We don't get an automatic update which is why Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined is such a good compliment to the book. I don't have time (or interest) to follow the latest research and paper. But this web site appears to continue the work, the baseline I'm getting from the book.

Doug suggested my donation was put in a 'tipping jar' but I call it payment at today's magazine rack. I have no problem with paying for value and I've already decided to drop Consumer Reports. If others get a chance to read the web-site, no skin off my nose, as long as I can find the content.

Bob Wilson

 

Hi Doug,

I found this relevant passage:

Source: Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, Volume 1 - The Physical Climate, G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook, Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 170.

So did I pass the pop-quiz? <grins>

Actually having ice cores going back 850,000 years means only ice at that particular location. The absence of other cores at other locations going back that far could be due to mechanisms such as glacial movement. There might have once been ice but it 'flowed to the sea.' Given the ice found on the moon, sunless craters, it might be just the core drilled into a valley where the sun never shined.

We also know Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are subject to erosion from warmer ocean currents. So at best, this ice core would be a probe of a specific location and should not be used just based upon this one metric to project Arctic or Antarctic ice coverage.

A more telling indicator would be the existence of tropical flora in the permafrost record. But I don't have any ready references . . . but I now know where to look. <grins>

Bob Wilson

 

From what I can tell it is less likely 'trashed' into a Venus runaway as much as reverting to a dinosaur friendly climate. As for the human population density, first comes the great migration concurrent with the great starvation. Then as fossil fuels finally run out and CO{2} levels return to lower levels, 'the big chill.'

It will be interesting to speculate about out how much of civilization remains.

Bob Wilson

 

The good thing about a book, it won't be turned off at midnight like many .gov web pages.

Bob Wilson