Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
You are not qualified to give us your opinon, you not having any education.

I have a background in mathematical statistics which allows me to evaluate statistical models, such as those used by climate scientists. Of which you know nothing.

Trump today announced that he will terminate EV government supports, we will have freedom of choice in buying fossil fuel cars. It appears that Trump is listening to the scientists who disagree with the CO2 hypothesis.
You are giving DT way too much credit. Trump is not literate in science at all. Since 2015/16 and his first term in office, he's made it quite clear that he doesn't care what the science says. He & a large part of the MAGA club have shown their true anti-science colors.

Drill, baby, drill! is their war cry.

One of the your precious "statistical models" is employs a climate model that has been published in an obscure journal by a suspicious / untrustworthy publishing company -- by scientists who do not appear to have published any other climate papers before or since their "new truth" study. I have come across criticisms of the model they have enoloyed. I recall one or two missions in their model that resulted in a different to the vast majority of other models. Too many red flags to take your golden study seriously.
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
And CO2 is a very small contribution to the overall greenhouse gas effect.

If you can find a science paper which supports the idea that methane is a significant contributor to the greenhouse gas effect, show us.
I have provided you with several links in the somewhat recent past (2024, I think) that you either did not actually read or you chose to ignore. Your response to the post focused on one minor aspect and ignored the bulk of scientific info / explanation presented there. You appeared unable to refute the information in those links.

You are correct that quantities of C dioxide and methane are relatively small compared to other "normal" greenhouse factors. But your interpretation of the larger picture and the role of these 2 gases is seriously flawed.

The natural or baseline greenhouse effect is due largely to the presence of water vapor. There are lesser factors as well. Without this normal (natural) greenhouse effect the average temp on Earth would be something like 18°F (-8°C). The natural level of heat trapping in the Earth's atmosphere is primarily caused by the presence of naturally occuring water vapor.

The total amount of water (ice, liquid, vapor) on the Earth has not really changed in millions of years (certainly longer than **** Sapiens has been around). The amount of water vapor present is largely seasonal. Worldwide, the amt of water vapor is fairly constant over the course of a year (or few years). As global temps have risen, the overall amt of water vapor may have increased as well.

Volcanic activity will often result in a increase in the greenhouse effect (more carbon dioxide and methane among other things). However, these effects will normally increase global temps for a few years. Sometimes it may result in a rebound effect where global temps decrease for a short time. But volcanic activity does not account for the increase in the greenhouse effect and global temps seen over the last 2 centuries or so.

The AGW greenhouse effect that climate scientists are currently concerned about is above & beyond the normal, baseline greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and methane cases are largely responsible for this added greenhouse effect / global warming. While the added amounts of carbon dioxide and methane are relatively small compared to the causes of the baseline greenhouse effect, their effect is quite substantial with regards to the increase of global warming seen over the past two centuries.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The AGW greenhouse effect that climate scientists are currently concerned about is above & beyond the normal, baseline greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and methane cases are largely responsible for this added greenhouse effect / global warming. While the added amounts of carbon dioxide and methane are relatively small compared to the causes of the baseline greenhouse effect, their effect is quite substantial with regards to the increase of global warming seen over the past two centuries.
You have missed the point. You have not linked or referenced any science paper, perhaps you could give us a link.

1) The paper I linked is not a statistical model , but a calculation of the strength of the various greenhouse effects of the Earth atmosphere. The scientists are all climate scientists, so you have a weak argument there.

You cannot remove some variables from a statistical model and then run a regression analysis on them, there must be a general regression analysis including all of the relevant variables simultaneously. You are suggesting a statistical fallacy.

The standard CO2 model excludes atmospheric H2O and solar variables. Without a complete model the results for the correlation coefficients are biased and the model without value. Anyone who has studied university mathematical statistics knows that.

https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/omitted-variable-bias/#:~:text=Omitted variable bias occurs when,important factor in your analysis.

"Omitted variable bias occurs when a statistical model fails to include one or more relevant variables. In other words, it means that you left out an important factor in your analysis." "In this case, excluding causes omitted variable bias. This may lead to an overestimation or under-estimation of the effect of your other variables.
As a result, the model mistakenly attributes the effect of the missing variable to the included variables. Exclusion of important variables can limit the validity of your study findings."

Here is a set of calculations of the relevant variables, which includes all of the important variables.

file:///C:/Users/grace/Downloads/ijaos.20210502.12.pdf

2.6.2. Increasing Concentrations of CH4 (Methane) and N2O (Nitrous oxide)
"CH4 (Methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) are indeed very powerful absorbers of infra-red radiation. Increasing the concentrations of each gas to 30ppm (a 16fold increase in the case of CH4 and an almost 100fold increase in N2O) would result in a combined absorption of 15%, close to the value of 18% for 400ppm of CO2. The combined absorptive impact in the presence of H2O and CO2 however reduces this absorption to less than 3% as can be seen in Figure 11 due to the overlap of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O. It would thus take a huge increase in atmospheric concentrations of these gases to have any significant impact on total atmospheric infra-red absorption."

2)5.2. Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2

"It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019). The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ocean heating as an important omitted variable that causes an under-estimation of global warming:

Which is not related to atmospheric CO2 itself, but to all greenhouse gases acting together.

Your source explains the omitted variable bias problem as follows,

"...the classic econometric problem "omitted variables bias". When you estimate a regression model omitting some important variables that are correlated with those that you include in the regression your estimates of the effects of the included variables will be biased."

This consideration eliminates from serious position most of the current climate change models widely used, which exclude important variables such atmospheric H2O and solar variables, and are essentially of no value. It appears that climate scientists are unaware of this fatal problem and have had a deficient training in mathematical statistics.
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
You have missed the point. You have not linked or referenced any science paper, perhaps you could give us a link.

1) The paper I linked is not a statistical model , but a calculation of the strength of the various greenhouse effects of the Earth atmosphere. The scientists are all climate scientists, so you have a weak argument there.

You cannot remove some variables from a statistical model and then run a regression analysis on them, there must be a general regression analysis including all of the relevant variables simultaneously. You are suggesting a statistical fallacy.

The standard CO2 model excludes atmospheric H2O and solar variables. Without a complete model the results for the correlation coefficients are biased and the model without value. Anyone who has studied university mathematical statistics knows that.

https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/omitted-variable-bias/#:~:text=Omitted variable bias occurs when,important factor in your analysis.

"Omitted variable bias occurs when a statistical model fails to include one or more relevant variables. In other words, it means that you left out an important factor in your analysis." "In this case, excluding causes omitted variable bias. This may lead to an overestimation or under-estimation of the effect of your other variables.
As a result, the model mistakenly attributes the effect of the missing variable to the included variables. Exclusion of important variables can limit the validity of your study findings."

Here is a set of calculations of the relevant variables, which includes all of the important variables.

file:///C:/Users/grace/Downloads/ijaos.20210502.12.pdf

2.6.2. Increasing Concentrations of CH4 (Methane) and N2O (Nitrous oxide)
"CH4 (Methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) are indeed very powerful absorbers of infra-red radiation. Increasing the concentrations of each gas to 30ppm (a 16fold increase in the case of CH4 and an almost 100fold increase in N2O) would result in a combined absorption of 15%, close to the value of 18% for 400ppm of CO2. The combined absorptive impact in the presence of H2O and CO2 however reduces this absorption to less than 3% as can be seen in Figure 11 due to the overlap of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O. It would thus take a huge increase in atmospheric concentrations of these gases to have any significant impact on total atmospheric infra-red absorption."

2)5.2. Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2

"It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019). The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."
It is you who have missed the point

I already gave you, at least, THREE links (heavy on the science) that refute your claims and back up what I said back then and what I outlined in the post you just replied to you.

You apparently ignored much of the info in those links and really did not have a decent answer to the information contained in those links. Why did I bother?

I going to waste my time researching that info and digging up the links yet again if you are not going to bother to read & respond to it. In several posts, I’ve summarized the parts of those studies / papers that I believe are pertinent.

You appear to be quite good at digging up obscure studies from a dubious publishing company. So I’m certain that you can dig up the 3 or 4 inks that I already supplied to you last year.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
It is you who have missed the point

I already gave you, at least, THREE links (heavy on the science) that refute your claims and back up what I said back then and what I outlined in the post you just replied to you.

You apparently ignored much of the info in those links and really did not have a decent answer to the information contained in those links. Why did I bother?

I going to waste my time researching that info and digging up the links yet again if you are not going to bother to read & respond to it. In several posts, I’ve summarized the parts of those studies / papers that I believe are pertinent.

You appear to be quite good at digging up obscure studies from a dubious publishing company. So I’m certain that you can dig up the 3 or 4 inks that I already supplied to you last year.
"I already gave you, at least, THREE links (heavy on the science) that refute your claims..."

Which links are these? The one on cows?

You are confused about science, science is not a show of hands or a count of articles.

It is about testable hypotheses and refuting false claims through empirical tests. One article is enough to do that.

Darwin did not publish a single article about evolution, he paid to publish his own work in a book, and that non-peer reviewed book changed the face of biology.

The links given to you above involve the work of several renowned climate scientists at universities. They have withstood peer criticism and are predominant in the research fields.

They are successful in destroying the simple false climate claims of the discredited CO2 and methane theories.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And now you think you are the Darwin of climate science!

"I already gave you, at least, THREE links (heavy on the science) that refute your claims..."

Which links are these? The one on cows?

You are confused about science, science is not a show of hands or a count of articles.

It is about testable hypotheses and refuting false claims through empirical tests. One article is enough to do that.

Darwin did not publish a single article about evolution, he paid to publish his own work in a book, and that non-peer reviewed book changed the face of biology.

The links given to you above involve the work of several renowned climate scientists at universities. They have withstood peer criticism and are predominant in the research fields.

They are successful in destroying the simple false climate claims of the discredited CO2 and methane theories.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
"I already gave you, at least, THREE links (heavy on the science) that refute your claims..."

Which links are these? The one on cows?

You are confused about science, science is not a show of hands or a count of articles.

It is about testable hypotheses and refuting false claims through empirical tests. One article is enough to do that.

Darwin did not publish a single article about evolution, he paid to publish his own work in a book, and that non-peer reviewed book changed the face of biology.

The links given to you above involve the work of several renowned climate scientists at universities. They have withstood peer criticism and are predominant in the research fields.

They are successful in destroying the simple false climate claims of the discredited CO2 and methane theories.
Not confused. That would be you. We’ve already had the discussion on the role of methane and carbon dioxide on the greenhouse house effect and global warming a while back. Did you really forget? When I provided the links to refute your assertions, you didn’t appear to have much of a comeback. Perhaps that it why you’ve put it out of your memory and you are here asking for links again?

I’m not really interested in rehashing stuff we’ve already discussed in the past if you couldn’t be bothered to read (or remember) the links / info I had provided previously. I had put a fair amount of time & effort to provide you with those links and you either blew it off or you just didn’t have a decent rebuttal to the info I had provided.

Not gonna waste my time again.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Not confused. That would be you. We’ve already had the discussion on the role of methane and carbon dioxide on the greenhouse house effect and global warming a while back. Did you really forget? When I provided the links to refute your assertions, you didn’t appear to have much of a comeback. Perhaps that it why you’ve put it out of your memory and you are here asking for links again?

I’m not really interested in rehashing stuff we’ve already discussed in the past if you couldn’t be bothered to read (or remember) the links / info I had provided previously. I had put a fair amount of time & effort to provide you with those links and you either blew it off or you just didn’t have a decent rebuttal to the info I had provided.

Not gonna waste my time again.
No, there is no case to be made to counteract the information given above, showing the very small impact of methane.

If you do not feel confident enough of your source to give it here, that may indicate the weakness of the climate science which is adduced in support of the idea. That is understandable, a great amount of worthless climate science has never been challenged in a meaningful way. Pathetic.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
You have missed the point. You have not linked or referenced any science paper, perhaps you could give us a link.

1) The paper I linked is not a statistical model , but a calculation of the strength of the various greenhouse effects of the Earth atmosphere. The scientists are all climate scientists, so you have a weak argument there.

You cannot remove some variables from a statistical model and then run a regression analysis on them, there must be a general regression analysis including all of the relevant variables simultaneously. You are suggesting a statistical fallacy.

The standard CO2 model excludes atmospheric H2O and solar variables. Without a complete model the results for the correlation coefficients are biased and the model without value. Anyone who has studied university mathematical statistics knows that.

https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/omitted-variable-bias/#:~:text=Omitted variable bias occurs when,important factor in your analysis.

"Omitted variable bias occurs when a statistical model fails to include one or more relevant variables. In other words, it means that you left out an important factor in your analysis." "In this case, excluding causes omitted variable bias. This may lead to an overestimation or under-estimation of the effect of your other variables.
As a result, the model mistakenly attributes the effect of the missing variable to the included variables. Exclusion of important variables can limit the validity of your study findings."

Here is a set of calculations of the relevant variables, which includes all of the important variables.

file:///C:/Users/grace/Downloads/ijaos.20210502.12.pdf

2.6.2. Increasing Concentrations of CH4 (Methane) and N2O (Nitrous oxide)
"CH4 (Methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) are indeed very powerful absorbers of infra-red radiation. Increasing the concentrations of each gas to 30ppm (a 16fold increase in the case of CH4 and an almost 100fold increase in N2O) would result in a combined absorption of 15%, close to the value of 18% for 400ppm of CO2. The combined absorptive impact in the presence of H2O and CO2 however reduces this absorption to less than 3% as can be seen in Figure 11 due to the overlap of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O. It would thus take a huge increase in atmospheric concentrations of these gases to have any significant impact on total atmospheric infra-red absorption."

2)5.2. Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2

"It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019). The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."
From your golden study, it appears that only David Coe had worked in climatology from what I’ve seen. W Fabinski appeared to have been an engineer / inventor in the field of automation. G Wiegleb did research & taught in the fields of general ecology, biodiversity, and concept development in post-mining landscapes, Not seen any climate science credentials for these 2 guys.

No fallacy, as you suggest. Not all climate models that have been used in climate research is exactly the same. (The same is true for other fields as well). The may very well be a considerable amt of commonality between various models but it is nonsense to claim they must all be the same.

Various climate models differ in their complexity, inputs, resolution, and how they represent certain processes, leading to variations in their outputs, so scientists often use an ensemble of multiple models to get a more comprehensive picture of climate change projections.

I reject the notion that the model used in your golden study is the only valid model and that the multitude of other climate studies & models are invalid.

Your study was published in a rather obscure journal (IJAOS)— not a respected top tier or even tier 2 journal. Even tho this study was published just a few years ago, it appears to have been pulled from the IJAOS.org web site — study not found! It’s no longer there. Rather curious.

The study, however, still appears on the SPG (Science Publishing Group) site. SPG appears to employ questionable practices and have credibity issues. They pretend to be a US-based (New York) publishing house but are, in fact, based in Pakistan. And yet many of the journals they publish use “American” in the title.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
No, there is no case to be made to counteract the information given above, showing the very small impact of methane.

If you do not feel confident enough of your source to give it here, that may indicate the weakness of the climate science which is adduced in support of the idea. That is understandable, a great amount of worthless climate science has never been challenged in a meaningful way. Pathetic.
I gave you the information already. Your response to those links was weak. I had spent a considerable amount of time digging up those links. Not going to waste my time digging those links for you yet again given your response last time.

Not really interested in rehashing discussions we’ve already had last year.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Various climate models differ in their complexity, inputs, resolution, and how they represent certain processes, leading to variations in their outputs, so scientists often use an ensemble of multiple models to get a more comprehensive picture of climate change projections.

I reject the notion that the model used in your golden study is the only valid model and that the multitude of other climate studies & models are invalid.
As indicated above, most climate models suffer from excluded variable bias, a common problem well known to mathematical statisticians, less well known by climate scientists. This is a crippling problem which renders the results of the models unreliable.

The article I cited is well-established and has not been challenged in terms of its results, so I do not understand your reluctance to discuss it...unless your own beliefs are at risk from this research.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I gave you the information already. Your response to those links was weak. I had spent a considerable amount of time digging up those links. Not going to waste my time digging those links for you yet again given your response last time.

Not really interested in rehashing discussions we’ve already had last year.
As I recall, you did not really discuss this article last time, so I guess you are not interested in climate science. Any climate model which excludes atmospheric H2O or solar variables is subject to excluded variable bias.

Science is not a show of hands or a majority vote, it is a method of testing alternative hypotheses. There are no sacred cows in science which are exempt from being tested. Of course, some people will cling to political sacred cows rather than examine the actual science.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
No alternative to AGW has succeeded in refuting it, so that is why it is currently "normal science".

As I recall, you did not really discuss this article last time, so I guess you are not interested in climate science. Any climate model which excludes atmospheric H2O or solar variables is subject to excluded variable bias.

Science is not a show of hands or a majority vote, it is a method of testing alternative hypotheses. There are no sacred cows in science which are exempt from being tested. Of course, some people will cling to political sacred cows rather than examine the actual science.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
As indicated above, most climate models suffer from excluded variable bias, a common problem well known to mathematical statisticians, less well known by climate scientists. This is a crippling problem which renders the results of the models unreliable.

The article I cited is well-established and has not been challenged in terms of its results, so I do not understand your reluctance to discuss it...unless your own beliefs are at risk from this research.
But I have discussed it. Several times already. Your article, in an obscure, 3rd-rate journal (by a disreputable SPG outfit) is hardly what can be called well-established. Why does it no longer appear on the IJAOS site? Why have we not seen other climate studies from Fabinski & Wiegleb?

There has been discussions of this article on several climate forums that call the methodology and the idea of carbon dioxide saturation into question. Skeptical Science is one of these sites. Watts Up With That? is another site. I don’t recall the 3rd site where I’ve a discussion of your study / article.

Granted, some of those discussions are way over my head but it is apparent that there are scientists who have an issue with the study.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
As I recall, you did not really discuss this article last time, so I guess you are not interested in climate science. Any climate model which excludes atmospheric H2O or solar variables is subject to excluded variable bias.

Science is not a show of hands or a majority vote, it is a method of testing alternative hypotheses. There are no sacred cows in science which are exempt from being tested. Of course, some people will cling to political sacred cows rather than examine the actual science.
I did discuss it. And I gave you a synopsis back then and in this very thread of my understanding of the baseline greenhouse effect and how we’ve exceeded that baseline in the past two centuries.

More important, the links I provided for you are certainly more of an authority on climate science than either your or me. The info in those pages speak for themselves — much better than I could ever do.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
But I have discussed it. Several times already. Your article, in an obscure, 3rd-rate journal (by a disreputable SPG outfit) is hardly what can be called well-established. Why does it no longer appear on the IJAOS site? Why have we not seen other climate studies from Fabinski & Wiegleb?

There has been discussions of this article on several climate forums that call the methodology and the idea of carbon dioxide saturation into question. Skeptical Science is one of these sites. Watts Up With That? is another site. I don’t recall the 3rd site where I’ve a discussion of your study / article.

Granted, some of those discussions are way over my head but it is apparent that there are scientists who have an issue with the study.
The anti-CO2 sites which you mention do not engage in this discussion, unless you have found something new. Just give a link.

There are no well-founded complaints about this study showing the small impact of CO2 on climate change, nothing new there.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I did discuss it. And I gave you a synopsis back then and in this very thread of my understanding of the baseline greenhouse effect and how we’ve exceeded that baseline in the past two centuries.

More important, the links I provided for you are certainly more of an authority on climate science than either your or me. The info in those pages speak for themselves — much better than I could ever do.
Speak for yourself, I have a substantial background in mathematical statistical models, so I can criticize any model which violates the basic principles.
Most climate scientists apparently are unaware of the problems.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
No alternative to AGW has succeeded in refuting it, so that is why it is currently "normal science".
The alternatives are now available, and the idea that some catastrophe is waiting around the corner is inconsistent with most climate science models.

The new administration in Washington will introduce a new perspective.

The new initiatives of the incoming Trump administration may offer the opportunity to discuss the reality of the alarmist rhetoric which has come to dominate the discussions of climate change.

This will include providing a forum for a more reasoned and critical stance on the existing paradigms regarding the role of atmospheric CO2 and methane , and including atmospheric H2O and solar variables into climate models.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/tru...urrect-red-teams-to-question-climate-science/

"Project 2025 — the blueprint Trump allies wrote for his second term — lays out plans to cut out entire sections of the government’s climate work, particularly at NOAA and EPA. The proposal includes offering the public incentives “to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct” in the studies backing federal regulations, which would allow industry-funded researchers to sow doubt about peer-reviewed science.

The red team/blue team exercise was crafted during Trump’s first term by a group of researchers critical of climate policy. For the effort to work properly and have merit, it needs a blue team of climate scientists who argue that the established research holds up, said Steve Koonin, a New York University physicist and architect of the red team plan in Trump’s first term.

Koonin said the effort would require four or five researchers on each side. Koonin, a former chief scientist at BP, argued that the case for an adversarial review has only grown in the last four years.

“I think we’ve got more data, more understanding, more misrepresentation in the media,” Koonin said. “But the essential mechanism is to get a credible blue team lined up.”

Koonin said he expects that climate scientists would be hesitant to participate in such an effort. That’s why he wants the Trump administration to compel the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to put together a team of researchers. They would then have to review the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report or the National Climate Assessment.

“I think the right way to do it is to take a prior document — it could be the most recent National Climate Assessment — and simply go through that point by point,” Koonin said.

The National Academies did not respond to a request for comment."
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
The anti-CO2 sites which you mention do not engage in this discussion, unless you have found something new. Just give a link.

There are no well-founded complaints about this study showing the small impact of CO2 on climate change, nothing new there.
There are numerous discussions on those sites. I’ve given you the info already. If you are really interested, I’m willing to bet that you are quite capable of finding it on your own.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You are now refuting a scientific position with a political argument. Paying a bounty to find flaws in science is an anti-modernist move.

The alternatives are now available, and the idea that some catastrophe i waiting around the corner is inconsistent with most climate science models.

The new administration in Washington will introduce a new perspective.

The new initiatives of the incoming Trump administration may offer the opportunity to discuss the reality of the alarmist rhetoric which has come to dominate the discussions of climate change.

This will include providing a forum for a more reasoned and critical stance on the existing paradigms regarding the role of atmospheric CO2 and methane , and including atmospheric H2O and solar variables into climate models.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/tru...urrect-red-teams-to-question-climate-science/

"Project 2025 — the blueprint Trump allies wrote for his second term — lays out plans to cut out entire sections of the government’s climate work, particularly at NOAA and EPA. The proposal includes offering the public incentives “to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct” in the studies backing federal regulations, which would allow industry-funded researchers to sow doubt about peer-reviewed science.

The red team/blue team exercise was crafted during Trump’s first term by a group of researchers critical of climate policy. For the effort to work properly and have merit, it needs a blue team of climate scientists who argue that the established research holds up, said Steve Koonin, a New York University physicist and architect of the red team plan in Trump’s first term.

Koonin said the effort would require four or five researchers on each side. Koonin, a former chief scientist at BP, argued that the case for an adversarial review has only grown in the last four years.

“I think we’ve got more data, more understanding, more misrepresentation in the media,” Koonin said. “But the essential mechanism is to get a credible blue team lined up.”

Koonin said he expects that climate scientists would be hesitant to participate in such an effort. That’s why he wants the Trump administration to compel the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to put together a team of researchers. They would then have to review the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report or the National Climate Assessment.

“I think the right way to do it is to take a prior document — it could be the most recent National Climate Assessment — and simply go through that point by point,” Koonin said.

The National Academies did not respond to a request for comment."
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
There are numerous discussions on those sites. I’ve given you the info already. If you are really interested, I’m willing to bet that you are quite capable of finding it on your own.
I am not aware of the links you are claiming, but if you do not want to provide us and the readers in this discussion a link or reference, that is okay.

You have not responded to my points about excluded variables, so that is another issue.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
You are now refuting a scientific position with a political argument. Paying a bounty to find flaws in science is an anti-modernist move.
The government has a right to consult with scientists and to see a debate of opposing views. Just standard policy in a democracy, unlike a dictatorship.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Dictator Don wants to hear only what suits either his fossil-fool ideology or his own self-interest. His regime is a dictatorship.

The government has a right to consult with scientists and to see a debate of opposing views. Just standard policy in a democracy, unlike a dictatorship.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Just plain dumb:

"We don't want windmills in this country. We're putting an order on it. We don't want windmills ... you know what else people don't like? Those massive solar fields."
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Other related climate change musings from the recent past:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

The Skeptical Science page above includes a quote from Ted Cruz, a denier of truths and a fabricator of creative mis-representation. Take a look at the following graph:

f-d%3Ad200b6d2ceb591dbd598dd55f6cfcdd11cc15f59383bab8d485589b1%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1


Take a look at the relative peak in the late 1990s — it appears to in 1998. Fast forward to 2016. At that time Ted Cruz made the claim that the data had not shown any significant global temp rise for 18 years — from 1998 to 2016. His proof that AGW is a myth. This is a shining example of mathematical deception — a blatant manipulation (misrepresentation) of data / statistics to promote a distortion of the facts.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
You have not responded to my points about excluded variables, so that is another issue.
Sorry, there was so much content / noise in some of your replies, I missed your query regarding excluded variables. Unfortunately, I do not recall all the details of the criticisms of the climate model used by Coe et al (2021). I had come across quite a bit of analysis/ criticism of the Coe paper last year that I do not recall all the details. And, frankly, I can't say that I actually understood much of those details. If I come across that info again, I'll let you know.

I have come across references to an assessment on WUWT (Watts Up With That?) of the Coe, et al (2021) paper. Analysis / comments seen on various forum & blog sites, like Skeptical Science, refers to that assessment. Some of those comments below:


Coe et al (2021) claims that it addresses the issue of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which, as is well known, has not been well-nailed-down by science for four decades now. So it would be quite a feat if there was even a smidgeon of promise in this paper to some contribution to the assessment of ECS... The crux of the ignorance presented within Coe et al (2021) begins to congeal in their Section 1.4. Here they derive entirely on their own** a value called “n” the “energy retention factor” given "a" the "atmospheric absorptivity" (or the proportion of surface radiation gets to space through a clear atmosphere. By using HITRAN to derive "a" (the calculated percentage of surface radiation that reaches space through that clear atmosphere), they derive "n" by balancing "a" against the radiation that has to reach space to balance the incoming solar warming.

The process they use runs as follows.
If a black body of 288K (representing the surface temperature) was in equilibrium with today's absorbed solar energy which equates to a 255K black body, they calculate that the energy out into space would be just 61.5% of the 288K black body radiation.
Thus, they derive for today's atmosphere (with a=a0) n.a0 = 38.5% of the surface radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere. However, they also calculate using the grown-up HITRAN database, that the transmission through today's clear atmosphere of such 288K black body radiation would be a0 = 73.0% allowing them to derive in their Section 2.7 a value for "n"; n = 52.7%.
And this incredibly simplistic method allows all the sceintific effort over the last four decades attempting to derive accurate ECS values to be sidestepped. Even the complex impact of clouds on this finding is sweetly side-stepped because, as they tell us in their Section 5.1, clouds are already accounted for in the derivation of "n".

And all this is their own work. No supporting evidence.

Of course, there are feedback mechanisms to be negotiated and the numpties calculate (using simplistic assumptions) feedback values for water vapour (+18%) and the wavelength change in the radiation from a warmer world (-5%) with a net result feedback of (1.18 x 0.95 =) +12%.
They then calculate the impact of differing levels of CO2 GHGs on the absorption of surface radiation through a clear atmosphere to calculate direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (400ppm to 800ppm) of +0.45ºC (when the science is irrefutably sure the value is +1.0ºC) and thus with a feedback of +12%, they can derive ECS = +0.5ºC (when the science says +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC).

Of course, the GH-effect doesn't work in anything like the manner assumed by Coe et al (2012) so all Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing is advertising their own stupidity.

.If something as dubious, as low quality, poorly thought out as Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb came along in a publication with all the hallmarks of a pseudo-journal, but with a conclusion reinforcing the one I already reached, I would dismiss
it as junk ...
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Earth's methane emissions are rising and we don't know why
ENVIRONMENT 24 May 2019

gettyimages-976360120.jpg

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
Gary Greenberg/Getty
By Adam Vaughan

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.
Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.
Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.


Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic’s time bomb

Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway University of London says researchers are very worried about the latest rise. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact no one is entirely sure what is driving the trend.

“The disturbing aspect is, we do not know which processes are responsible for methane increasing as rapidly as it is,” says Ed Dlugokencky of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Keith Shine at Reading University echoes that view. “The fact that growth rates in the atmospheric concentrations of methane are approaching the levels we saw in the 1980s, after a period of relatively slow growth, is deeply concerning. The fact that we don’t understand the reasons for this surge deepen that concern.”
One possibility is that a warmer world is causing more methane to be released from wetlands in the tropics, fuelling even more warming. That would suggest a feedback loop is underway. “I’m not sure but it looks as if the warming is feeding the warming,” says Nisbet. More evidence is needed to prove the idea though.

methane_010619.jpg

Rebecca Fisher of Royal Holloway University of London says: “We still do not know whether the growth is primarily an increase in ‘natural’ emissions, such as from warmer or wetter wetlands, or increased anthropogenic emissions such as rice agriculture or fossil fuels.” It could also be a change in the atmospheric sinks of methane or, she says, most likely a combination of reasons.

The methane surge gains added significance from the fact researchers have been discovering in recent years that the gas has a more powerful warming effect than previously thought. In the first report by the UN climate science panel, in 1990, 21 tonnes of methane was considered to have the same global warming potential as one tonne of carbon dioxide. That was upgraded to 28 tonnes of methane in the most recent major report, and could rise as high as 35 tonnes in the next big assessment in 2022.
i think this was cause all the cows. so vegetarians said we must eat plants only
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
T
Other related climate change musings from the recent past:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

The Skeptical Science page above includes a quote from Ted Cruz, a denier of truths and a fabricator of creative mis-representation. Take a look at the following graph:

f-d%3Ad200b6d2ceb591dbd598dd55f6cfcdd11cc15f59383bab8d485589b1%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1


Take a look at the relative peak in the late 1990s — it appears to in 1998. Fast forward to 2016. At that time Ted Cruz made the claim that the data had not shown any significant global temp rise for 18 years — from 1998 to 2016. His proof that AGW is a myth. This is a shining example of mathematical deception — a blatant manipulation (misrepresentation) of data / statistics to promote a distortion of the facts.Those who constructed the defective climate models which are currently relied upon by misled governments have a lot to answer for. Former IPCC climate scientists are calling them out with devastatiing political consequences.
This graph tells us nothing about the causation of temperature change or the role of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Just a starter or worse.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Sorry, there was so much content / noise in some of your replies, I missed your query regarding excluded variables. Unfortunately, I do not recall all the details of the criticisms of the climate model used by Coe et al (2021). I had come across quite a bit of analysis/ criticism of the Coe paper last year that I do not recall all the details. And, frankly, I can't say that I actually understood much of those details. If I come across that info again, I'll let you know.

I have come across references to an assessment on WUWT (Watts Up With That?) of the Coe, et al (2021) paper. Analysis / comments seen on various forum & blog sites, like Skeptical Science, refers to that assessment. Some of those comments below:


Coe et al (2021) claims that it addresses the issue of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which, as is well known, has not been well-nailed-down by science for four decades now. So it would be quite a feat if there was even a smidgeon of promise in this paper to some contribution to the assessment of ECS... The crux of the ignorance presented within Coe et al (2021) begins to congeal in their Section 1.4. Here they derive entirely on their own** a value called “n” the “energy retention factor” given "a" the "atmospheric absorptivity" (or the proportion of surface radiation gets to space through a clear atmosphere. By using HITRAN to derive "a" (the calculated percentage of surface radiation that reaches space through that clear atmosphere), they derive "n" by balancing "a" against the radiation that has to reach space to balance the incoming solar warming.

The process they use runs as follows.
If a black body of 288K (representing the surface temperature) was in equilibrium with today's absorbed solar energy which equates to a 255K black body, they calculate that the energy out into space would be just 61.5% of the 288K black body radiation.
Thus, they derive for today's atmosphere (with a=a0) n.a0 = 38.5% of the surface radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere. However, they also calculate using the grown-up HITRAN database, that the transmission through today's clear atmosphere of such 288K black body radiation would be a0 = 73.0% allowing them to derive in their Section 2.7 a value for "n"; n = 52.7%.
And this incredibly simplistic method allows all the sceintific effort over the last four decades attempting to derive accurate ECS values to be sidestepped. Even the complex impact of clouds on this finding is sweetly side-stepped because, as they tell us in their Section 5.1, clouds are already accounted for in the derivation of "n".

And all this is their own work. No supporting evidence.

Of course, there are feedback mechanisms to be negotiated and the numpties calculate (using simplistic assumptions) feedback values for water vapour (+18%) and the wavelength change in the radiation from a warmer world (-5%) with a net result feedback of (1.18 x 0.95 =) +12%.
They then calculate the impact of differing levels of CO2 GHGs on the absorption of surface radiation through a clear atmosphere to calculate direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (400ppm to 800ppm) of +0.45ºC (when the science is irrefutably sure the value is +1.0ºC) and thus with a feedback of +12%, they can derive ECS = +0.5ºC (when the science says +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC).

Of course, the GH-effect doesn't work in anything like the manner assumed by Coe et al (2012) so all Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing is advertising their own stupidity.

.If something as dubious, as low quality, poorly thought out as Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb came along in a publication with all the hallmarks of a pseudo-journal, but with a conclusion reinforcing the one I already reached, I would dismiss
it as junk ...
Your quote is from a non-science advocacy blog, not really referenced or supported with citations.
If Coe's calculations are so easily off-centre, it should be possible to refute them in a published science critique or review.. which has not happened.

What we have is alternative models which debate the role of H2O, such as the following from NASA, which rely on arguments about "relative forcings" to salvage the case against CO2.


"A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols (methane and others) make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect."

So constructing models which exclude at least 75 per cent of the greenhouse effect is a major flaw.

Here is Coe's explanation of the use of the HITRAN database.

"The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact."

Here is a positive review of the Coe article,


"Other researchers have found observation based sensitivity estimates of as little as 0.3 degrees. These give credence to Coe et al’s 0.5 degrees. Given that we are almost half way to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and seeing maybe one degree of warming from all causes, the projections of dangerous CO2 induced warming look extremely implausible.

Many of the climate models are now giving sensitivities greater than 5 degrees, which is truly absurd. Coe et al are far more likely to be on target.

The double review is also interesting. The paper was originally published online in August. The journal then received a pointed technical criticism, presumably from a leading alarmist scientist. So the journal pulled the article, asked the authors to respond to the criticism, then conducted a review of this dispute. In the journal world this is called post-publication review and several journals are experimenting with it.

The journal concluded that the authors were correct and has now republished the paper, keeping the original publication dates for the official record. Who publishes what, when can be very important. The journal’s integrity in this matter is commendable. It certainly suggests that the results are robust.

Coe et al’s physics aligns very well with the growing body of observation based studies that indicate a CO2 sensitivity of less than one degree C. This growing body of evidence makes the increasingly hot climate models look completely unrealistic. Thus that there is no climate emergency now looks very likely."
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So the positive review of the Coe article comes not from a science journal but from a right-wing, climate-denialist think tank.

Your quote is from a non-science advocacy blog, not really referenced or supported with citations.
If Coe's calculations are so easily off-centre, it should be possible to refute them in a published science critique or review.. which has not happened.

What we have is alternative models which debate the role of H2O, such as the following from NASA, which rely on arguments about "relative forcings" to salvage the case against CO2.


"A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols (methane and others) make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect."

So constructing models which exclude at least 75 per cent of the greenhouse effect is a major flaw.

Here is Coe's explanation of the use of the HITRAN database.

"The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact."

Here is a positive review of the Coe article,


"Other researchers have found observation based sensitivity estimates of as little as 0.3 degrees. These give credence to Coe et al’s 0.5 degrees. Given that we are almost half way to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and seeing maybe one degree of warming from all causes, the projections of dangerous CO2 induced warming look extremely implausible.

Many of the climate models are now giving sensitivities greater than 5 degrees, which is truly absurd. Coe et al are far more likely to be on target.

The double review is also interesting. The paper was originally published online in August. The journal then received a pointed technical criticism, presumably from a leading alarmist scientist. So the journal pulled the article, asked the authors to respond to the criticism, then conducted a review of this dispute. In the journal world this is called post-publication review and several journals are experimenting with it.

The journal concluded that the authors were correct and has now republished the paper, keeping the original publication dates for the official record. Who publishes what, when can be very important. The journal’s integrity in this matter is commendable. It certainly suggests that the results are robust.

Coe et al’s physics aligns very well with the growing body of observation based studies that indicate a CO2 sensitivity of less than one degree C. This growing body of evidence makes the increasingly hot climate models look completely unrealistic. Thus that there is no climate emergency now looks very likely."
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So the positive review of the Coe article comes not from a science journal but from a right-wing, climate-denialist think tank.
You mean from a PhD climate scientist, right?

Here is a blog review, which is more up your alley.

 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
But I have discussed it. Several times already. Your article, in an obscure, 3rd-rate journal (by a disreputable SPG outfit) is hardly what can be called well-established. Why does it no longer appear on the IJAOS site? Why have we not seen other climate studies from Fabinski & Wiegleb?

There has been discussions of this article on several climate forums that call the methodology and the idea of carbon dioxide saturation into question. Skeptical Science is one of these sites. Watts Up With That? is another site. I don’t recall the 3rd site where I’ve a discussion of your study / article.

Granted, some of those discussions are way over my head but it is apparent that there are scientists who have an issue with the study.
It does appear on the IJOS open site.

file:///C:/Users/grace/Downloads/ijaos.20210502.12.pdf
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I mean that you get your climate change denialism from political think tanks and websites that are paid advocates of this position.

You mean from a PhD climate scientist, right?

Here is a blog review, which is more up your alley.

 
Top