Global warming

[mhaze]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

Read the IPCC summary for policymakers only if you want to see how politicized the "science" has got.

If that doesn't have enough detail for you, try asking a question at Realclimate.
​

They censor the good questions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths.

AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.

What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
​

There may be an interesting story there...

I have no idea what it is, perhaps you could tell me?

The politicians don't have to work the myths, long established farms are just about to become unworkable.

 

[Mycroft]

When a microphone feeds back, it doesn't keep on getting louder forever, it's limited by the power of the amplifier.

Thank you for the analogy.

When the climate has feedbacks, it's limited by the power coming from the sun, or the feedback mechanism itself runs out.

Which doesn't make sense. There is no practical limit to the output of the Sun, and there is no indication of when any of the feedback mechanisms listed would "run out".

Albedo changes when ice melts, causing the earth to absorb more radiation, rather than reflect it. When all the ice is gone, that's the end of that feedback mechanism.

Except it wouldn't be the end. The ice would still be gone, and taken at face value the theory would suggest that the lack of ice would prevent the cycle from ever swinging back to cooler temperatures.

Yet the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is right now, and if that were true then we would never have our current situation. So there must be some mechanism that would not just end the feedback mechanism, but reverse its effects.

Either that or the alarmists are mistaken.

It's all also limited by the amount of radiation from the sun in the first place.

Which is a lot, and is not a practical limit for the sake of this discussion.

 

[oponol]

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?

There is natural variation from year to year as many natural sources and sinks are sensitive to temperature. The rising co2 trend due to human activity is on top of this variation. Not sure whether you are refering to residence time of an average co2 molecule, or amount of time it would take for the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial co2 levels.

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

Yes and also warmer oceans absorb less co2.

 

[oponol]

Where are actual experiments in the layers of the atmosphere that are supposedly affected by CO2? That show the green house effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere, and which therefore prove what exactly climate sensitivity is?

I think you have to give an example of an experiment that would be necessary or would even work. I don't buy the idea that you can just sit a sensor somewhere in the atmosphere and determine what the warming effect would be of doubling co2.

Data for the transmission of IR in the atmosphere in different layers has comprehensively been collected for other reasons
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/

That should be enough to model the absorption and emission of radiation in the atmosphere

 

[oponol]

--deleted duplicate--

 

[oponol]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

It charts change in concentration by year.

 

[David Rodale]

It charts change in concentration by year.

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?

 

[a_unique_person]

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f4b1f89980c.jpg

But what do you think it means?

 

[varwoche]

Which doesn't make sense. There is no practical limit to the output of the Sun, and there is no indication of when any of the feedback mechanisms listed would "run out".

Huh?

A limited amount of energy reaches the earth from the sun.

If all ice on earth were to melt, there would no longer be a feedback loop caused by decreasing albedo.

The ice would still be gone, and taken at face value the theory would suggest that the lack of ice would prevent the cycle from ever swinging back to cooler temperatures.

First off, what theory?

Second, there are factors that effect temperature other than albedo, obviously.

Yet the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is right now, and if that were true then we would never have our current situation.

Unclear what you mean here.

So there must be some mechanism that would not just end the feedback mechanism, but reverse its effects.

If you are trying to say that there are factors that effect temperature other than albedo and man made CO2, you are correct and I'm pretty sure you will find no disagreement on such basic facts.

You seem to be implying that a theory has been put forth that AGW will cause the earth to be permanently hot. If such a theory exists, I'm unaware of it.

Either that or the alarmists are mistaken.

Who precisely are the alarmists and what precisely is their mistake?

 

[mhaze]

I think you have to give an example of an experiment that would be necessary or would even work. I don't buy the idea that you can just sit a sensor somewhere in the atmosphere and determine what the warming effect would be of doubling co2.

Data for the transmission of IR in the atmosphere in different layers has comprehensively been collected for other reasons
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/

That should be enough to model the absorption and emission of radiation in the atmosphere

HITRAN, in which serious errors were found and corrected just recently.

(Were studies done using HITRAN prior to 2005 corrected and restated with the new data? Not that I am aware of).

In the apparent lack of adequate atmospheric experiments, here is one format.

Keep in mind, as DR has pointed out, that atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.

A balloon (or series of them) is launched with instrumentation to measure IR spectral emission, temperature, CO2 concentration and the like. The supposed effects of CO2 enhancing the "greenhouse effect" are at higher tropospheric altitudes.

On top of the balloon is placed a circular "fence", made perhaps of simple bubble plastic with aluminized mylar on the outer side.

Air above the balloon is now largely sheltered from IR radiation from the earth. Air on sides and below the balloon is affected by IR radiation. The hypothesis to be tested might be "there is no measurable difference in temperature of the samples of air protected from Earth's IR as compared to samples exposed to Earth's IR.

Of course "temperature" would imply that the CO2 absorbed IR and it became kinetic energy and was imparted to other air molecules in the vicinity. There is more arm waving in theory of CO2 greenhouse effects than that, some has to do with "re emission" by CO2 of photons.

Make no mistake about it, the physics gets very complex and the modeling by computers is unable to handle adequately exactly what CO2 does in the air, with other gases around it.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths. AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.

What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
​

There may be an interesting story there...
​

I have no idea what it is, perhaps you could tell me?

Check it ou.? Ask around. See if anybody you know knows where 10-15 Billion (minimum) of your country's money is going. Or are they all too petrified with fear at the mythological effects of climate change to think objectively and criticize?

Hmm.... 10-15B of contracts at stake, plenty of money there for a marketing and advertising campaign to "enlighten" the public about the fearsome nature of "climate change".

 

[a_unique_person]

HITRAN, in which serious errors were found and corrected just recently.

(Were studies done using HITRAN prior to 2005 corrected and restated with the new data? Not that I am aware of).

Recently? They worked it out years ago, from what I can tell.

In the apparent lack of adequate atmospheric experiments, here is one format.

Keep in mind, as DR has pointed out, that atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

I am still trying to work out what he thinks he is pointing out

 

[Pipirr]

I am still trying to work out what he thinks he is pointing out

Beats me. Maybe you have to be a part of a secret club to know.

 

[mhaze]

Add to the list of things which influence atmospheric CO2 - the full moon. Man's supposed contribution is about 1.2 ppm per year, so every full moon is a variation equal to about 2 years of man's supposed contribution. Variation due to yearly climate - looks like about 9 ppm.

It should be pretty easy to design an experiment that picks a time and place of testing, such that the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere equal to 10 years of man's supposed contributions, and evaluate the hypothesized CO2 effect based on that.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.

A balloon (or series of them) is launched with instrumentation to measure IR spectral emission, temperature, CO2 concentration and the like. The supposed effects of CO2 enhancing the "greenhouse effect" are at higher tropospheric altitudes.

On top of the balloon is placed a circular "fence", made perhaps of simple bubble plastic with aluminized mylar on the outer side.

Air above the balloon is now largely sheltered from IR radiation from the earth. Air on sides and below the balloon is affected by IR radiation. The hypothesis to be tested might be "there is no measurable difference in temperature of the samples of air protected from Earth's IR as compared to samples exposed to Earth's IR.

Of course "temperature" would imply that the CO2 absorbed IR and it became kinetic energy and was imparted to other air molecules in the vicinity. There is more arm waving in theory of CO2 greenhouse effects than that, some has to do with "re emission" by CO2 of photons.

Make no mistake about it, the physics gets very complex and the modeling by computers is unable to handle adequately exactly what CO2 does in the air, with other gases around it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ahh, yes, I did miss that post. Sorry. Although I would probably add that there is easily the chance for many other things going on that contribute to the climate balancing. Then again, I was generally aiming my comment towards the other side of the argument as I feel that a lack of understanding of climate feedbacks and the climate system as a whole seems to be a very weak point in the AGW argument.

There's a lack of precision in some feedbacks, but no great lack of understanding. Water-vapour is a positive feedback. Clouds may be a negative one, but if so observation reveals that its effect is small. Permafrost is a positive feedback, as is albedo.

It's difficult to be precise about the numbers involved since science has never before had the opportunity to observe climate change of this magnitude. That's the atmospheric experiment that's going on now : jack up CO2-load and see what happens. Observations taken during the experiment will teach us more about the various interactions and their scale.

Science can make some inferences about the overall scale of feedbacks from glacial/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Picking apart the different contributions is problematic, though. Direct observations made during the current warming will avoid that problem. We have satellites to observe cloud-cover, albedo, and the tree-line. The behaviour of melting premafrost can be studied on the ground. Surface and sub-surface sensors can monitor the oceans. We'll be pretty expert on the whole subject in a few more decades.

 

[a_unique_person]

There's a lack of precision in some feedbacks, but no great lack of understanding. Water-vapour is a positive feedback. Clouds may be a negative one, but if so observation reveals that its effect is small. Permafrost is a positive feedback, as is albedo.

It's difficult to be precise about the numbers involved since science has never before had the opportunity to observe climate change of this magnitude. That's the atmospheric experiment that's going on now : jack up CO2-load and see what happens. Observations taken during the experiment will teach us more about the various interactions and their scale.

Science can make some inferences about the overall scale of feedbacks from glacial/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Picking apart the different contributions is problematic, though. Direct observations made during the current warming will avoid that problem. We have satellites to observe cloud-cover, albedo, and the tree-line. The behaviour of melting premafrost can be studied on the ground. Surface and sub-surface sensors can monitor the oceans. We'll be pretty expert on the whole subject in a few more decades.

The criticism, as far as I can make it out, is that the models aren't coming up with the detail. They never have been expected to, and probably won't, since what appears to be the demand is that they model the micro climates around the world, which are subject to chaotic behaviour. They do appear to track the average global temperature pretty well, though, which is what they are claimed to be able to do, given the scenarios that have to be taken into account. Given that rise in temperature, the feebacks that are predicted are happening, and observable.

 

[CapelDodger]

The criticism, as far as I can make it out, is that the models aren't coming up with the detail. They never have been expected to, and probably won't, since what appears to be the demand is that they model the micro climates around the world, which are subject to chaotic behaviour. They do appear to track the average global temperature pretty well, though, which is what they are claimed to be able to do, given the scenarios that have to be taken into account. Given that rise in temperature, the feebacks that are predicted are happening, and observable.

Not only that, but no unexpected feedbacks have appeared. The rate of, say, permafrost melt is unexpectedly high, but we always knew it would be a positive feedback - permafrost sequesters a lot of carbon. It probably makes a significant contribution during glaciatl/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Working out how much is bit of a nightmare, of course, given that the permafrost-zone migrates on the surface of a sphere.

I'll make a point here that may not be universally appreciated : a positive feedback amplifies any change, warming or cooling. If the "natural cooling phase" that some predict for the near future does occur, the positive feedbacks will soon make it apparent.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f4b1f89980c.jpg[/URL]

I've provided some of my own (on the previous page). Care to comment on it, or provide a little analysis of your own?

"What about this, then?" does not constitute an argument. "Well, what about it?" does , on the other hand, constitute a response. So ... what about it?

The bar-chart reveals that CO2-load is increasing. The rate varies year-on-year - which is why decadal figures are more illuminating than annual - but it carries on inexorably upwards. To my mind, that's a lot more relevant than annual (let alone monthly) variations in the rate.

 

[CapelDodger]

Add to the list of things which influence atmospheric CO2 - the full moon.

Is there any discernible trend in this lunatic influence, do you know? The Moon to me, in all its phases, is one of those constants that puts all this surface-skim stuff into perspective.

Man's supposed contribution is about 1.2 ppm per year, so every full moon is a variation equal to about 2 years of man's supposed contribution. Variation due to yearly climate - looks like about 9 ppm.

And yet, according to the David Rodale bar-chart, when you work out the accounts at the end of the year the bottom-line keeps coming out positive. So all that intra-annual variation really means nothing.

It should be pretty easy to design an experiment that picks a time and place of testing, such that the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere equal to 10 years of man's supposed contributions, and evaluate the hypothesized CO2 effect based on that.

While isolating said place from the rest of the world's climate. Not really practicable, is it?

You might well find somewhere with a wildly fluctuating CO2-load, but what will that tell you? Squat, that's what. Greenhouse warming doesn't happen overnight.