Global warming

mhaze said:
1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

The big bad analogue model is providing all the empirical evidence required.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 was only hypothesised in the first place to explain the empirical evidence that the world is warmer than thermodynamics would suggest for a big rock with no (or a transparent) atmosphere. That was a century and a half ago, before it was a political issue. It's been well established as a theory since then, with all the trappings of mechanisms. There's no refuge in calling it a "hypothesis". The greenhouse effect is real. You owe your life to it.

3.
Click to expand...

Glad to see 2 has been dropped.

Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Click to expand...

More CO2, warmer world, other things remaining equal. Which they have in recent times. The cause is explained by the science. Just how much warmer for any given CO2-load is uncertain, within limits. What is certain is that at the current CO2-load it's as warm as now and getting warmer. That's just for current CO2-load, which is itself increasing.

Given your attitude, you'd be well advised to drop the "believer". I, along with a host of other informed observers, am convinced. I don't do belief. You, on the other hand, seem to do disbelief in a big way, backed up by wilful (and determined) ignorance. Which is not the same as scepticism.
 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22510443-662,00.html

THE drought could produce some of the worst food shortages since World War II.
Chairman of Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation Michael Badcock does not believe rationing will be needed, but he says some products will be difficult to find if the drought continues.
"It will get tighter and some products may be difficult to buy," he said yesterday.
Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran warned that Australia's food industry might have to "reprioritise" to meet domestic demand.
He agreed that Australian consumers would experience shortages and would be paying "significantly higher prices".
"Global shortages and rising world prices are also contributing to price increases," he said.
"It is difficult to predict the extent of the effects of the drought, but reduced food availability and higher prices are already emerging and will worsen as the drought continues."
Mr Badcock said it was not just the drought that was a problem, and that available food in storage around the world was the least it had been since World War II, a matter of a few weeks' supply.
With failed crops in Australia, importers were "finding it quite difficult to top up their shelves with imported product".
Mr Badcock said extreme weather was causing problems around the world.
"In Europe, they had an extremely dry spring, then rain and floods in summer, so they had a poor season for growth and then problems at harvest time."
Click to expand...

We had the same thing here, average rainfall looks fine, but it largely consisted of floods and showers, not the same thing.
 
a_unique_person said:
Patrick J Michaels and McKitrick screw up. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

I wonder if McIntyre has been looking for Waldo there?
Click to expand...
Whoaoa! AUP, you have a real scoop there! Exxon! Exxon Alert! Whooa!! leaked memos! Cato Institute!
In 1995 Harpers Magazine author Ross Gelbspan reported that Pat Michaels has received more than $115,000 from coal and energy interests. In 2006 a leaked memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) details payments of at least $100,000 and the soliciting of more money for Michaels et al from other coal outlets. Pat Michaels is also a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute. Both of which receive funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil interests.
​
 
mhaze said:
Whoaoa! AUP, you have a real scoop there! Exxon! Exxon Alert! Whooa!! leaked memos! Cato Institute!
In 1995 Harpers Magazine author Ross Gelbspan reported that Pat Michaels has received more than $115,000 from coal and energy interests. In 2006 a leaked memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) details payments of at least $100,000 and the soliciting of more money for Michaels et al from other coal outlets. Pat Michaels is also a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute. Both of which receive funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil interests.
​
Click to expand...

You ducked the point, but you get the idea of who Cato will give a job to.
 
a_unique_person said:
Read the 4AR. You did say 'any', and it's quite clearly demonstrated using the temperature record and models. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, though.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century
Click to expand...

Your last AR4 reference of page 826 did not do too well in supporting your tipping point beliefs.

Do you have specific page which you would like to provide relative to this matter?
 
Wow - I'm just amazed at how people who clearly have no knowledge of basic physics can argue so vociferously over a topic they clearly do not understand in any depth. I have an MS in physics an I would not propose that I am capable of supporting some of the arguments here - even the few I tend to agree with. I sincerely appreciate that the two major proponents here are trying to grapple with the fundamental issue, but they both could use a trip to a library for a course in thermal physics.

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.

The idea of using recent weather data as support for a particular climate model is nonsense; such data can at most eliminate erroneous theories. One can obviously propose thousands of different models that match any observed dataset in such a complex system.

==

As I've suggested before, the entire point is moot unless a practical, politically implementable solution is available. Well here at least is a proposed solution
that has a semblance of the necessary properties ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm

That we have increased the atmospheric CO2 is relatively uncontested and that is has an impact on biosphere is not so difficult to demonstrate. So is a carbon sequestration system worth the cost, given the contestable evidence for AGW and the catastrophic-GW theories ? Of course any sequestration system has an environmental impact too.

I can't imagine for a moment that some international agreement like Kyoto can actually reduce human CO2 emmisions by enough to matter. That's a fuzzy-thinking liberal fantasy. When your kids are going to bed cold and hungry people will do most anything, environment be d*mned. Our propensity to reproduce up the the limits of available resources ensures our global dependence on high energy usage or else massive deaths.
 
stevea said:
Wow - I'm just amazed at how people who clearly have no knowledge of basic physics can argue so vociferously over a topic they clearly do not understand in any depth. I have an MS in physics an I would not propose that I am capable of supporting some of the arguments here - even the few I tend to agree with. I sincerely appreciate that the two major proponents here are trying to grapple with the fundamental issue, but they both could use a trip to a library for a course in thermal physics.

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.

The idea of using recent weather data as support for a particular climate model is nonsense; such data can at most eliminate erroneous theories. One can obviously propose thousands of different models that match any observed dataset in such a complex system.

==

As I've suggested before, the entire point is moot unless a practical, politically implementable solution is available. Well here at least is a proposed solution
that has a semblance of the necessary properties ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm

That we have increased the atmospheric CO2 is relatively uncontested and that is has an impact on biosphere is not so difficult to demonstrate. So is a carbon sequestration system worth the cost, given the contestable evidence for AGW and the catastrophic-GW theories ? Of course any sequestration system has an environmental impact too.

I can't imagine for a moment that some international agreement like Kyoto can actually reduce human CO2 emmisions by enough to matter. That's a fuzzy-thinking liberal fantasy. When your kids are going to bed cold and hungry people will do most anything, environment be d*mned. Our propensity to reproduce up the the limits of available resources ensures our global dependence on high energy usage or else massive deaths.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'm quite happy to acknowledge my limited understanding of the topic, I'm just doing the best I can. I am also happy to refer people to the IPCC reports, but that doens't seem to satisfy a lot of people for some reason :confused:.

The weather patterns, not just isolated events, seem to be changing in Australia, and research is underway into establishing if that is permanent or not. What is happening is certainly in accord with predictions. El Nino = Drought for Australia. The prediction was for more frequent and more powerful El Nino, and that's what's been happening. This is for not just one year, but for about ten years now, since the massive El Nino of 1998. All capital cities are now investing in desalination plants. That's not just because of increased demand, but reduced inflows as well.

If the liberal dream of Kyoto isn't going to work, then what is?
 
mhaze said:
Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.
Click to expand...

from wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.
Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when electrical energy is added. Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This is allowable in a non-isolated system, however only if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.


Saying that energy transfer from cold to hot is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

what the second law actually states is that energy transfer from cold to hot is improbable, or requires work.

and expanding gases perform work!

At least that is within my experience as I rely on expanding gases performing work in order that my combustion engine powered vehicle gets me to work on time.

thanks
 
David Rodale said:
Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.
Click to expand...

Statistically meaningless, surely you are joking!

+/- 10% an be a useful and honest way of conveying how much you know. Even so the odds that the area of ice actually increased is pretty slim.
 
bobdroege7 said:
from wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Saying that energy transfer from cold to hot is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

what the second law actually states is that energy transfer from cold to hot is improbable, or requires work.

and expanding gases perform work!

thanks
Click to expand...
the work that expanding gases do not do is re emit a photon with energy that was already used up to make the gas expand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom