Global warming

[CapelDodger]

More Bali bs?

That's not a comment.

Fortnight Of The Undead: Bali DiaryBy Lord Christopher Mockton in Nusa Dua, Bali

I nearly didn’t go to Bali. The UN, which had not wanted any dissent at this carefully-staged event, rejected my journalistic credentials out of hand, and without explanation. However, a non-government organization came to the rescue and the high priests didn’t dare to say No a second time. That would have looked too obvious. I proved my journo-cred by writing a major article in the Jakarta Post on day 1 of the conference, cheekily claiming my share of the Nobel Prize because the IPCC had made a correction to its latest Holy Book at my suggestion, and concluding that, since our influence on the climate is a non-problem, and the correct approach to a non-problem is to do nothing, my fellow-participants should have the courage to do nothing and push off home.(more) ​

And that's a quote.

Repeating myself here, but do you have any comment to make on the Bali Conference?

 

[David Rodale]

No

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Don't forget, also, what does 'barely change' mean? It depends on the context. If you cook something in the oven at 350, it doesn't make much difference if I set it to 355.

If my body temperature is supposed to be 37C. If it goes up by 5C, I'll be dead or close to it.

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?

RealClimate has become your #1 source for "reliable" information recently. Is there any particular reason for that? Maybe for lack of peer reviewed articles to support AGW? Are all blogs acceptable to be used as evidence, or just RC? Or is the the real reason they are simply pimping their unsubstantiated opinions to the weak minded who can't discern fact from fiction, blindly following their every utterance. Is it comforting to know RC censors, edits and filters posts? The reason Steve McIntyre started his own blog was RC (Mann & Co.) refused to post his replies. That actually resulted in a positive move since ClimateAudit is exposing the hockey stick for what it is; junk science.

RC's parlor games and deceptive verbiage their loyalist groupies never question are well documented. Here is one example:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/

In conclusion, Real Climate, rather than engaging in the science issues raised by the photographic documentation of such a key data set in the assessment of climate change, has elected to be defensive and has sought to transfer this issue into a political debate. I invite Real Climate, therefore, to reconsider their approach to the issue of HCN siting and join in trying to provide improved metadata so that a larger consensus can be reached on its value for the diversity of purposes for which it is used.

There are many more.

 

[CapelDodger]

What so what happens when current CO2 doubles is the total GHG effect will be 36C. But, what happens with the following CO2 doubling? If the effect is logarithmic as has been suggested, the effect will be less than 3C.

If the effect is logarithmic any doubling will have the same effect. That goes with the territory of being logarithmic - it's a power thing.

Which implies that the previous doubling to get up to current values had a more than 3C effect. Something doesn't sound right.

I noticed that straight away. See above.

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

I suggest you look into what a logarithm is before you indulge yourself.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is generally agreed the current total effect of all GHGs makes the earth about 33C warmer that it would be otherwise. Middle of the IPCC range for the effect of a doubling of CO2 is about 3C.

What so what happens when current CO2 doubles is the total GHG effect will be 36C. But, what happens with the following CO2 doubling? If the effect is logarithmic as has been suggested, the effect will be less than 3C. Which implies that the previous doubling to get up to current values had a more than 3C effect. Something doesn't sound right.

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

For ease of figuring I will consider each doubling of CO2 as being equal to 3C. Starting with an atmosphere containing 1ppm of CO2 eight doublings results in 256ppm(LIA) and nine doublings results in 512ppm which is about 140ppm high than now. Eight doublings at 3C per doubling = 24C and nine doublings = 27C. This leaves less than 10C for the effect of all other GHGs including the elephant in the room, water vapor.

It seems to me when they say each doubling of CO2 causes 3C or anything close to that figure, there is a whole lot of conjecture being made from climate models that may show that effect.

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?

It's widely recognised that a five degree fever is not healthy. Cklimate models don't enter into it. Much the same goes for the culinary arts.

RealClimate has become your #1 source for "reliable" information recently. Is there any particular reason for that? Maybe for lack of peer reviewed articles to support AGW? Are all blogs acceptable to be used as evidence, or just RC? Or is the the real reason they are simply pimping their unsubstantiated opinions to the weak minded who can't discern fact from fiction, blindly following their every utterance. Is it comforting to know RC censors, edits and filters posts? The reason Steve McIntyre started his own blog was RC (Mann & Co.) refused to post his replies. That actually resulted in a positive move since ClimateAudit is exposing the hockey stick for what it is; junk science.

RC's parlor games and deceptive verbiage their loyalist groupies never question are well documented. Here is one example:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/


There are many more.

You started weird, and it just went on getting weirder.

Keep pushing the product, you're really winning people over. Even I'm hard put to respond.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?

I take it from that comment you have not read the link.

 

[CapelDodger]

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Too sophisticated without the basics, such as what logarithms are .

Of course, the practical influence of any doubling is not so simple as logarithmic. The CO2 influence is, but the feedbacks depend on different physics (such as evaporation) and on limits (once all the ice has gone, albedo can go no lower).

Not that it'll make much difference after the first doubling, in the longer term. The society that adjusts to survive the first will take the next in its stride.

 

[CapelDodger]

I take it from that comment you have not read the link.

A link to the science of AGW, with the observations and measurements before climate models were even dreamt of. David Rodale knows that AGW depends only on models, so he doesn't feel the need to read it to respond. It must, somehow, be about climate models. And he has something to say about them.

So anyway, Monkton? The poor sad buggers are still going with Monkton? They're making common ground with whining pseudo-aristocrats That's a pretty empty bench they're having to work with.

From what I hear the drought breaking in your parts turned out to be a false dawn. La Nina conditions not coming up with the usual goods.

 

[a_unique_person]

A link to the science of AGW, with the observations and measurements before climate models were even dreamt of. David Rodale knows that AGW depends only on models, so he doesn't feel the need to read it to respond. It must, somehow, be about climate models. And he has something to say about them.

It's an interesting read.

We had some heavy drizzle at the weekend for a few hours. Apart from that, nothing for a week. Sydney did get some heavy rain, but unfortunately it also came with hailstones as big as a golf ball, and larger. Several areas were hit very hard.

 

[mhaze]

That's not a comment. And that's a quote.
Repeating myself here, but do you have any comment to make on the Bali Conference?

Yes. Seeking true comedy (of errors) look to Bali.

 

[mhaze]

Re your reference.

Weart is just a "historian of science" and doesn't seem to understand in depth some of the material he discusses. Surely for pro AGW view, there is a preferred and better spokesman?

 

[a_unique_person]

Re your reference.

Weart is just a "historian of science" and doesn't seem to understand in depth some of the material he discusses. Surely for pro AGW view, there is a preferred and better spokesman?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm

You could look him up if you wanted to instead of just getting it wrong.

He has a Ph D in Physics and Astrophysics, but he is also a historian of science. He is more than qualified to take the work of the active and past researchers and present it for us. I have read some of his other work on the web before, and he does an excellent job.

Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun's atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.

If you compare Weart to someone like Monckton, I know who I'd rather believe.

 

[mhaze]

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

For ease of figuring I will consider each doubling of CO2 as being equal to 3C. Starting with an atmosphere containing 1ppm of CO2 eight doublings results in 256ppm(LIA) and nine doublings results in 512ppm which is about 140ppm high than now. Eight doublings at 3C per doubling = 24C and nine doublings = 27C. This leaves less than 10C for the effect of all other GHGs including the elephant in the room, water vapor.

It seems to me when they say each doubling of CO2 causes 3C or anything close to that figure, there is a whole lot of conjecture being made from climate models that may show that effect.

And if we allowed a third of the total greenhouse gas effect to co2, some 11C, we would get a more realistic number for the charge in temp with a doubling of co2.

 

[a_unique_person]

And if we allowed a third of the total greenhouse gas effect to co2, some 11C, we would get a more realistic number for the charge in temp with a doubling of co2.

And if there were no enhanced effect or positive feedback, you might be right.

 

[mhaze]

If you compare Weart to someone like Monckton, I know who I'd rather believe.

But your nutter Weart still thinks there is a hockey stick.



Monckton knows better.

 

[a_unique_person]

But your nutter Weart still thinks there is a hockey stick.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png

Monckton knows better.

A jumped up self important 'noble' who has taught himself all about the science of global warming, or a PhD Physicist who is in agreement with the majority of scientists researching climate change.

Hmmmmm, tough choice.

 

[BobK]

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.

They get their middle figure of around 3C for doubling from the climate models. If you look at this IPCC chart you can readily see the models allow for a equal temperature rise for each doubling. They show both 2x and 4x CO2 in the same chart produced by one of their models. Do you for some reason think they picked their most coprolite model for their chart?

My point was and still is. The chart shows their models must be handling CO2 increase incorrectly. It cannot be a mathematical one-way street. If CO2 has the effect they claim, then CO2 decreases should result in an equivalent negative change in temperature. I showed in my previous post the 3C figure is unrealistically large. Not enough of the 33C temperature effect remains for the other GHGs.

 

[a_unique_person]

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.

They get their middle figure of around 3C for doubling from the climate models. If you look at this IPCC chart you can readily see the models allow for a equal temperature rise for each doubling. They show both 2x and 4x CO2 in the same chart produced by one of their models. Do you for some reason think they picked their most coprolite model for their chart?

My point was and still is. The chart shows their models must be handling CO2 increase incorrectly. It cannot be a mathematical one-way street. If CO2 has the effect they claim, then CO2 decreases should result in an equivalent negative change in temperature. I showed in my previous post the 3C figure is unrealistically large. Not enough of the 33C temperature effect remains for the other GHGs.

They aren't modeling a simple directly linked system. Feedback, enhanced greenhouse.

 

[a_unique_person]

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.

I'm confused. Are you saying that if we ignore the enhanced effect, there's only a small effect?

 

[mhaze]

It's an interesting read.

We had some heavy drizzle at the weekend for a few hours. Apart from that, nothing for a week. Sydney did get some heavy rain, but unfortunately it also came with hailstones as big as a golf ball, and larger. Several areas were hit very hard.

Just curious.

In your save-the-planet vision of Biggie Kyoto Aussies would get the rain they rightfully deserve....

Exactly how?