• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt Giwer said:
If it is not possible to separate out the CO2 component of the temperature then there is no way to single out CO2 as needing to be reduced.
Click to expand...

It's possible to recognise that CO2 is the cause of the current warming because there are no other causes to be seen. Whether that means CO2 "needs" to be reduced is a matter of opinion. If it isn't the warming will continue, because it's the CO2 which is causing it.

It is no more than very incomplete speculation so attribute the cooling so "smog" as so very little of the world was industrialized in 1940.
Click to expand...

Seventy years ago wasn't Middle Ages (and there was smog back in the 19thCE). The second world war was extremely industrial, as was the first. You yourself referred to the cooling from the 40's, and even you will agree that the world was very industrialised by the 70's.

And there was smog. Doubt it if you must, but this is all in living memory. Acid rain was a problem because those sulphate aerosols really were up there, and sulphate clouds really do cool the planet. That's easily observable from volcanic eruptions.
 
It is no more than very incomplete speculation so attribute the cooling so "smog" as so very little of the world was industrialized in 1940.
Click to expand...

:dl:

there was this little event called WWII....seems your understanding of industrialization matches your knowledge of climate.

Smoke stacks were signs of progress then and there were NO controls....processes were very inefficent and you had enormous navies many still with coal.

Coal was in open use in Europe much as it is in China today.

Coal production peaked in the early 1900s, then declined sharply during the depression years of the 1930s. Coal production peaked again in the 1940s, then declined during the 1950s.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal#cite_note-mkinghubbert1956-0
Click to expand...

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

Global dimming was an observed phenomena - not "speculation" -

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel.
Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.
"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked. Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

You make outrageous claims with no backing...basically you are wrong on all counts.
 
BenBurch said:
Nonsense.

You can compute the effect of CO2 with great accuracy. Well over a century of established physics to do exactly that. Verified in the lab. Verified in the atmospheres of other planets. Verified with Earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I do not know that I can but if you are correct then someone has done so. I merely ask for that equation from physical principles. Frankly I have no idea how to do global weather in the lab but if you know it can be done I would much appreciate a reference to that being done also.

We have other effects, yes, background noise effects that are a random walk around the mean, and cyclic effects that we can account for.
Click to expand...

If they can be accounted for then it should be a simple matter to run the equations backwards and reconstruct the last 2000 years of climate fluctuations in warming, cooling including the little ice age and going beyond those 2000 years back to the real ice age and the interglacial periods. I am unaware that has been done but again, if it has, I would much appreciate proper references to this having been accomplished.

We know EXACTLY why its getting warmer now, and that is GHGs in the atmosphere; CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, and industrial gasses. CO2 and the trace industrial gasses drive the rise of the Methane and Water Vapor - its an amplification factor.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for moderated thread.
Click to expand...

I some how doubt there are changes due to water vapor as that has been with us since there were oceans well over 4 billion years ago.

I have no idea what you mean by industrial gases separate from CO2 and methane in regard to this discussion. Could you explain? Thank you.

You are making some quite fantastical claims when my knowledge of the state of the art is supercomputer simulations going only a relatively few years into the future and then only resulting in the grossest of generalities.

But then it leaves the greatest problem of all. The simulations cannot be verified until there are results which match the predictions. IF something is done and the predictions do not occur there will be no way to decide if they were correct or incorrect. It is only by doing nothing and the predictions occurring that the validity of the predictions can be established.
 
Matt Giwer said:
Were it based upon physical principles the change in temperature would exactly track the change in CO2 level. If temperature goes down then CO2 goes down. I gave the obvious example of why it does not apply in picking 1940.
Click to expand...
How do explain ocean tides? Obviously they can't be due to physical principles like the gravitational effect of the moon because if they were then, according to you, the tide line on the beach would exactly track it. But we've all stood on a beach and seen a wave come higher up than the previous one even though the tide is going out and vice versa. According to your "logic" this means that we can't seperate the moon component from the other things (wind direction and speed, air pressure fluctuations) which affect how high each individual wave comes up the beach, so we can't single it out as the cause of tides.

How do you explain the fact that the Northern Hemisphere warms between January and July? Obviously it can't be due to a physical principle like the tilt of the earth because if it was then, according to you, the temperature would exactly track it. But we know that the temperature often goes down rather than up from day to day and even week to week during those months. According to your "logic" this means that we can't seperate the earth's tilt component from the other things which affect the weather, so we can't single it out as the cause of the seasons.
 
Matt Giwer said:
What does the underlined statement mean?

You do know there is a difference between temperature and heat do you not?

You are aware that statement fits neither temperature nor heat are you not?
Click to expand...

So I wrote the sentence in a rush? It doesn't change the facts.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

(note to mods: I do have explicit permission from Jonathon Cooke of Skeptical Science to reproduce his work, PM me if you need me to forward you corroborating emails or anything like that)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no separate field of "climate" physics
Click to expand...
. P

Wrong on that point as well - perhaps you should try it....link below

I know of no physicist who would claim expertise in climate science....tho a few like Feynman stray out of their area of knowledge and faceplant spectacularly. All climate scientists working in the area of AGW have sufficient understanding of the physical mechanisms underlying atmospherics as well as cryosphere and hydrosphere interaction.

Atmospheric temperature is transient and small in scale compared to hydrosphere and cryosphere....it's where the hysterisis lies.
And as Ben pointed out......even stopping cold now - which we won't will not stop the warming.......carbon is forever
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

and that article might actually answer your questions....but I suspect as with elsewhere on the web for you - this is just a handy soapbox for unsupported commentary....

If you actually understood or even read the physics of C02 absorption of IR you would not be making such unsupportable statements
You did not look at one supplied paper did you?
You divert by making off topic statements about no climate physics .....

Climate Physics and Chemistry OpenCourseWare: MIT's Free Undergraduate Class on Climate Studies
Click to expand...
http://educhoices.org/articles/Clim...e_Undergraduate_Class_on_Climate_Studies.html
 
Or maybe you should read and understand the nature of the article before flying out the conspirator flag.....

The idea that scientists might not have quite understood the Sun's effect on climate should not provide ammunition for climate-change sceptics, says Martin Dameris, an atmospheric scientist at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen.
ADVERTISEMENT



"The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations," he says. "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article....
You could have skipped the baseless editorial...:rolleyes:
 
CapelDodger said:
It's possible to recognise that CO2 is the cause of the current warming because there are no other causes to be seen. Whether that means CO2 "needs" to be reduced is a matter of opinion. If it isn't the warming will continue, because it's the CO2 which is causing it.
Click to expand...

If the CO2 component cannot be separated out and quantified then there is no basis for saying it is a contributing factor. Qualitative assessments are useful in only the simplest examples and even then are of little use in doing other than explaining a physical principle to the student. Without the math physics is of no value.

Seventy years ago wasn't Middle Ages (and there was smog back in the 19thCE). The second world war was extremely industrial, as was the first. You yourself referred to the cooling from the 40's, and even you will agree that the world was very industrialised by the 70's.
Click to expand...

It is not credible that global climate can change because of modest industrialization over 2-3% of the world. If one wants to see if it if credible, produce the math. Without the math there is nothing of interest.

And there was smog. Doubt it if you must, but this is all in living memory. Acid rain was a problem because those sulphate aerosols really were up there, and sulphate clouds really do cool the planet. That's easily observable from volcanic eruptions.
Click to expand...

I am unaware of any quantitative determination of this as fact.

Again without math there is nothing which can be said on causes. That is the way it is even for simple systems. The earth's climate is rather beyond a simple system.
 
macdoc said:
:dl:

there was this little event called WWII....seems your understanding of industrialization matches your knowledge of climate.

Smoke stacks were signs of progress then and there were NO controls....processes were very inefficent and you had enormous navies many still with coal.
Click to expand...

I must say I am surprised that silly animated gif survived moderation.

Be that as it may in the matter of industrialization northern Europe plus northern Italy, North America and Japan were the only places with significant industrialization. As to measures of industrialization there is the automobile. Back then the two car family was almost unheard of and the population for North
America was less than half what it is today. You can also look up energy consumption estimates for those years if this general description is insufficient to put 1940 in perspective.

Coal was in open use in Europe much as it is in China today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal
Click to expand...

I have a policy to ignore anonymous sources.

Global dimming was an observed phenomena - not "speculation" -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

You make outrageous claims with no backing...basically you are wrong on all counts.
Click to expand...

In the words you highlighted in yellow it clearly says this "dimming" occurs in only parts of some countries. How do you go from parts of some countries to global? By inserting that gif between them so the irrational leap is less noticeable?
 
Pixel42 said:
How do explain ocean tides? Obviously they can't be due to physical principles like the gravitational effect of the moon because if they were then, according to you, the tide line on the beach would exactly track it.
Click to expand...

It is rude to the point of vulgarity to pretend to speak for me and then attack your own pretension.

But we've all stood on a beach and seen a wave come higher up than the previous one even though the tide is going out and vice versa. According to your "logic" this means that we can't seperate the moon component from the other things (wind direction and speed, air pressure fluctuations) which affect how high each individual wave comes up the beach, so we can't single it out as the cause of tides.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is attacking your own nonsense statement. I do not see what you think that accomplishes other than to show you know you posted nonsense.

How do you explain the fact that the Northern Hemisphere warms between January and July? Obviously it can't be due to a physical principle like the tilt of the earth because if it was then, according to you, the temperature would exactly track it. But we know that the temperature often goes down rather than up from day to day and even week to week during those months. According to your "logic" this means that we can't seperate the earth's tilt component from the other things which affect the weather, so we can't single it out as the cause of the seasons.
Click to expand...

What you say cannot be done has been done by physicists for centuries. As it has been done for centuries there is no excuse for failure to do it with CO2 today.

I do not see the point of your response.
 
BeAChooser said:
This just shows to what length global warming scientists will go to prove their thesis. Black is White. Up is Down.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Then, your position -and then your argumentation- are difficult to understand. I gather from your intervention in this thread (#453, #456, #460 and #567) that you don't want to hear about any significant warming during the following few decades so you consider any action to curb it to be not necessary. If I could picture your position correctly, don't worry as the scientific article doesn't mean the quoted press title at all.

Here is the real article. Any consequences of that study affects "time constants" so to speak and has nothing to do with setting any trend by itself. That is, the press comment you cited seems to be the kind of baloney promoting conflict and emotional debate we are used to find.

In fact, that piece of news is written in a way that resembles the article in this thread.

O tempora o mores.
 
bit_pattern said:
So I wrote the sentence in a rush? It doesn't change the facts.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

(note to mods: I do have explicit permission from Jonathon Cooke of Skeptical Science to reproduce his work, PM me if you need me to forward you corroborating emails or anything like that)
Click to expand...

What facts do you think you are presenting? An anomaly that is increasing means what? Please give the equation which relates an anomaly to temperature. What is the basis for claiming it is a real anomaly instead of a deficiency in measurement methodology?

It is unclear how sufficient quantities of bathymetric data is collected annually worldwide to produce such smooth curves. I am familiar with the main source of bathymetric data, the world's four blue water navies, and that data is clearly not suitable for world wide estimates due to their areas of operation being determined by geopolitics rather than any intent to sample the world.
 
BeAChooser said:
This just shows to what length global warming scientists will go to prove their thesis. Black is White. Up is Down.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Click to expand...

One is struck by the fact that the greenies who have become avid melters are also the folks who have promoted the Jane Fonda School of Nuclear Physics to prevent nuclear power plants. Japan and France get over 80% of their electricity from nuclear power and the Japanese do not glow in the dark although I am not sure about the French.
 
BeAChooser said:
This just shows to what length global warming scientists will go to prove their thesis. Black is White. Up is Down.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Click to expand...

What thesis are you referring to - that solar variation is responsible for the current warming? Is that what "global warming scientists" have been telling us? If so, they really haven't got their message across at all well. They've been drowned out by the scientists who attribute it to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

How's this working out for "global cooling scientists"? Does this observation accord with their thesis?
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for moderated thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and ????

how about reading the rest of the article in context -
First it's a 3 year segment.
Second the scientists involved say it cancels out over a cycle....

It's interesting, it has no bearing on AGW
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom