Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Baron Farms said:
Appearances can be deceiving, especially when those appearances are created from out of context quote mining.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I haven't read more about Dyson than his wikipedia entry, but from that I think it's clear that what I say above is true.

You are right, Dyson expressively says that AGW is happening. He's also saying that it's been overblown, and that we shouldn't worry too much about it, because worrying too much about it detracts from other problems, like poverty, disease, education etc. This is a tremendously ill informed view.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
We read different sources, clearly.
Click to expand...

How can there be "different sources"? You are not allowed to invent your own sources of peer reviewed literature.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
This last needs work. The units are not the same (% atmospheric CO2 versus watts/m2,
Click to expand...

Wrong. CO2 forcing is in W/m^2. Current net anthropogenic forcing is ~2.3W/m^2. Since the earth is a sphere and 30% of solar isolation is reflected this is equivalent to a change in solar output of over 13W/m^2



Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I have read that orbital mechanics align well with ice ages in the geologic record.
Click to expand...

Orbital wobbles are not solar changes.

The mechanism by which these orbital wobbles provide almost all their impact is by directing more energy to the Northern Hemisphere which releases CO2 which drives the climate change. The energy changes from the orbital wobbles is far to small to have the impact they do without the CO2 connection.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually Dyson was part of team that worked under Alvin M. Weinberg at Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies, which in part pioneered the change of climate science from vague theoretical speculation into a strong precise multidisciplinary observational science.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. That still doesn't make him a specialist in that field. Plus he was there in the 70s, which probably means he's far from being up to date on this issue.
 
No way I'm reading the last +1000 posts! Let me guess: the usual seasonal irruption of denialists caused by the beginning of the Northern Winter and the time available during Xmas vacations was deepened and extended by record cold weather. Well, here record hot weather affecting part of six countries an an area comparable with the 48 contiguous states prevented me from posting (I was 8 days in a row without electricity). So I suppose it is not so cold there now the same way here is not so hot, then:

Did somebody replied the questions, like the causes of not so different OLR in Arctic and Antarctic or the mistakes in that governmental website? If so, please, point me to the proper post/s.

It is also not a surprise that some respectable scientist from the past -in areas not related to climate, whose existence prolongs into present- is being discussed just because he said thirty-five years ago that one -real- billion trees would do the trick then, and that fits like a glove on the dialectical pursuits of a couple of posters.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
A genius at least on the scale of Hawking, Einstein etc...
ETA So you see? Dyson is categorically NOT an AGW denier. His skepticism is directed at advancing science, not ignoring science for political purposes such as advocated by Malcolm.
Click to expand...
Mind reading? What "political reasons" do you imagine I seek to advance through skepticism of the AGW faith? I wrote months earlier in this discussion that confidence in the case for State (government, generally) intervention depends (in part) on the confidence in which people hold the underlying science. Celestial mechanics works well enough that I would accept the argument for a crash program to prevent an impact by an Earth-crossing asteroid, for example.
 
Iamme said:
Going back to the end of post #2326, this wasnt really ever answered, was it?:
Macdoc said warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
Malcolm retorted by saying clouds reflect sunlight.
Me: More water vapor means more clouds, right? Clouds reflecting sunlight means reflecting heat, right? So which trumps which? Or are the two things neutralizing?..................................
Click to expand...

Clouds are complex and their precise impact is the subject of ongoing research. While more water vapor should enhance cloud formation they are actually dependent on relative humidity which doesn't necessarily increase.


Clouds may be a negative feedback, though this is still not certain. Under a negative feedback scenario a warmer planet would promote some change that is a cooling influence. The net result of negative feedback is that any forcing is attenuated. I.E. the final effect is smaller than if you just looked at the change the forcing would cause.

20 years ago if if you looked just at the clouds themselves it was possible, though not particularly likely they could create a negative feedback that would offset greenhouse gas warming. Science has moved on, and it's increasingly looking like they have little or no negative feedback and indeed may be a slight positive feedback.

That's is just looking at the cloud formation process itself. There is another way to investigate the issue, that is looking at past climate change. If cloud formation really did step in to put the breaks on
warming how does a deglaciation occur? why doesn't this process kick in to stop that warming as well?

IOW while the cloud formation process itself used to allow for the possibility that they would put the breaks on any warming, the paleo- climate data never allowed for this as a real possibility.
 
uke2se said:
I must admit, I haven't read more about Dyson than his wikipedia entry, but from that I think it's clear that what I say above is true.

You are right, Dyson expressively says that AGW is happening. He's also saying that it's been overblown, and that we shouldn't worry too much about it, because worrying too much about it detracts from other problems, like poverty, disease, education etc. This is a tremendously ill informed view.
Click to expand...

A bit more light reading about Dyson

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/3/

In a nutshell (so to speak):
http://xkcd.com/793/
(as more fully illustrated in: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jul/19/our-biotech-future/?page=1 where he declares that science leads us to replace nature with biologies of our design and reap utopia! - thus my comment about "hammers" and "nails")

Ultimately climate science is based on the evidences guiding the science, Dyson admits that his opinions and considerations are not based on the science which he really does not care to study or systematically evaluate. In that sense, his opinions are as unfounded as most of those who deny or reject the science in this forum.
 
aleCcowaN said:
No way I'm reading the last +1000 posts! Let me guess: the usual seasonal irruption of denialists caused by the beginning of the Northern Winter and the time available during Xmas vacations was deepened and extended by record cold weather. Well, here record hot weather affecting part of six countries an an area comparable with the 48 contiguous states prevented me from posting (I was 8 days in a row without electricity). So I suppose it is not so cold there now the same way here is not so hot, then:

Did somebody replied the questions, like the causes of not so different OLR in Arctic and Antarctic or the mistakes in that governmental website? If so, please, point me to the proper post/s.

It is also not a surprise that some respectable scientist from the past -in areas not related to climate, whose existence prolongs into present- is being discussed just because he said thirty-five years ago that one -real- billion trees would do the trick then, and that fits like a glove on the dialectical pursuits of a couple of posters.
Click to expand...

Pretty close,... ReHis, welcome back!
 
About the line of debate that includes a "Clouds! Gotcha!"

If clouds are now made of water vapour so the link between warmer air holding more humidity and more cloud cover is such a seamless one, please, let me play the denialist (to do that in the end you have only to be good at ignoring and reshuffling text bits devoid of numerical or systemic content):

If hot air ascends, why on Earth low-lying layers of air are warmer than high layers of air even early in the morning? Mustn't heat go up and cold go down? What GW are you talking about? After all, the more warming, the more the planet cool by itself (in the Yogi Berra style of "nobody is going there now, it's too crowded!")
 
aleCcowaN said:
No way I'm reading the last +1000 posts! Let me guess: the usual seasonal irruption of denialists caused by the beginning of the Northern Winter and the time available during Xmas vacations was deepened and extended by record cold weather. Well, here record hot weather affecting part of six countries an an area comparable with the 48 contiguous states prevented me from posting (I was 8 days in a row without electricity). So I suppose it is not so cold there now the same way here is not so hot, then:

Did somebody replied the questions, like the causes of not so different OLR in Arctic and Antarctic or the mistakes in that governmental website? If so, please, point me to the proper post/s.

It is also not a surprise that some respectable scientist from the past -in areas not related to climate, whose existence prolongs into present- is being discussed just because he said thirty-five years ago that one -real- billion trees would do the trick then, and that fits like a glove on the dialectical pursuits of a couple of posters.
Click to expand...

Actually not bad, pretty darn close. :D Sorry to hear about your electrical problems.:(
 
Last edited:
Iamme
Me: More water vapor means more clouds, right? Clouds reflecting sunlight means reflecting heat, right? So which trumps which? Or are the two things neutralizing?....
Click to expand...

Well you almost got to the accepted answer via the wrong method.

CLouds are indeed complex but they also trap IR - deserts get very cold at night as there are not clouds or water vapor to trap outgoing IR.

Clouds are greatly transparent to incoming UV which does not heat the atmosphere but rather heats the ocean. ( wear sunblock even when it's cloudy).

There is not automatically more clouds with more water vapour. They depend on many factors including aerosols to nucelate around and temperature layers within the atmosphere.

It's an endlessly fascinating bit of study and as a sail plane pilot one you need to understand at least at the thermal level....you get up close and personal with them and there is tremendous power in thermal activity which utimately pumps heat around the planet.

Net effect recently was just slightly on the warming side and very condition dependent as time of day obviously affects radiative balance.

Cloudy night traps, cloudy day can up the albedo and reflect incoming solar radiation but so much depends on the cloud type and conditions that it is truly a modelling nightmare.

At the moment they are not considered a negative feedback as much as wishful thinking would like. I'll see if I can locate the paper.

snip

Clouds are very pesky for climate scientists. Due to their high spatial and temporal variability, as well as the many processes involved in cloud droplet formation, clouds are difficult to model. Furthermore, clouds have competing effects on solar and terrestrial radiation. Increases in clouds increase reflected sunlight (a cooling effect) but also increase the greenhouse effect (a warming effect). The net effect of clouds at a given location depends the kind of clouds (stratus, cumulus etc.), their distribution in the vertical and on which radiative effect dominates. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...hout-cloud-observations/#sthash.JlyCdkeJ.dpuf
Click to expand...

read the whole thing
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

so yes Iamme it's pretty neutral....but there is far far more to be determined.

One of the geo-engineering concepts I like is called whitening and there are several approaches from cloud ships
http://geoengineeringchem465.webs.com/cloudbrightening.htm

to micro-bubble arrays.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/08/low-intensity-geoengineering-microbubbles-and-microspheres/
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Mind reading? What "political reasons" do you imagine I seek to advance through skepticism of the AGW faith? I wrote months earlier in this discussion that confidence in the case for State (government, generally) intervention depends (in part) on the confidence in which people hold the underlying science. Celestial mechanics works well enough that I would accept the argument for a crash program to prevent an impact by an Earth-crossing asteroid, for example.
Click to expand...
Post removed due to my error as pointed out by Pixel #2451. I also humbly appologize:o
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
You do know you've quoted a post by a different poster to the one you're addressing?
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out my senior moment.:o

ETA Here is the quote that should have been made.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
If the source of funding determines the weight one assigns to scientific arguments, then why exempt the special interest group we call "government" from suspicion? They supply vastly more funds to the pro-AGW side than all other sources supply to the skeptic side. That presumes the conclusion. Someone asked why I trust Freeman Dyson. I've been a fan since the publication of Disturbing the Universe. Are you saying Dyson is uninformed or dishonest?
Click to expand...

oh and BTW since Dyson has publicly stated he agrees with AGW including CO2 as a primary driver, if Malcolm were honest in his "trusting" of Dyson, he would also.

Who knows? I wouldn't want to be a "mind reader" and put words in Malcolms mouth. So Malcolm? Are you still denying AGW?
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
Why have so many scientists and climatologists from around the world gotten and continue to get the research wrong when it comes to AGW?
Click to expand...

If you define what you mean by AGW you might actually get an answer.

Can you define what you mean?
 
MK
Celestial mechanics works well enough that I would accept the argument for a crash program to prevent an impact by an Earth-crossing asteroid, for example.
Click to expand...

so a maybe versus a certainty if a slow to unfold one....ever try priority management course....might be useful.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom