Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

• Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
• When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
• This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
• Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
• So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
• If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
• If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
• Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
• With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
• An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

Actually, these are predictions derived from some considerations about CO2 forced climate change. Which is appropriate as CO2 forced global climate warming is the primary method by which human activities are altering the natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, this does not satisfy the word game demands of r-j who wants to be directed to a published paper that lays out an "E=MC²" formula as the specifically labeled essence of AGW/"The Theory of Global Warming."

Most climate scientists accept the understanding that human activities are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2, they likewise understand that CO2 forced climate change is the mechanism through which human activities are having the greatest impact upon modern climate, and when they write or speak about AGW or the theory of global warming, these are the mechanisms and understandings of which they are actually speaking.

 

[Trakar]

Neither can any change in the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere change "the total energy in the system". Ultimately, all the energy (thus all the heat energy that thermometers and temperature proxies like tree rings can detect) in "the system" derives from one or another of three sources: 1) impacts (gravitational kinetic energy), 2) radioactive decay, 3) solar energy. CO₂ also "transfer(s) energy within the system".
Where do I err, here?

Factors which retard the escape of energy from a system and thus allow energy to accumulate/concentrate within that system.

 

[Trakar]

That's right, I am a farmer from Oklahoma. What did you expect me to use? Kelvin?

It's actually a pretty handy measure, I have an outside thermometer that measures in Kelvin. I picked this up just so that when guests ask me why my temperature dial says it is 278 degrees? I can inform them that the Kelvin system isn't an arbitrary designation system and so doesn't use "degrees."

 

[Trakar]

Excellent summary of GHG Mikemcc
Now we'll proably hear volcanos or how do we know it's from us

The incredible energies to melt 100's of cuKM of ice should give people some ideas of what we've unleashed.

I saw a simple conversion for people who have a hard time understanding how much energy the currently added CO2 in our planet's atmosphere is retaining versus pre-industrial levels,...It works out to be about equivalent to detonating 4 Hiroshima class nuclear device every second,...or if you prefer a more cuddly visual, about the same energy as 7.4 quadrillion kitten sneezes per second.

(http://4hiroshimas.com/)

I'm sure there is probably some play there, but rough calcs do indicate that it is roughly in the correct magnitude of order.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah I think Ben did one for Greenland and it was 2,000 - 4,000 Hiroshimas a day to melt the ice and that has accelerated .

Something just occurred to me.

If ICE vehicles are only 25% thermally efficient and in reality all goes to hear ( friction etc ) we are not only putting CO2 in but also heat from every ICE

Anyone have a notion of what that thermal output of a gallon of gas is ( use 4 Litre = 1 gallon ) just to keep it easy.

Is the thermal signature of ICE and other fossil fuel use at all significant aside from CO2?

 

[r-j]

Is the thermal signature of ICE and other fossil fuel use at all significant aside from CO2?

Now now dear, next you will be asking about the H2O from burning fuels, and claiming that since water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, we are changing the balance of moisture in the air. Causing global warming.

that's crazy talk.

 

[Reality Check]

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!

Linking to the dubious WUWT web site is bad, Haig, but at least there is some valid science there!
Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise (PDF).
Not great science because we now know that the "pause" does not exist. The oceans continued heating up at the same rate as before.

A nitpick:
The HadCRUT-4 dataset is the wrong dataset to use. This dataset is unrepresentative of the polar regions which are where a lot of warming happens. The authors even say so! ("there must be a fair global coverage").
But they do address this in the Discussions section (other datasets give similar results).

 

[r-j]

Actually, these are predictions derived from some considerations about CO2 forced climate change.

What are the "considerations"? Where did you read about them? What makes this different from global warming? As in, how can we tell it is AGW and not just warming? If you can't explain this, do you have a source that can?

Which is appropriate as CO2 forced global climate warming is the primary method by which human activities are altering the natural climate cycles.

How do you know that? What is the signature that tells us it is the CO2 causing the warming? What is the source of your understanding?

Unfortunately, this does not satisfy the word game demands of r-j who wants to be directed to a published paper that lays out an "E=MC²" formula as the specifically labeled essence of AGW/"The Theory of Global Warming."

It's not a word game, that is dishonest of you. I am quite clear when I state something, as well as when I ask questions. It's the people that use a term, but refuse to define it, that are playing word games.

Like the questions I just asked above. It's not hard to simply answer them, and explain why those claims are being made. Same for all the other "signatures" which are claimed to be clear signs of warming from CO2. Can you list them,, and explain why the theory predicts they will occur? The mechanism of the CO2 warming, how it is possible to tell it is occurring. These are not word games, they are scientific issues.

If you can't explain why, and the predictions made, it's not science.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah I think Ben did one for Greenland and it was 2,000 - 4,000 Hiroshimas a day to melt the ice and that has accelerated .

Something just occurred to me.

If ICE vehicles are only 25% thermally efficient and in reality all goes to hear ( friction etc ) we are not only putting CO2 in but also heat from every ICE

Anyone have a notion of what that thermal output of a gallon of gas is ( use 4 Litre = 1 gallon ) just to keep it easy.

Is the thermal signature of ICE and other fossil fuel use at all significant aside from CO2?

I'm sure that this is, at the least, a minor component of some dense urban environments,...at night, but I would think it would only equal a very small fraction of what solar energy typically does. especially once you average it to global distribution.

Solar energy, on a clear day ~1,300W/m²
The body of the engine and exhaust system drain a lot of that heat (to be later emitted as radiative energy and conduction/convection through direct contact with other parts of the car body and the atmosphere. Most of the remaining heat in the exhaust is carried in the steam from combustion and the kinetic motion of the combustion reaction products,...a somewhat complex calculation, but definitely calculable to a reasonable certainty, I would be surprised if there isn't some information already floating about.

 

[Trakar]

What are the "considerations"? Where did you read about them? What makes this different from global warming? As in, how can we tell it is AGW and not just warming? If you can't explain this, do you have a source that can?

How do you know that? What is the signature that tells us it is the CO2 causing the warming? What is the source of your understanding?

It's not a word game, that is dishonest of you. I am quite clear when I state something, as well as when I ask questions. It's the people that use a term, but refuse to define it, that are playing word games.

Like the questions I just asked above. It's not hard to simply answer them, and explain why those claims are being made. Same for all the other "signatures" which are claimed to be clear signs of warming from CO2. Can you list them,, and explain why the theory predicts they will occur? The mechanism of the CO2 warming, how it is possible to tell it is occurring. These are not word games, they are scientific issues.

If you can't explain why, and the predictions made, it's not science.

Direct links and discussions of all of these issues has occurred repeatedly over the last five years in this, and the fore-runner thread. After having been present for at least the last couple of rounds, you cannot pretend that you have never heard about any of this previously.

Start here with the American Institute of Physics sponsored :
"The Discovery of Global Warming"
and then we can discuss how understandings have expanded and grown post-discovery.

 

[Belz...]

Now now dear, next you will be asking about the H2O from burning fuels, and claiming that since water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, we are changing the balance of moisture in the air. Causing global warming.

that's crazy talk.

 

[r-j]

Direct links and discussions of all of these issues has occurred repeatedly over the last five years in this, and the fore-runner thread.

That isn't what I asked you about. I asked you specific clear questions about the topic.

After having been present for at least the last couple of rounds, you cannot pretend that you have never heard about any of this previously.

There has been no link to the answers, much less discussion of them. You are being either dishonest or evasive. I asked you for your understanding. You, and others, literally post thousands of lines of text, but refuse to do a paragraph explaining the basics. Important basic things, about the theory and physics of the matter at hand.

and then we can discuss how understandings have expanded and grown post-discovery.

Avoidance.

Anyone else actually know enough to just type out the answers here?

Actually, these are predictions derived from some considerations about CO2 forced climate change.

What are the "considerations"? Where did you read about them? What makes this different from global warming? As in, how can we tell it is AGW and not just warming? If you can't explain this, do you have a source that can?

If you link to a source, please quote the part you are linking to. better yet, just explain it.

Which is appropriate as CO2 forced global climate warming is the primary method by which human activities are altering the natural climate cycles.

How do you know that? What is the signature that tells us it is the CO2 causing the warming? What is the source of your understanding? These are basic things, relevant to the topic.

Unfortunately, this does not satisfy the word game demands of r-j who wants to be directed to a published paper that lays out an "E=MC²" formula as the specifically labeled essence of AGW/"The Theory of Global Warming."

It's not a word game, that is dishonest of you. I am quite clear when I state something, as well as when I ask questions. It's the people that use a term, but refuse to define it, that are playing word games. If you don't know the answer, just say so.

Like the questions I just asked above. It's not hard to simply answer them, and explain why those claims are being made. Same for all the other "signatures" which are claimed to be clear signs of warming from CO2. Can you list them,, and explain why the theory predicts they will occur? The mechanism of the CO2 warming, how it is possible to tell it is occurring. These are not word games, they are scientific issues.

If you can't explain why, and the predictions made, it's not science. For the last year the responses have been either "there is no theory", or "we already explained it", or "the theory is something you made up", all kinds of evasions, rather than just explaining what you mean.

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

I say there is a theory, an AGW theory it can be explained, it has predictions, and explains the mechanisms of how it works, and how we can tell if it is happening.

If you disagree, say so. If you know the theory, explain it, or at least link to the source of your knowing. It's not hard.

If you don't know the predictions, it's OK to say you don't know. It's obvious that most don't know why warming is expected to be greatest in the NH boreal winters.

 

[r-j]

Direct links and discussions of all of these issues has occurred repeatedly over the last five years in this, and the fore-runner thread.

That isn't what I asked you.

Anyone else want to answer? I can understand if you just don't know. That is becoming obvious.

 

[r-j]

This is about as close as you can get to a discussion of AGW theory, which is actually linked to by Trakar in the post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6878202&postcount=1650

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
This is in direct denial of AGW and mainstream climate science understandings regarding current climate change events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

lol, who's denying AGW?

CO2 from burning fossil fuels has contributed a bit to the 0.5 degree increase in temperature in the last 150 years. Nobody denies that!

This is incorrect and not what AGW states.

AGW says nothing about "a bit"

AGW states that:
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory

There is no discussion of the theory, just as the word theory doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article linked to.

 

[Reality Check]

I say there is a theory, an AGW theory it can be explained, it has predictions, and explains the mechanisms of how it works, and how we can tell if it is happening.

Then back up what you say with references to the scientific literature, r-j.
Cite the many papers and textbooks about the "Theory of AGW", r-j, using that term.
Cite the predictions of this "Theory of AGW", r-j.
Cite the mechanisms of this "Theory of AGW" that enable it to work, r-j.

I know that climate science exists. That climate science has models that show that AGW exists. That climate models make predictions. That climate models have mechanisms to show how AGW works.
AGW is a prediction from the application of climate science.

The best you have is a semantic argument, r-j. The "Theory of AGW" is ... climate science !
ETA: We have gone over this before, e.g. starting here on 18th August 2013: What is "the theory of global warming"?
Where you make the assumption that "the theory of global warming" exists and then go on to show that it does not exist!
As I make clear:

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

There is climate science.
There are climate models.
There is the facts about climate, e.g. that the global surface temperature are warming. This is not a theory.
There is the relatively simple physics that increases in CO2 basically lead to increases in global surface temperatures.

If you were a skeptic like me, you would look up the correct terms and find thousands of scientific papers published over the last 100 years or so on climate change. Some of these would mention the term "global warming". You would also go to reliable Internet sources that provide education on climate change, e.g. Skeptical Science.

ETA2: And another relevant past post (among many):

Why should he? "Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread, unless you tell us what you think it means how can anyone comment one way or the other except to repeat the science to you. Now do you have either a response to his statements about the science or are you simply going to keep complaining that no one will tell you what the term you invented means?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

r-j,
Come on man. Haven't you used your equivocation fallacy so much it is beating a dead horse by now? It never was all that effective to begin with. Everyone knows it is just an attempt to obfuscate. Even people on your side know that! Just give it a rest man. Please.

 

[macdoc]

Trakar this might help to do napkin level doodles

“The U.S. transportation sector consumes about 220 billion gallons of liquid hydrocarbon fuel per year

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fuels.aspx

Let's just assume for the moment it's a billion gallons a day world wide.

GGE Calculated for Gasoline in US Gallons at 114,000 BTU per Gallon,
or 7594 kilocalories per litre[3]

If we know the AGW component of warming is one Hiroshima per second that's approximately 31 million hiroshima's a day gain through C02 we have added to date.

Hiroshima atomic bomb 80,000,000,000 BTU

per second

http://www.classroom-energy.org/energy_101/energy_quick_tour/quicktour_1.html

1 billion gallons - 114,000,000,000,000,000 BTU daily or
approx 3.7 million BTU per second from vehicles
versus 80 million BTU per second from AGW.

5% ??.....not insignificant if I did my math correctly.....as we are not measuring total, but rather change in heat needed to be radiated back out.

T'would appear there is a double whammy from ICE alone ....actual thermal production in addition to more than it's gallon weight in C02.

I could, however be completely wrong with insufficient coffee.

trakar says

I'm sure that this is, at the least, a minor component of some dense urban environments,...at night, but I would think it would only equal a very small fraction of what solar energy typically does. especially once you average it to global distribution.

but that's not the issue - it's the additional energy that is of concern

Solar energy, on a clear day ~1,300W/m2

but what amount is additional retained....the ICE engines would be added to the retained.

The body of the engine and exhaust system drain a lot of that heat (to be later emitted as radiative energy and conduction/convection through direct contact with other parts of the car body and the atmosphere. Most of the remaining heat in the exhaust is carried in the steam from combustion and the kinetic motion of the combustion reaction products,...a somewhat complex calculation, but definitely calculable to a reasonable certainty, I would be surprised if there isn't some information already floating about.

Yup and it would add to the IR needing to be radiated.
The sun is mostly a constant.

The additional trapped is a product of AGW.
We've added to that with ICE's actual conversion of hydrocarbon to heat as well as adding C02 as a byproduct.

Yes??

 

[r-j]

r-j,
Come on man. Haven't you used your equivocation fallacy so much it is beating a dead horse by now?

That is a leading question, which is a fallacy.

Asking people to explain what they mean in a scientific educational forum is usually a chance for the knowledgeable to expound, and since I'm certainly not the only one reading, educate the scant few still able to wade through the thousands of posts here.

I joined this thread not even a year ago, in the midst of record cold, and brought up the trend towards cooling winters (in large parts of the NH), which had been discussed much earlier.

If you couldn't grasp it the first time, repeating it won't really help.

Sure, just provide evidence that winters are getting colder. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

After I proved it, then people disputed the authors claim that a cooling trend for the NH winters wasn't predicted by AGW theory. It's how the subject came up. I asked what the predictions were for AGW theory, in the context of the paper saying they were unexpected. This seemed to surprise some people, and that's when the predictions of the theory came up.

After some hard fought battles trying to say there isn't a theory, which was easy to debunk, then all kinds of nonsense and games started up, along with a lot of insults, especially over the issue of the theory of global warming.

The matter is of course, not even close to being settled. But at least several predictions have been brought up, and now the questions are about the how and why of them. These are not hard questions, and they speak to the heart of the matter. The increasing greenhouse gas CO2, and how it effects the planet.

 

[r-j]

Then back up what you say with references to the scientific literature,

That is what I've been asking the people that use the term AGE, or global warming, what are your scientific sources? Why do claim what you do about it? The same for what is meant by AGW denial? How can you have denial of something that isn't explained? If it's not a scientific theory, how are the predictions being made about it?

[ AGW-denial has given it plenty of time to hone its methods, and new media to exploit (shock-jocks, later mainstreamed as FoxNews, and, of course, the internet).

When it comes to AGW they denied that warming would happen, then they denied that it is happening, then they denied that it was anthropgenic,

You can't use a term and not explain what you mean by it. Certainly tewo people tried to explain what they meant, but niether lionked to a theory, or called it a theory.

I think the speed and impact of AGW is going to determine when those conversations will become a priority at government and international level.

How can you tell it is CO2 caused warming? That critical issue is the thing still being avoided.

AGW is averaging about 0.18C per decade.

All of the climate science is supportive of AGW.

Once again, how do you know this? It's not that hard to explain it. But avoiding explaining, that isn't science.

Cite scientific studies that made the claim that any of these issues are the result of AGW,

Yes, cite the science behind the claims that it IS AGW, and how we can know the difference.

It's pseudoscience if you avoid answering these questions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That is a leading question, which is a fallacy.

Asking people to explain what they mean in a scientific educational forum is usually a chance for the knowledgeable to expound, and since I'm certainly not the only one reading, educate the scant few still able to wade through the thousands of posts here.

But that's the point r-j. I was trying to lead you....away from continuing to use your equivocation after your gazillionth try at obfuscation. It gets old. Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Is AGW any more or less measurable whether it is a hypothesis, a theory, a fact, or a hair brained idea? I for one am tired of wading through your thousands of posts fixating on semantics, just to find a good post from either side that makes me actually think.

I am still waiting for you to post something intelligent, whether I agree or not. At least make me think about it, instead of boring me with your whole "theory" semantics. To be honest, at this point I have to catch myself. You could have actually made a salient point or two. And I could have missed it just because it is so tiresome reading you argue over the word "theory" as it applies to AGW, I am as likely as not to just scroll right past anything you say.

I say this with a kind heart, PLEASE just let it rest.