Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Only an imaginary dispute in your mind Malcolm. You've been asked for supporting documentation discounting AGW as the primary climate change driver currently.

You've failed to provide it so why should you get the time of day in a science forum?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why on earth should I be civil to a polluter.

Because that's the JREF rule, maybe?

 

[r-j]

"Evidence" that they "will be"? You understand that you're talking about predictions, right? Those predictions hinge on assumptions that are the subject of this dispute (feedbacks, "forcing").

Of course, which is what 99% of the arguments are about!

Just claiming "it's over" with no evidence is woo woo, not science. Evidence is required.

 

[DC]

Because that's the JREF rule, maybe?

and accusing 10 000's of scientists around the world of faking data and lying is somehow polite?

 

[r-j]

Because that's the JREF rule, maybe?

Rules are only for certain people.

The irony? He is trying to present himself as "not a polluter like your kind", which is funny. Really really funny.

 

[DC]

Of course, which is what 99% of the arguments are about!

Just claiming "it's over" with no evidence is woo woo, not science. Evidence is required.

evidence is being provided on a daily basis for decades now.
and alot of it has bin linked to in this very thread.
why do you ignore it?

 

[r-j]

One huge area that fossil fuels are needed, is fixing nitrogen from the air, to make fertilizer. And cement making is also a large source of CO2. I've not seen alternatives to those issues yet. And unless you don't use anything with concrete, or you eat only 100% organic foods, you are a carbon polluter.

That's the irony.

 

[DC]

the irony i see is a guy talking about evidence while ignoring the huge body of evidence that shows something he denies.....

hillarious.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

what assumptions do you mean exactly? be precise here.

The assumption that a positive feedback enhances the effect of CO₂-induced warming. That is, that the Earth's surface warms more than the CO₂ greenhouse effect alone would cause (on a lifeless and waterless body). The assumptions are built into the models, as parameters. The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.

and what dispute? there is no dispute.

Okay. Skeptics could say that too. Declare the victory without a contest.

 

[r-j]

Mods, if the following is inappropriate for this thread, please make it into a thread in the correct forum, (which I have no idea what that would be)

It seems the failed Antarctic voyage was an avoidable disaster. And that the lead researcher lied about what happened.

In a report submitted to the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators, and seen by the Fairfax, Mortimer wrote that Kiselev advised him that slabs of free floating sea ice were closing in around the ship, blocking her escape route.

I'd hear rumors of this, now it seems it is true.

At 12.30pm the first rotation of passengers set off for the Hodgeman Islands. They reported a smooth journey and some passengers set off to explore the nearby Adelie penguin rookery.

"Despite the wind and the extreme cold, the scenery on the journey was spectacular - it seemed unreal, as though we were on a movie set," said a passenger.

Each driver and staff member had a VHF radio. Both Turney and Fogwill carried satellite phones.

At 2.30pm when Mortimer saw the fuzz on the horizon and the captain warned of sea ice moving in behind the ship, the voyage leader used the ship's VHF radio to tell those with handheld VHF radios to move people back to the ship.

People at the Islands would later report they did not hear the message on their handhelds, which have a range of about five nautical miles.

Calls to both the satellite phones, which have a global range, went unanswered. There were 15 people at the islands including six staff, either drivers or field leaders.

At 3pm an Argo carrying four people returned to the ice edge.

A passenger, who was standing near Turney when Mortimer called the leader from the ship's VHF radio, recalled their conversation: "Chris, [captain] Igor has just said we need to expedite people back from the islands so we can get out of here," said Mortimer.

Turney, standing on the ice edge, repeated the message to confirm he had heard right.
"Affirmative," said Mortimer.
"If I take this lot out, how long can we stay?" Turney said.
Mortimer repeated that everybody needed to get back to the ship.

The passenger was stunned by the conversation, even more so when, a few minutes later, Turney loaded an Argo with six passengers and drove off towards the Islands.

http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2014/stuck-in-the-ice/

 

[DC]

The assumption that a positive feedback enhances the effect of CO₂-induced warming. That is, that the Earth's surface warms more than the CO₂ greenhouse effect alone would cause (on a lifeless and waterless body). The assumptions are built into the models, as parameters. The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.Okay. Skeptics could say that too. Declare the victory without a contest.

no they are not. the feedback loops are in there beacuse of physics.

lets take water vapor for example. we know that warmer air can hold more moisture. and that is also a greenhouse gas. climate models simulate such things because they simulate physics.

and many feedback lops are not disputed at all, because we know for a fact they will happen and can already observe it.

lets take cloud cover. nobody programmed a positive feedback from the cloud cover into the models. but because the models simulate physics they predicted that as the surface temperature rises, cloud cover will be redused and lead to a positive feedback.
and meanwhile we were able to observe that happening in reality.
the reduction of cloud cover is directly observed.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

The assumption that a positive feedback enhances the effect of CO₂-induced warming. That is, that the Earth's surface warms more than the CO₂ greenhouse effect alone would cause (on a lifeless and waterless body).

It does.

The assumptions are built into the models, as parameters. The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.

Albedo feedback is positive and water-vapour feedback is positive. Permafrost feedback is positive. That's the direction sorted for those; the direction for clouds is debatable, but the effect is minor (as can easily be observed). The existence of glacial/inter-glaciation transitions demonstrates that climate feedbacks are, in sum, positive.

Water vapour feedback is calculated from spectrum data and well-established vapour physics; it's the strongest feedback. Albedo feedback is more problematic since it involves the behaviour of bulk ice which is a complex issue, so that has to be parametirised from ice-models. The evidence shows, of course, that the albedo change is more rapid than was calculated twenty or thirty years ago; more recent models no doubt allow for that.

Okay. Skeptics could say that too. Declare the victory without a contest.

The great big analogue model we call home has been running to script for thirty years now, which is about how long the denial campaign has been operational. What that model has done is broadly confirm the early calculations.

Meanwhile, in the other corner, the denial operation has denied that warming would happen, denied that it was and is happening, conceded that it's happening but attributed it to increased solar activity, decreased solar activity, the oceans, the Moon and planets, and pixies. It has also, of course, pointed at innumerable squirrels, accused scientists of lying and malpractice, and invented a grand global conspiracy.

And denial's public face is, after all these years, Monckton. A declaration of victory for science is well in order, I think.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

One huge area that fossil fuels are needed, is fixing nitrogen from the air, to make fertilizer. And cement making is also a large source of CO2. I've not seen alternatives to those issues yet. And unless you don't use anything with concrete, or you eat only 100% organic foods, you are a carbon polluter.

That's the irony.

You don't have to eat 100% organic to free yourself of eating food from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. It is true that organic uses Diazotrophs to fix nitrogen and animal manures to recycle nitrogen, instead of synthetic haber process nitrogen. But OMRI standards and regulations (or whatever certifying board is local) have a lot more restrictions besides nitrogen.

There is a lot of grass fed and grass finished beef for example that isn't certified organic but had no Haber process nitrogen in its production.

But it is nice to see that you at least understand that CO2 is considered polluting once you have exceeded nature's capacity to cycle it. It is a step forward.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And how much is the yearly cost of ditching all the CO2 generated by all the cement manufacturers in the whole world? 30 G$? 50 G$? That's just about 5% of what the US spend on "defense", and certainly a 0.5% of the total value of the construction industry, or even less than that. Besides, who said we have to ditch it all?

Really, where's the problem besides denialists not willing to pay for it and making a tantrum?

 

[macdoc]

Yep - just make concrete that absorbs CO2 - might actually require politicians with some backbone and less noisy ill formed deniers

Cement, a vast source of planet-warming carbon dioxide, could be transformed into a means of stripping the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, thanks to an innovation from British engineers.

The new environmentally friendly formulation means the cement industry could change from being a "significant emitter to a significant absorber of CO2," says Nikolaos Vlasopoulos, chief scientist at London-based Novacem, whose invention has garnered support and funding from industry and environmentalists.

The new cement, which uses a different raw material, certainly has a vast potential market. Making the 2bn tonnes of cement used globally every year pumps out 5% of the world's CO2 emissions - more than the entire aviation industry. And the long-term trends are upwards: a recent report by the French bank Credit Agricole estimated that, by 2020, demand for cement will increase by 50% compared to today.

Making traditional cement results in greenhouse gas emissions from two sources: it requires intense heat, and so a lot of energy to heat up the ovens that cook the raw material, such as limestone. That then releases further CO2 as it burns. But, until now, noone has found a large-scale way to tackle this fundamental problem.

Novacem's cement, based on magnesium silicates, not only requires much less heating, it also absorbs large amounts of CO2 as it hardens, making it carbon negative. Set up by Vlasopoulos and his colleagues at Imperial College London, Novacem has already attracted the attention of major construction companies such as Rio Tinto Minerals, WSP Group and Laing O'Rourke, and investors including the Carbon Trust.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/31/cement-carbon-emissions

 

[aleCcowaN]

NOAA's anomaly map for December is striking.

Yet, as usual, there was only isolated "record coldest" cells in the grid -in this case, only one, in Kurdistan- and a lot of "record warmest" grid cells everywhere:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201312.gif

one of them precisely where I live, good Darwin!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The assumption that a positive feedback enhances the effect of CO₂-induced warming. That is, that the Earth's surface warms more than the CO₂ greenhouse effect alone would cause (on a lifeless and waterless body). The assumptions are built into the models, as parameters. The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.

no they are not. the feedback loops are in there beacuse of physics.

Everything exists "because of physics". For many phenomena, it's easier to generate predictions from less fundamental science than physics.

... lets take water vapor for example. we know that warmer air can hold more moisture. and that is also a greenhouse gas. climate models simulate such things because they simulate physics.

Right. Water vapor forms clouds, which reflect sunlight. CO2 and water and heat (over certain ranges) stimulate plant growth, which leads to sequestration of CO₂. Not all feedbacks are positive. Given the relative stability of the Earth's climate over the long haul (within the bounds imposed by orbital mechanics), likely negative feedbacks dominate.

...
and many feedback lops are not disputed at all, because we know for a fact they will happen and can already observe it.

lets take cloud cover. nobody programmed a positive feedback from the cloud cover into the models. but because the models simulate physics they predicted that as the surface temperature rises, cloud cover will be redused and lead to a positive feedback.
and meanwhile we were able to observe that happening in reality.
the reduction of cloud cover is directly observed.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.pdf

Thanks for the link. I'll look at that.

 

[lomiller]

Says the person who introduces tribal signifiers to the discussion. Try for civility.a) What is "it"?
b) "Responsibility" is an inference, not an observation ("evidence").

Global temperature obviously. Please stop wasting our time with such ridiculous objections.

b) "Responsibility" is an inference, not an observation ("evidence").

You say that like it's a bad thing.


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

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.

The obvious question becomes: If you don't want us to attribute responsibility using logical conclusions from valid premises, how exactly do YOU think it should be done because it really seems like your objection isn't how it's done but rather the result doesn't agree with your desired outcome.

 

[lomiller]

Those predictions hinge on assumptions that are the subject of this dispute (feedbacks, "forcing").

Evidence please.

Specifically, provide us evidence that there is dispute in the scientific literature over the existence of forcing and feedback.

 

[lomiller]

The assumption that a positive feedback enhances the effect of CO₂-induced warming.

It's not an assumption it's a conclusion that falls out of the know physical properties of matter.

That is, that the Earth's surface warms more than the CO₂ greenhouse effect alone would cause (on a lifeless and waterless body).

Easily observable. The average surface temperature of a body with no greenhouse gasses is know, the average temperature of the earth is know. The properties of CO2 are know.

The assumptions are built into the models, as parameters.

If you have evidence for this conspiracy theory please present it.

The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.Okay.

Correction, they are predicted by the models then these predictions are confirmed by observation. This process is called science, and if you have an objection to it you should tell us up front.

Skeptics could say that too. Declare the victory without a contest.

Skeptics seldom take issue with conclusions arrived at though scientific methodology. In fact the whole point of the modem sceptic movement is challenge people who refuse to accept this methodology. If you do not accept the methodology or it's conclusions it's dishonest to call yourself a skeptic.