Global warming discussion III

[Red Baron Farms]

I knew it would be a long wait. As in, forever.

Are you talking about the way the heartland is being treated? The bad soil management issue?

Obfuscating? Are you serious? About what? Give me an example.

Yeah I saw that. A simple request. Nothing but excuses in reply. But it is not my purpose to bicker over it. That's why I just dropped it. If he doesn't have my request, so be it.

And yes, the AGW/soil carbon link. That's what we were discussing.

You mentioned "dust bowl" in describing the deterioration of agricultural lands. Yet you didn't seem to understand that by focusing on one error at a blog regarding one Chicago weather station, it obfuscates the larger problem which you acknowledge.

It doesn't even matter that you are right, and several people are so stubborn as to never ever admit you were right. Because a couple, even a slew, of daily temps does not a climate make, nor is it going to put that carbon back into the soil. It isn't going to put ice back on the ice sheets. It doesn't change AGW. It is obfuscating to bicker over it.

In particular, that mistake makes it seem as if AGW is less than what it really is, if anything. If the over 50+ year old data is being adjusted to make it appear as if the past was warmer, then relative to current climate, the change we call AGW is actually greater that what people are saying....assuming all the old data is adjusted in a similar way. (And if it is just a couple data points and not all the old data adjusted too high, then it is irrelevant.)

 

[Belz...]

Ok, r-j, I'll jut assume that your answer is "I have no idea how this conspiracy would work, or why, because such a conspiracy makes no rational sense." So, ok, your previous claim that there is a conspiracy has been abandoned.

So here's my next question: if it's not a conspiracy, and you know they cannot all be honestly wrong, what is the remaining conclusion ?

 

[DC]

what evidence is there that burning fossil fuels emits CO2?

i came across a denier that simply claims that burning fossil fuels does not create CO2.
He is most probably just a troll, but actually beyond posting some chemical formulas, i didn't know how to provide any evidence for it.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, r-j, I'll assume your answer is : "The logical conclusion is that r-j is wrong on this topic, and that indeed global warming is a real thing."

Which brings me to my final question: When will you issue your apologies ?

 

[ehcks]

what evidence is there that burning fossil fuels emits CO2?

i came across a denier that simply claims that burning fossil fuels does not create CO2.
He is most probably just a troll, but actually beyond posting some chemical formulas, i didn't know how to provide any evidence for it.

If:
CnHm + (m/4 + n)O2 → (m/2)H2O + nCO2
doesn't work, then nothing else will.

A chemical analysis of the gasses inside a closed container of burning gas would confuse him even more than basic math.

 

[r-j]

Contact details are on the realclimate site

So why haven't you posted a link to the realclimate page that has this information?

 

[Reality Check]

So why haven't you posted a link to the realclimate page that has this information?

No - r-j, quote mining a post is just not right. Here is the actual post you replied to:

Really! I asked you constantly if you had contacted the scientists you claim are part of a conspiracy. You of course ignored me until you felt you couldn't any more. Then you said.
...
DC and I immediately found that it was incredibly easy to contact them. Contact details are on the realclimate site and the scientists themselves make themselves easily available. So easy a google search turned up one of the scientists emails in less than a minute.
...

(my emphasis added)
It is not strictly true that contact details are on the RealClimate site itself.
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley is a guest commentary and the "contact details" are a link to the Berkeley web site which has the actual email address for queries to the Berkeley team.

It is strictly true that finding actual contact details is easy, e.g.

took me like 5 minutes. and that includes waiting 4 minutes for his answer.

[email protected]

here you go.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, r-j, I'll conclude that your apologies to the climate scientists of Earth is not forthcoming, and that therefore you are simply a dishonest poster.

It's unfortunate that all these conclusions had to be made without your input.

 

[r-j]

It is a myth that we are doing science here.

Well you are only speaking for yourself of course.

My efforts to discuss the CO2 theory (Hansen etc ) which arose in regards to Cohen et al 2012, were met here by the most unscientific nonsense imaginable.

Gilbert N. Plass, James Rodger Fleming, Gavin Schmidt
What is the reason for the recent temperature rise that is found throughout the world? Will this trend toward warmer climates continue for some time? The carbon dioxide theory may provide the answer.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/8

For those still mired in some pseudo-scientific world view, the CO2 theory is so simple anyone can repeat it. Since CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, increasing the atmospheric levels (mostly by burning fossil fuels, cement making and deforestation) will increase the greenhouse effect, leading to more solar energy being retained in the atmosphere, causing global warming.

While the theory is simple, the devil is in the details of course.

Chamberlin developed a theory of climate change and was one of the first to emphasize carbon dioxide as a major regulator of Earth's temperature, thus anticipating modern global warming.[1]

Certainly one of the largest issues is feedbacks, with the consensus view being WV will always result in more warming.

Finally, we would be remiss if we did
not mention that even though water vapor has
a residence time in the atmosphere measured in
days, cf. [13], page 27, the IPCC has recently stated
that its amplifying effects could more than double
the warming caused by CO2 on a global scale.

http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001278p.pdf

Which leads directly to the issue of cooling winters, something not predicted by the greenhouse theory.

While Greenland is expected to receive more snow, due to an increased hydrological cycle and slightly warmer winter temps, allowing for more snowfall there, more snow for the rest of the NH is not an aspect of global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

My efforts to discuss the CO2 theory (Hansen etc ) which arose in regards to Cohen et al 2012, were met here by the most unscientific nonsense imaginable.

Which is just not even wrong, r-j .
The unscientific nonsense came from you. You wanted to discuss an imaginary scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" and have been lying about that theory existing by quote mining every reference to global + warming + theory that you can find. You are just making this behavior worse by changing the name of this imaginary theory
r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!

 

[Reality Check]

Which leads directly to the issue of cooling winters, something not predicted by the greenhouse theory.

Which leads back to you displaying ignorance of climate science, r-j !
The greenhouse theory makes no predictions about winters - the greenhouse theory is simply that increasing CO2 = increasing global temperatures.

There are no "cooling winters" unless you are taking about the trend you lied about by cherry picking the start date: r-j cherry picks the starting date and for his graph to get the trend he wants.
The NOAA tool gives a warming trend of +0.04 C/Decade for the NH land winter temperature (1988 to 2014).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1995&lasttrendyear=2014

This agrees with the increasing CO2 = increasing global temperatures from the greenhouse theory but this should be not trusted (global annual temperatures versus NH land winter temperatures)

When we look at climate models they agree with the data for NH boreal winters overall but not in some regions:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia.

 

[r-j]

Again, we see the pseudo-science trying, and I have no idea why, to cloud the waters, obscure the issues, and promote patent nonsense.

the greenhouse theory is simply that increasing CO2 = increasing global temperatures.

If that were true (and it certainly is not), any increase (like since the LIA) could be attributed to increased CO2. Which is not the case.

Warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change, will decrease cold-related mortality in many temperate countries.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=674

The greenhouse theory makes no predictions about winters

9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters

Warmer winters with more sporadic freezing and thawing are likely to increase erosion and landslides on forest roads, and reduce access for winter harvesting (Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-4.html

Warmer winters and fewer cold spells will decrease cold-related mortality in many temperate countries (high confidence).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/140.htm

There are no "cooling winters"

Too ridiculous to even counter yet again.

The NOAA tool gives a warming trend of +0.04 C/Decade for the NH land winter temperature (1988 to 2014).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1995&lasttrendyear=2014

When we look at climate models they agree with the data for NH boreal winters overall but not in some regions:

What does that mean? It sounds like you are saying the models predict winter warming. Is that what you are trying to say?

This agrees with the increasing CO2 = increasing global temperatures from the greenhouse theory

WhatThat the theory predicts that? does? Are you saying warming will be uniform globally?

 

[r-j]

Once again, from Cohen et al 2014, a science paper by working actual climate scientists.

http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf

 

[RedPillNeo]

After a bad breakup, sometimes the best therapy is someone/something fresh and new.

Something I've wondered but not seen quantified is, how much does anthropogenic heat production add to the earth's energy budget? I've looked around a bit, and most energy budgets consider solar input as 100% of the heat input, and include the amount of heat re-radiated back to earth by greenhouse gases from human activities, but nothing about the heat from those activities themselves.

It's a rather complex thing to tally up, with varying inefficiencies at the stages of production, transportation, and end use. Consider it takes ~3kw of heat to deliver 1kw of electricity, and the widely varying amount of BTUs needed to deliver a BTU of gasoline to an end user from easily pumped crude versus shale or tar sands. Ultimately, the question concerns large reservoirs of long-accumulated energy like oil and coal being released in a short geological period. Body heat from humans and biofuel from annual crops is probably close to neutral, much of their energy input coming from current solar input.

When every watt or joule of human-released heat is added up, how much is it as a percentage of solar input?

 

[r-j]

When every watt or joule of human-released heat is added up, how much is it as a percentage of solar input?

It is so small, it doesn't even matter. Not even a little. The sun is so much more powerful a source of energy, in one year it is larger than the entire fossil fuel use for all of mankind's burning it. As in, the entire history of the human race.

Just one day is more than a years energy use. It's that much larger.

If only there was a way to capture it, we would never need fossil fuels at all.

 

[Reality Check]

..usual insults snipped....,

Again you expose some ignorance of climate science, r-j: The greenhouse theory is that increases in CO2 lead to increases in global temperatures. Not the other way around !
When we measure an increase in CO2, the theory says that we can expect an increase in global temperatures.

What I am saying is what anyone who knows how to plot a graph says, r-j:
The NOAA tool gives a warming trend of +0.04 C/Decade for the NH land winter temperature (1988 to 2014).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1995&lasttrendyear=2014
Unless someone wants to lie about the trend and cherry picks the starting date to ignore data and give the trend that they want: r-j cherry picks the starting date and for his graph to get the trend he wants.

This [the graph that I plotted using all of the data and not cherry picking the starting date] agrees with the increasing CO2 [as measured during that period] = increasing global temperatures from the greenhouse theory but this should be not trusted (global annual temperatures versus NH land winter temperatures)

Fixed your quote mining, r-j, and added the bit in red added since you could not comprehend fairly simple English, r-j.

What you missed:
When we look at climate models they agree with the data for NH boreal winters overall but not in some regions:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling There is no trend in the NH boreal winters according to the analysis of Cohen et. al. 2012.
There are"cooling boreal winters in some regions of the NH". And I have no idea what goes on in the SH winters !

Thus there are no "cooling winters" because you are being too vague.

 

[Reality Check]

Once again, from Cohen et al 2014, a science paper by working actual climate scientists.]

Once again from 8th September 2014 : r-j: (8th September 2014) theory + global + warming in a search still does not = "Theory of Global Warming"!

 

[Reality Check]

How do you still insist it is never used by climate scientists?

r-j, you remain wrong.
No one here (I hope ) disputes that the words theory, global and warming appear throughout the climate science literature. Even the phrase "theory of global warming" should appear.
But your Google results for those words is still not evidence for a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming". And not being able to understand the Google results is worse - that phrase is "global warming theory", not "Theory of Global Warming" .

 

[Reality Check]

Something I've wondered but not seen quantified is, how much does anthropogenic heat production add to the earth's energy budget?

Hi RedPillNeo.
Climate scientists usually think in terms of radiative forcing rather than heat production or an energy budget, i.e. how much each driver of climate can affect the climate.
Here is a good article: CO2 is not the only driver of climate

While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

 

[RedPillNeo]

Thanks for the link, Reality Check. I did some more research, and found that annual solar irradiance is around 20,500 times greater than annual global energy production.