Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Warmer1]

What other temperature affects us?



Established by what?

If I were you I would feel like I was backed into a corner by all the numerous people that are responding to you and countering what you are saying and you may feel very much on the defensive. May I suggest that you just stop for a minute and start with a clean slate and forget past predictions and looking for equations, at least temporarily.

If you can convince yourself to consider the validity of the science from a completely neutral mindset you may eventually learn to admire all the people on this list that are responding to you as much as I do.


There is great information in the link below that was previously posted by MacDoc

"Quote:
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm"

A really nice explanation of the science can be found on the following page which was linked in that reference and may I humbly suggest that you start reading at "Basic Physics" and continue from there for a great explanation of the science.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141

You are obviously very intelligent and it never hurts to take a completely fresh look into a subject such as this although it can be hard to forget the past predictions.

97% of climate scientists concur regarding the validity of the science but there is a very active disinformation campaign underway in this country.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

All the best

 

[bit_pattern]

show the decrease in temperature over the 30+ years beginning around 1940. This empirical equation cannot give that r.

Prove that temperatures have decreased since 1940. And why 1940, what is so special about that arbitrary date that you want to plot your trend line starting there?

 

[macdoc]

You've not presented one single fact..only uninformed - unsupported opinion and in vague language.

You still show your lack of understanding and have not answered the question - *atmosphere or SST*??....the earth is NOT a black body...it has a cryosphere, a hydrosphere and an atmosphere. Your question about "surface temperature" framed as it was is nonsensical in climate terms.

Currently, in simple terms, the radiative balance is impacted by fossil C02 and it's related water vapour feedback so that the ocean and atmosphere are gaining thermal energy altering the climate and the ocean and cryopshere.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/...ooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/
Atmosphere shifts are transient compared to the ocean

That' reality is observed and supported by basic physics.
....it was established over a century ago.

C02 theory established???

Long ago

---Quote---

Arrhenius, Svante. 1896. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, series 5, 4:237–276.
Callendar, G. S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64:223–240.
Callendar, G. S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4:310–314.
Fleming, James Rodger. 1998, 2005. Historical perspectives on climate change. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Fleming, James Rodger. 2007. The Callendar Effect: The Life and Work of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964), the Scientist Who Established the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change. Boston: American Meteorological Society.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1953. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 34:80.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956a. Carbon dioxide and the climate. American Scientist 44:302–316.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956b. The influence of the 9.6 micron ozone band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82:30–44.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956c. The influence of the 15µ carbon-dioxide band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82:310–324.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956d. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8:140–154.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956e. Infrared radiation in the atmosphere. American Journal of Physics 24:303–321.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956f. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24:376–387.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1959. Carbon dioxide and climate. Scientific American, July, 41–47.
Plass, Gilbert N., and D. I. Fivel. 1955a. A method for the integration of the radiative-transfer equation. Journal of Meteorology 12:191–200.
Plass, Gilbert N., and D. I. Fivel 1955b. The influence of variable mixing ratio and temperature on the radiation flux. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (81)48–62.
Tyndall, John. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine, series 4, 22:169–194, 273–285.
---En

d

 

[bit_pattern]

Matt, for your perusal:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html


We can measure all this stuff; like the ingoing/outgoing radiation budget and it is demonstrable that there is an energy imbalance, the degree that greenhouse gasses absorb and remit infra red is perfectly quantifiable and there experiments to prove it, we have a paleoclimatic record in which there are clear events, say the recovery from an ice age to the conditions we enjoy today, which are inexplicable unless the current estimates for climate sensitivity are about right, we have an observed record of increased temperature trends despite a fall in all other known forcings etc etc etc. There is a a huge amount of corroborating evidence that CO2 does drive temperatures and absolutely none to the contrary

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

Dude, surface temperature is the least of you worries. Ocean's are by far the biggest repository of heat, and if CO2 doesn't cause warming then you need to explain why ocean temperatures have increased 100-fold over the last fifty years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

[BenBurch]

The point made is several decades of "prophecies of doom" have all be wrong. You analogy would be better were you to have prophesied if the train goes fast enough it can jump the washed out bridge as that would be a false prophecy.

Studiously missing the point, but I expected that as getting the point would not have reflected well on your spurious argument.

What has been predicted (and the predictions were incorrect on the LOW side) was that we would start to see the effects of GHGs on the climate around the turn of the century. And further predicted that, if the brakes were not applied early enough, that these changes would accelerate into the century until the accumulated changes became a problem for human civilization that could not be easily rectified.

We are at that point where we can see that effect, as predicted. No competent climate scientist doubts this.

In the analogy we can see the chasm up ahead now. We cannot stop in time to wholly avert it, but if the brakes are applied now, the damage will be limited.

But we both know that will never happen.

People will continue to make the arguments you have made and stand in the way of taking action until they have had their nice comfortable lives and to hell with the future.

My opinion is that it is really far too late to act, but the role of Cassandra seems to be the only ethical position here. For the deniers, at least they will have the comfort of not having their houses set alight when the Greeks burn the topless towers of Ilium.

 

[aleCcowaN]

[Colour highlighting not in originals]

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

Seems without arguing from the equation the exchange is worthless.

Not what I meant. That is an empirical equation which simply relates measurements. It is not based upon physical principles. An equation based upon physical principles would show the decrease in temperature over the 30+ years beginning around 1940. This empirical equation cannot give that result without demonstrating a decrease in CO2 over those decades.

red : Please, provide the equation you mentioned, so we can show you that you were talking about the same equation you criticize in the second post, but implying a pretty manipulated value for λ.

Why should you do that? Because...

Do that and we'll be able to continue to show how what you say is ...

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
Not what I meant. That is an empirical equation which simply relates measurements. It is not based upon physical principles. An equation based upon physical principles would show the decrease in temperature over the 30+ years beginning around 1940. This empirical equation cannot give that result without demonstrating a decrease in CO2 over those decades.

your statement shows no grasp of anything to do with climate physics

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.
Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming.

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

This is an offsetting anthro forcing to C02 and in no way changes the well understood physics of AGW

 

[Matt Giwer]

[Colour highlighting not in originals]

red : Please, provide the equation you mentioned, so we can show you that you were talking about the same equation you criticize in the second post, but implying a pretty manipulated value for λ.

Why should you do that? Because...

Do that and we'll be able to continue to show how what you say is ...

I am pointing out that absent an equation based upon fundamental physical principles there is really nothing to discuss. I know of none. Having looked for such an equation I have found none.

Absent such an equation there is really nothing but opinion to banter about.

 

[Matt Giwer]

...
Dude, surface temperature is the least of you worries. Ocean's are by far the biggest repository of heat, and if CO2 doesn't cause warming then you need to explain why ocean temperatures have increased 100-fold over the last fifty years.
...

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?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Prove that temperatures have decreased since 1940. And why 1940, what is so special about that arbitrary date that you want to plot your trend line starting there?

I merely pointed out it is an empirical equation not one based upon physical principles. I gave that as an example to show it is empirical. 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.

In inventing an empirical relationship is does not matter which years are chosen. One could start 1 million years ago which would be mainly ice age with a few short interglacial periods.

One could start two centuries ago which would include nearly a century of iconic images of a Londoners holding winter festivals on the frozen Thames river. That would show even more warming but most of it appreciated by Londoners.

 

[CapelDodger]

They have been in the form as I have recited.

"If we do not do something in X years then it will be too late."

The X is usually 10.

Given what's already happening it seems that such predictions were correct.

You appear to be judging them as if they stated that "all the problems will arise in the next ten years", which of couurse they haven't. They've only just started, but it's too late to stop them getting worse. Just watch and see.

 

[Matt Giwer]

You've not presented one single fact..only uninformed - unsupported opinion and in vague language.

You still show your lack of understanding and have not answered the question - *atmosphere or SST*??....the earth is NOT a black body...it has a cryosphere, a hydrosphere and an atmosphere. Your question about "surface temperature" framed as it was is nonsensical in climate terms.

I was pointing out that except for the input from the sun the earth radiates into a nearly perfect black body. The warmer the earth gets the more it radiates.

Currently, in simple terms, the radiative balance is impacted by fossil C02 and it's related water vapour feedback so that the ocean and atmosphere are gaining thermal energy altering the climate and the ocean and cryopshere.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/...ooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/
Atmosphere shifts are transient compared to the ocean

That' reality is observed and supported by basic physics.
....it was established over a century ago.

C02 theory established???

Long ago

---Quote---
d

It was established a century ago that greenhouses are warm because they trap the air that is heated by contact with the material inside it which is heated by the sun. This was done by replacing glass with a material transparent to all infrared so the infrared could escape. The temperature was the same in both cases. This is because the re-radiated IR has a both a lower flux and a lower energy which together means it is low to be negligible.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not what I meant. That is an empirical equation which simply relates measurements. It is not based upon physical principles. An equation based upon physical principles would show the decrease in temperature over the 30+ years beginning around 1940. This empirical equation cannot give that result without demonstrating a decrease in CO2 over those decades.

That would only be the case if all climate change can be attributed to CO₂, which is, of course, nonsense. The cooling in the mid-20thCE was most likely caused principally by aerosols - it was, after all, the smog-era.

 

[Trakar]

perhaps the third time will prove lucky.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6393430#post6393430
Posted by Matt Giwer
...Now if there had been a specific scientific basis for the ten years to doom statement had been published in the literature...

Please reference the "literature" and "the ten years to doom statement," and then we can verify the details and context and either cede to your considerations or demonstrate where they go wrong.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Given what's already happening it seems that such predictions were correct.

You appear to be judging them as if they stated that "all the problems will arise in the next ten years", which of couurse they haven't. They've only just started, but it's too late to stop them getting worse. Just watch and see.

If such predictions are correct then the prediction in 1990 was correct and everything done since 2000 has been a waste of effort. It is time to buy an SUV and party.

 

[Matt Giwer]

That would only be the case if all climate change can be attributed to CO₂, which is, of course, nonsense. The cooling in the mid-20thCE was most likely caused principally by aerosols - it was, after all, the smog-era.

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.

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.

 

[Matt Giwer]

your statement shows no grasp of anything to do with climate physics

There is no separate field of "climate" physics. Physics is physics. Grasping it only requires a degree in physics to have the provers.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[BenBurch]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I am pointing out that absent an equation based upon fundamental physical principles there is really nothing to discuss. I know of none. Having looked for such an equation I have found none.

Ahh! You meant a fantastic equation with an aspect close to F=m.a or E=m.c² that should supersede complexity, systemic, entrophy or any manifestation of multiple causation.

Please, take the time to tell us how you looked for such an equation. Where, when, the more details, the better.

Absent such an equation there is really nothing but opinion to banter about.

By banter you meant something like the following, didn't you?

I have been following this discussion since it was the coming ice age. At first I liked the idea of warming instead and bought the palm tree franchise for Washington DC. Needless to say I am still not rich.

But starting in the mid to late 1980s the melters started proclaiming we had only ten years to act or else it would be too late. Innocent that I am I expected by 2000 they would have all realized it was too late, bought SUVs and started the last partying before the end.

But instead they kept saying "unless we do something in the next ten years it will be too late". And here we are ten years after 2000 and still we have only ten years to act before it is too late.

So we know they were lying at least until this year else we would have a countdown of only 10, 9, 8, ... years left.

How do we know they are not lying this year?

Is it true the future of global warming is that the "unless we do something" date will always be ten years in the future? If so, why bother?

In any event we have a documented pattern of lying by the "experts" going back to the mid to late 1980s. No question. They lied. Nor has there ever been an explanation as to why the "too late" year has never arrived nor any explanation as to why it has been pushed back every year by one more year so that it is always ten years in the future.

And if the point was to stir a political call to action then it is clearly not science but politics.

We know they have lied. The only question is when these people will stop lying.

 

[The True Scotsman]

You appear to misrepresent the facts of the matter. A prediction by a scientist is firmly grounded in the results of calculations. I have never seen any calculation nor any reference to any paper in which a ten year prediction has been derived. They have not predicted anything as scientists. They have at been issuing doomsday prophecies. If you can provide URLs to any papers I have missed which provide a mathematical basis for the number of years until it is too late please do so.

Perhaps we are having a disconnect. My post was not in reference to any specific predictions, but rather was meant to give a reason as to why a prediction might be off. Could you provide sources of place where you saw this ten year prediction?

Let me clarify. There are no climate "tipping points" established as fact until one is correctly predicted using accepted mathematical methods and then in fact it does occur as predicted. Thus they are at best speculation. As I observed the prophesied "or it is too late" points have never been either scientifically predicted nor materialized.

You are correct "magic" is not the proper term. Hypothetical in the sense of tachyons -- lots of looking but never found.

Hmm...well I'm not sure I would agree with that. There are certain things we know about the planet. We know that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We know that greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth (which is generally a good thing). We know that there are large methane deposits in the arctic permafrost. We know that permafrost and glacial ice has been melting in recent years. From this we can infer that the melting a permafrost will release more methane into the atmosphere which will warm the planet more which will cause more methane to be released faster (among other effects), just as we can infer that knocking over the first domino in a domino setup will most likely knock over the domino in front of it. Once this permafrost is in the atmosphere it will be hard to get out. It is hard to know the time at which it is too late to stop this chain of events from happening, which is the thing I believe is causing these errors in prediction (though, again, I haven't seen the specific prediction that you are talking about).

This is not the first place I have discussed the subject and in every previous discussion I have discovered the proponents have no understanding of the science they are talking about. I hope to be pleasantly surprised here.

Well, I'll do my best to explain it, though I am no climate scientist.