Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

In any case the effect MacDoc was describing is counterintuitive but doesn’t require any special physics to understand. The paper is saying that when they measured the energy in various bandwidths they found that when the Suns energy total output is lowest, it’s actually producing more energy in the visible band and much less UV. Since the visible band gets absorbed by the troposphere while most UV doesn’t get past the ozone layer the earth actually gets more energy from the sun when it’s total energy output is low. Simple physics, counterintuitive results.

Let's not forget that the observation itself is speculative, being one paper based on a few years' data from an entirely new instrument. If it does represent a real effect it leaves all those Swindlers who've "found" a direct (as opposed to inverse) relationship between solar activity and global temperatures with egg on their faces .

 

[CapelDodger]

So separate it out and show me instead of telling me it can't be done. Show me exactly its effects so that the other variables can be assessed.

Assess the other variables first, then I'll separate it out for you.

And don't tell me you can't do that.

If that has not been done then there is no brief for or against CO2, period.

There's no brief for the other variables either, by your logic, CO₂ being a variable like any other. It's a well-tried strategy when briefed for defence to claim that the crime is a complete mystery. Juries don't always buy it.

The argument for CO₂ having a role in climate is based on laws of physics which are used widely in other fields. What argument do you have that these laws do not apply in the atmosphere and oceans of this planet? Which is, after all, where climate happens, and coincidentally where we live.

 

[CapelDodger]

Keep in mind the assumption today is there would be no change in temperature were it not for human activity.

Assumption by whom? Current global warming is explained by human activity, and was in fact predicted (using non-esoteric laws of physics) before the event. Past and future climate change have their own causes, none of which were credibly anthropogenic before the Holocene.

So the model must also show changes with no contributory human activity. Yes, I am aware it must do two contradictory things but that is the way the melters are selling it.

All that ice melting, somebody must be melting it, therefore there are melters. Well, I can't prove otherwise, but I have my doubts.

If one introduces the chaotic nature then there is no way to attribute any change in climate to anything.

Indeed, and the crime is a complete mystery. The jury must therefore acquit your client!

Yet my premise is that the melters are correct in identifying CO2 and if they are correct then they have to do what I say.

Tell the melters to stop melting all that ice and see if they do. I bet they won't.

Which means there is no way to validate the predictions for another century of doing exactly the same thing we are doing now. Quite worthless in regarding to predicting anything for most people alive today.

You expect most people to live another century? I give myself no chance of that, and you very little more.

We are past the time when AGW was a prediction. It is here and it has momentum. So far it's confirming expectations, but faster and in more detail.

 

[aleCcowaN]

A sign of things to come perhaps?
The full letter can be found at the link provided.

The letter was published by the author here. Enjoy. It's a sign of things as they are and have been always.

The parts you highlighted represent previously expressed opinions. The whole thing is presented as an outburst and as some kind of breaking point of whatever. The fact is that Lewis was one of the group circulating this letter last December and it seems like there's nothing new there but the resignation. He now will be able to write a book with Plimer or any other holding his opinions.

How are called in English the episodes of a series that are made up by chunks taken from previous episodes, all following a kind of absurd theme to give cohesion to something intentionally made from leftovers? Well, that piece of news is it.

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody here is going to give you an education in climate physics, Matt Giwer. You have already been told what to read. I suggest that if that is unintelligible to you that some courses in maths and physics at the local Community College would give the the needed boost in your comprehension.

I see no point at all in re-hashing the explanations that have been given here many dozens of times, and each of those times to people who were not prepared to accept any explanation whatsoever.

 

[lomiller]

Unless there were some secret industrial societies in the world over those years then CO2 was constant. And unless they were producing CFCs then that was a constant,i.e., negligible to none. You don't have to worry about those. Therefore the model should give results mirroring the known swings in temperate as there was no anthropogenic contribution.

CO2 was nor constant. Since, as I already indicated, researchers have a fairly good idea how CO2 has varied over the last 2000 years. Of course you still miss the very basic logical point that it’s the unknowns that create uncertainly so listening things that are fairly well known is a useless argument on your part.

Keep in mind the assumption today is there would be no change in temperature were it not for human activity. So the model must also show changes with no contributory human activity. Yes, I am aware it must do two contradictory things but that is the way the melters are selling it.

No one but you assumes anything remotely like that. The earth should be in a long slow cooling period lasting ~10000 years along the way small ups and downs due to solar and volcanic activity are expected. Of course the magnitude and speed of these changes is pretty well understood and the fastest natural change is about 5X - 10X slower then the change over the last 100 year.

If one introduces the chaotic nature then there is no way to attribute any change in climate to anything

Your claim about what can and cannot be understood about chaotic systems is patently false.

And there is no evidence supporting the existence of these so-far hypothetical tipping points so they cannot be introduced as other than hypothetical.

They are observed and well documented in the climate record.

Which means there is no way to validate the predictions for another century of doing exactly the same thing we are doing now. Quite worthless in regarding to predicting anything for most people alive today.

Are you trying to make some point here? No prediction can be confirmed apriori, this tells us nothing about how well a model predicts things. We don’t need to wait 10 billion years to know what will happen to the sun as it ages, for example. Essentially you seem to be arguing science and physics are all useless because by the time you know the models predictions are correct you don’t need predictions any more.

Read what I am responding to and see why.

I read it, it doesn’t seem as if you did because your response was completely non sequiutir

 

[Pixel42]

So separate it out and show me instead of telling me it can't be done. Show me exactly its effects so that the other variables can be assessed.

If that has not been done then there is no brief for or against CO2, period.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

Keep in mind the assumption today is there would be no change in temperature were it not for human activity

Nobody is making any such assumption. It's clear from the graphs in the above link, for example, that there would been variations in temperature over the last century even if humanity had never existed.

 

[Trakar]

It goes back to Arrhenius at the turn of the 20thCE and is obvious given the physical principles involved. He, of course, thought it was a purely technical point for a distant future, living in a time when cars and electric power-grids were a novelty and powered flight was still a pipe-dream. As a Swede he also thought warming might be rather a good thing.)

Subsequently there was the work by Callendar and Plass and a growing awareness in the scientific community through the 60's and 70's that AGW was a near-term issue. This emerged onto the more general scene in the 80's. It has, of course, proved to be a near-term issue because here it is in 2010. Hardly surprising given that the laws of physics dictate it and aren't mysteriously different when applied to climate.

Hansen's '88 paper is a pretty good short term example
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html

 

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
There is physical basis for saying that it is a contributing factor, which is why the current warming was predicted. Physics predicted it. It didn't precisely quantify it, of course, but it got within the ball-park.

Care to provide a citation of the paper which predicted it?

I will wait with abated breath and expect to become very smurfish before receiving a reply.

It goes back to Arrhenius at the turn of the 20thCE and is obvious given the physical principles involved. He, of course, thought it was a purely technical point for a distant future, living in a time when cars and electric power-grids were a novelty and powered flight was still a pipe-dream. As a Swede he also thought warming might be rather a good thing.)

Subsequently there was the work by Callendar and Plass and a growing awareness in the scientific community through the 60's and 70's that AGW was a near-term issue. This emerged onto the more general scene in the 80's. It has, of course, proved to be a near-term issue because here it is in 2010. Hardly surprising given that the laws of physics dictate it and aren't mysteriously different when applied to climate.

I see no predictions at all. I see no citations at all. Care to provide them?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Assess the other variables first, then I'll separate it out for you.

And don't tell me you can't do that.

I am taking the time to point out what you claim regarding CO2 has not been done despite your assertions. You agree CO2 has not been separated out. You agree that other factors can change the expected result completely. Yet you insist increasing CO2 has caused and will continue to cause warming.

How can you honestly make such claims?

There's no brief for the other variables either, by your logic, CO₂ being a variable like any other. It's a well-tried strategy when briefed for defence to claim that the crime is a complete mystery. Juries don't always buy it.

The argument for CO₂ having a role in climate is based on laws of physics which are used widely in other fields. What argument do you have that these laws do not apply in the atmosphere and oceans of this planet? Which is, after all, where climate happens, and coincidentally where we live.

I point you have agreed there is no way to know and that you certainly do not know what the effect of all the variables will be.

To remind you of a previous post, greenhouses work by trapping warm air not by trapping infrared.

The climate of Europe has been both warmer and cooler than it is today without burning fossil fuels.

The world's climate is not static. It is always changing.

And that is why you have to agree there is no way to determining the contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Assumption by whom? Current global warming is explained by human activity, and was in fact predicted (using non-esoteric laws of physics) before the event.

When you get around to producing a proper citation of that prediction we can discuss your claims about it. As you have not we cannot hold a discussion based upon your belief in a fulfilled prediction which so far as I know does not exist.

Please produce it or stop predicating your statements on the false assumption that there was in fact a fulfilled prediction.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Nobody here is going to give you an education in climate physics, Matt Giwer.

I got my BS in physics from the U of Cincinnati in 1967.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see no predictions at all. I see no citations at all. Care to provide them?

Try this http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Predictions of global warming due to an enhanced greenhouse effect have been public since Margaret Thatcher first raised the issue. That's why the IPCC was created and why Hansen was asked to testify on the subject before Congress. I'm surprised that anyone literate could have missed it all.

There's no denial without a claim, and surely nobody can have missed the denial over the last few decades. It doesn't even require literacy to watch Fox News or tune-in to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am taking the time to point out what you claim regarding CO2 has not been done despite your assertions.

Which assertions were those? I'm pointing out that you're making impossible demands of precision and asssignment before you'll entertain the idea that the predicted warming has occurred due to the cause which the prediction was based on.

You agree CO2 has not been separated out.

It has been, but not with the unreasonable precision which you demand. There is, after all, very little to separate it out from.

You agree that other factors can change the expected result completely.

Indeed, but there have been no such other factors. An asteroid strike would mean all bets were off in the medium-term, but there hasn't been one. No series of explosive tropical volcanos. Nothing, in fact, to prevent the actual outcome from matching the expected result.

Yet you insist increasing CO2 has caused and will continue to cause warming.

It has, and will. You can verify that by observation (absent some major cooling influence turning up) for the rest of your life.

How can you honestly make such claims?

I can make them and be proved right (and I honestly hate being wrong).

Can you honestly claim to think otherwise? That warming hasn't occurred, or that there are mysterious "other forces" at work which have caused the warming?

I point you have agreed there is no way to know and that you certainly do not know what the effect of all the variables will be.

I can't predict volcanos or asteroids, but what other serious variables are there? We've seen very low solar activity and the warming continues. ENSO and PDO will continue to oscillate (it's in their nature) and have no overall impact. Warming will continue.

To remind you of a previous post, greenhouses work by trapping warm air not by trapping infrared.

Are you pulling my leg?

The climate of Europe has been both warmer and cooler than it is today without burning fossil fuels.

And there were reasons for it. Everything has a reason.

The world's climate is not static. It is always changing.

For reasons.

And that is why you have to agree there is no way to determining the contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels.

It's easy to see that CO₂ is the dominating forcing at the moment, since there are no other warming forcings and any cooling forcings there may be (such as low solar activity) are not counter-acting the warming. Since CO₂ is not going down any time soon (quite the reverse, in fact) it will continue to cause warming.

Absent catastrophic asteroid strike, of course. In which case AGW will be last of our worries.

 

[Matt Giwer]

No one but you assumes anything remotely like that. The earth should be in a long slow cooling period lasting ~10000 years along the way small ups and downs due to solar and volcanic activity are expected. Of course the magnitude and speed of these changes is pretty well understood and the fastest natural change is about 5X - 10X slower then the change over the last 100 year.

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer View Post
And there is no evidence supporting the existence of these so-far hypothetical tipping points so they cannot be introduced as other than hypothetical.

They are observed and well documented in the climate record.

I draw your attention to two points you make. In the first you recite they have all be slower than in the last hundred years and then you say rapid changes have been found which you seem to think means the same thing as "tipping points" in chaos theory.

How does one preclude this being one of those rapid changes?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
If one introduces the chaotic nature then there is no way to attribute any change in climate to anything

Your claim about what can and cannot be understood about chaotic systems is patently false.

Perhaps you can then explain how a non-deterministic change in a chaotic system be predicted and its cause determined.

I am always willing to learn.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
Which means there is no way to validate the predictions for another century of doing exactly the same thing we are doing now. Quite worthless in regarding to predicting anything for most people alive today.

Are you trying to make some point here? No prediction can be confirmed apriori, this tells us nothing about how well a model predicts things. We don’t need to wait 10 billion years to know what will happen to the sun as it ages, for example. Essentially you seem to be arguing science and physics are all useless because by the time you know the models predictions are correct you don’t need predictions any more.

Perhaps you can tell me how one knows a prediction to be valid without testing it.

As to the sun thing, that is a current best guess based upon observation of other stars. A guess is not knowledge. Of course if you consider it not a guess I am willing to listen to your explanation as to why it is certain knowledge.

 

[lomiller]

I see no citations at all. Care to provide them?

Pick up any introductory textbook on climtate sceince.

In case you missed it the work he's referring to predates the internet and electronic formats so asking for links is clearly a red herring on your part.

I am taking the time to point out what you claim regarding CO2 has not been done despite your assertions. You agree CO2 has not been separated out.

He agreed to nothing of the sort. This is you claim and yours alone, and it's not even remotely accurate.

Multiple influences can be and are dealt with by all branches of science on a regular basis and climate science is no different.

. You agree that other factors can change the expected result completely. Yet you insist increasing CO2 has caused and will continue to cause warming.

Just one thing can cause something doesn't mean nothing else can. This isn't even logic 101, it's something so most children can easily understand it.

 

[Matt Giwer]

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

Got one that explains the time when the Romans had vinyards in Britain?

There is no question north America and Europe cooled for about 35 years beginning around 1940 -- conjured war mythology to the contrary. Yet that FAQ pretends it did not occur in the words -- that is, it is not explained although clearly shown in the temperature graph. And it took until the 1990s to get back to the temperatures of the 1930s. In the 1970s there was a coming ice age based upon the falling temperatures and now there is a coming abundance of food and vintage British wines coming from the current warming part of the cycle.

Keep in mind the assumption today is there would be no change in temperature were it not for human activity.

Nobody is making any such assumption. It's clear from the graphs in the above link, for example, that there would been variations in temperature over the last century even if humanity had never existed.

The total anomaly shown in the temperature graph is only 1/2 degree centigrade or 0.166%.

As to the without CO2 graphs the change unexplained. As that is unexplained one cannot bring in a magic CO2 cause when in fact CO2 was increasing during the cooling without explaining it. The FAQ does not explain it.

As such it does not rise to the level of a Mr. Wizard explanation of how things work.

 

[lomiller]

Got one that explains the time when the Romans had vinyards in Britain?

You are aware there are vineyards in England today right? Furthermore they are further north then any confirmed Roman ones and as far north as any non-confirmed sites. This even thought they take 30 years to get going and reflect temperatures significantly cooler then today. Multiple papers confirm today’s global temperatures are warmer than any comparable period in the last 200o years.

There is no question north America and Europe cooled for about 35 years beginning around 1940 -- conjured war mythology to the contrary.

We are discussing global warming and globally temperatures between 1940 and 1980 are right in line with model predictions. As has been pointed out to you multiple times the slight global cooling between 1940 and 1970 is readily attributable to global dimming. Sunlight reaching the earths surface has decreased as much as 4% since 1950 mostly due to anthropogenic aerosols as the Suns output has only decreased modestly in that time. BTW, a 4% decrease in Sunlight is massive, considering that the Suns output normally only varied by a few tenths of a percent at most.

The total anomaly shown in the temperature graph is only 1/2 degree centigrade or 0.166%.

Eh? I’m not at all sure what you are trying to say here. Over the last 100 years the earth has warmed by ~1 deg C, non-anthropogenic forcing is typically credited with ~0.2 deg of that Almost all of the non-anthropogenic forcing was in the period from 1900-1940.