Global warming

[CapelDodger]

I've read it, the rebuttals ad nauseam.

There are no rebuttals to Michaels lying to Congress. It was done very publicly. He presented Scenario A as the prediction while erasing Scenarios B and C - where Scenario B best matched the actual outcome, both in CO2 and in temperature. That is lying. Caught, as we say this side of the pond, bang-to-rights.

Disagree but not interested in the effort to side step the discussion into personalities, thanks.

That is seriously rich. Al Gore? Hansen? Mann? Are these not persons? Prick them, do they not bleed? Call them liars, are they not hurt and offended?

Nonethess, I agree with your approach. We can understand this (or another) event by going to the original sources.

Which was not what Michaels presented to Congress. What he presented was the original source with scenarios B and C air-brushed out. The fact that he did so is what marks him out as a liar.

Why he lied is anybody's guess. Money, fame, political ambition, ideological imperative, who knows? What we do know is that he lied.

 

[CapelDodger]

nnnnnnooooooooooo comment on that little gem of innuendo by the local math phobic.

That's all you've got?

You seem driven to say something, even when you've nothing to say.

Personal note : A-level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. Degree in Computer Science. I have never found maths frightening in the slightest. Not even alarming. Nor physics, for that matter.

You, on the other hand, appear to be deeply phobic about the science behind AGW. Excuses such as "SciAm costs money" do rather give it away.

It's much like your use of "believer" in regard to those who accept AGW - however good their reasons - while accepting 60-80 year cycles as gospel because you're comfortable with them.

The impression you give is of a very frightened person, trying to conceal it with bombast. I suggest you think twice before accusing me of the same. There are, after all, people watching.

 

[mhaze]

My apologies. I thought you had said something to the effect earlier that you were math phobic, but granted that was in the context of one of the messages in which you mentioned having been drinking too much.

On these equations.

You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict?

Or is that unnecessary?

 

[CapelDodger]

It's all relevant. AGW is a complex topic, and people keep on demanding evidence. Here it is, in spades, with references to the source research.

The IPCC reports are, after all, what was demanded by the most sceptical audience of all - the sovereign governments of the world that really have enough to contend with without climate, previously a given constant, becomg a variable. They are the customers, and they really don't want it to be so. And yet they are persuaded.

They're not doing anything yet, of course, because they still have all those more traditional priorities to deal with. Such as economic growth. But they're persuaded enough to talk about discussing doing something about it at some point. And enough to say, very loudly, how much they care about the subject.

We're screwed. Again.

 

[CapelDodger]

My apologies. I thought you had said something to the effect earlier that you were math phobic, but granted that was in the context of one of the messages in which you mentioned having been drinking too much.

As I recall, I said "too smashed". It wasn't me that brought up the "math phobic", it was you, but - smashed though I was - it was clearly directed at me. As was this more recent example.

On these equations.

You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict?

Or is that unnecessary?

Well, yes, it is. The guy described what the equations concerned - the variation in the mechanism of absorption with temperature. That's a feedback almost by definition, but it's the absorption that changes the temperature in the first place. Which is why CO2 is a forcing.

Why is this not obvious?

 

[CapelDodger]

checkmate dude!

already used up to make the gas expand, now that photon that the earth emitted is lost forever and the earth has warmed proving the theory of global warming by CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

thanks for playing this thread can now be closed

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
On these equations. You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict? Or is that unnecessary?

Well, yes, it is. The guy described what the equations concerned - the variation in the mechanism of absorption with temperature. That's a feedback almost by definition, but it's the absorption that changes the temperature in the first place. Which is why CO2 is a forcing.

Why is this not obvious?

​

Why is it not obvious that one should look at the equations (or the actual facts) before pronouncing a verdict? Well, one reason I can think of is that a person might want to actually get the right answer.

But hey, if you are content to pronounce your verdict on this small bit of science, without looking at the actual chapter from a graduate level textbook then we shall just leave it right there.

You alleged a while back that the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect was well understood, that it could be found in textbooks.

Now you are faced with a textbook chapter that appears to contradict some part of your belief set. You can either prove the chapter wrong, stand firm on your belief set(no facts needed then), or study the chapter and correct whatever if any beliefs you have that are factually incorrect.

Let me know your choice.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some references from you regarding sub acquired or other historical sea temperature data that you have said refutes the well known and understood 60-80 year climate cycles.

Oh, I'm also waiting for an analysis of or rebuttal of Singer based on Osborn and Briffa's criticism by Burger et. al.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why is it not obvious that one should look at the equations (or the actual facts) before pronouncing a verdict? Well, one reason I can think of is that a person might want to actually get the right answer.

But hey, if you are content to pronounce your verdict on this small bit of science, without looking at the actual chapter from a graduate level textbook then we shall just leave it right there.

You alleged a while back that the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect was well understood, that it could be found in textbooks.

Now you are faced with a textbook chapter that appears to contradict some part of your belief set. You can either prove the chapter wrong, stand firm on your belief set(no facts needed then), or study the chapter and correct whatever if any beliefs you have that are factually incorrect.

Let me know your choice.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some references from you regarding sub acquired or other historical sea temperature data that you have said refutes the well known and understood 60-80 year climate cycles.

Oh, I'm also waiting for an analysis of or rebuttal of Singer based on Osborn and Briffa's criticism by Burger et. al.​

Once again, scientists who specialise in this field of research, around the world, have a certain view of what an equation means. Some anonymous hacker on a web site disagrees, so he must be given creedence, and doubt reigns.​

 

[mhaze]

Once again, scientists who specialise in this field of research, around the world, have a certain view of what an equation means. Some anonymous hacker on a web site disagrees, so he must be given creedence, and doubt reigns.

If an AGW belief set causes you to make a statement such as the above when the subject is only the content of a single chapter out of a graduate level textbook, you might want to consider if that is something of a problem.

 

[a_unique_person]

If an AGW belief set causes you to make a statement such as the above when the subject is only the content of a single chapter out of a graduate level textbook, you might want to consider if that is something of a problem.

Qualified scientists vs anonymous post on web site? Who do I believe... hmmm.... The qualified scientist is my pick, again.

 

[bobdroege7]

It is not "useful" for the example given by MHaze in statistical methodology, which you evidently aren't grasping.

Keep going until you understand what was meant by "useful" in statistical language, and while you're at at, where's that comprehensive refutation of Gerlich's 'Falsification of the atmospheric.....'? Did you forget about it?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you get stuck, you can email the authors with questions which they will answer, but it must in a respectful manner.

Here is what Steve McIntyre says about Gerlich.

He says its trash and so do I.

so why don't we forget about it.


http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

#27. Again I do not want “skeptic” articles cited on this topic. I know that literature. I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t. Can people simply STOP posting “skeptic” references on this. This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes. The skeptic literature is not relied on, so I’m not interested in hosting discussions of it. Period.

 

[bobdroege7]

Noooo......

Let's look at a more general subject.

What convinces you of AGW and/or that it is a problem?

So you refute your own argument?

What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

 

[a_unique_person]

That thread is pure comedy.

#136
Let me restate that question:
Question: Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption by water vapor is essentially complete?

 

[mhaze]

Here is what Steve McIntyre says about Gerlich. He says its trash and so do I. so why don't we forget about it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

#27. Again I do not want “skeptic” articles cited on this topic. I know that literature. I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t. Can people simply STOP posting “skeptic” references on this. This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes. The skeptic literature is not relied on, so I’m not interested in hosting discussions of it. Period.

McIntyre does not in his comment say Gerlich is trash. In the comment you quote he doesn't say that. He is just talking about what discussions he wants to occur on his website that he owns, "climateaudit.org".

Go back and look at the header for Unthreaded #20 or many other points at McIntyre's comments. You will find a consistency.

Unthreaded #21

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references - and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be? If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )


Unthreaded #20

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references.

 

[mhaze]

So you refute your own argument?

I'm not willing to teach you basic things. We went through that on a simple statistics question and now it is another subject and you are again making errors. So I thought changing the subject made a lot of sense. The point of this discussion is not, believe it or not, to ridicule or make a laughing stock of other people, who mostly with good intent, make postings that are wrong.

What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

Basically, Gore's take on the matter then?

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm not willing to teach you basic things. We went through that on a simple statistics question and now it is another subject and you are again making errors. So I thought changing the subject made a lot of sense. The point of this discussion is not, believe it or not, to ridicule or make a laughing stock of other people, who mostly with good intent, make postings that are wrong.



Basically, Gore's take on the matter then?

 

[bobdroege7]

McIntyre does not in his comment say Gerlich is trash. In the comment you quote he doesn't say that. He is just talking about what discussions he wants to occur on his website that he owns, "climateaudit.org".

Go back and look at the header for Unthreaded #20 or many other points at McIntyre's comments. You will find a consistency.

Unthreaded #21

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references - and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be? If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )


Unthreaded #20

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references.

By Steve McIntyre in post #28,

I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t.

The effect is impossible - it isn't

Do you understand, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect isn't impossible.

In other lines of discussion where I quoted you, I was following your lines of logic and taking me where they lead.

So what errors am I making.

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question? Well statistically speaking the likelyhood of the ice actually increasing based on those measurements is there, but it is smaller than the likelyhood that the ice area decreased by a good margin.

+/- 10% statistically insignificant? That is the error that you and another poster are making.
Remember the ice statistics? They were reported to one significant figure, therefore in that case +/- 10% is significant.

And also, it was not my intent to ridicule you, and if I did I did it with your own words.

And by the way, continue to try to teach me some basic things.

And to repeat, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect is possible!

 

[mhaze]

Qualified scientists vs anonymous post on web site? Who do I believe... hmmm.... The qualified scientist is my pick, again.

Disingenous.

1. The admitted amateur, an anonymous poster on a website, posts a reference to a graduate level textbook written by qualified scientists.
2. You, also an admitted amateur, also an anonymous poster on a web site, assert that you will have to go with qualified scientists rather than an anonymous poster on a web site.

Hmm....(looking at chapter in textbook in question....)

Hmm....

 

[David Rodale]

So you refute your own argument?

What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

We can argue all day about the CO2 record, and despite the arguments put forth about "re-emitting radiation", the fact remains there is ZERO direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that CO2 drives climate, isn't that the truth? There are no first principles supporting the hypothesis. If there were, we'd all have the author's names and article memorized. All you've really got are climate models and those are "tuned" (forced) by parameterization to match whatever outcome is desired; it is a perpetual process. If it is assumed that positive feedbacks are dominant and climate sensitivity is higher, this is programmed into the models. As Slimething has so eloquently described, climate models cannot be validated. Each time an observation doesn't agree with the models, they must be "tuned" (forced) to match, then it is claimed climate models are reliable......after the fact. Since the climate is infinitely complex, simplifying models (a requirement) does not make them more reliable. We can discuss models in detail if you'd wish.

So you're saying the CO2 hypothesis is a linear function? It in fact is not, but rather logarithmic; the more CO2, the less effect it has. Shall we discuss diminishing return?

Have you found the missing CO2 sink? There should be 50% more than is reported. Where is it? They've been looking for it for 20 years. Some say it may be here or there, but where is it really?

Renewable energy sources? Which ones are that? Shall we burn our food (I do heat our home with corn)? That seems to be the current craze, but then "bio fuels" actually create more "greenhouse" gases than oil don't they? A few years ago the big fad was hydrogen, where's that at? It would appear nuclear energy is the only logical choice to meet our growing demand for energy, wouldn't you agree?

What is the optimum "global" temperature? What timescale in history in your estimation would be a more favorable climate? Is it a bad thing for Greenland to grow potatoes? Is it not good we use less energy to heat our homes as a result of warmer weather?

Met O has conceded AGW is currently taking a backseat to "natural variation" (whatever that means), hence the need for their 'new and improved' GCM with promises of global warming "returning with a vengeance" by ~2012. How can this be? Remember, rising CO2 levels equals rising temperatures, but it's not working out right now is it? Solar cycle 24 is what Met O is counting on to resurrect AGW. Should SC24 be weak as many solar watchers predict, and temperatures continue to fall, can we finally put this whole notion of AGW to rest? Alas, you folks will be back here trying to convince us global cooling is caused by global warming as well.

 

[David Rodale]

By Steve McIntyre in post #28,

I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t.

The effect is impossible - it isn't

Do you understand, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect isn't impossible.

In other lines of discussion where I quoted you, I was following your lines of logic and taking me where they lead.

So what errors am I making.

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question? Well statistically speaking the likelyhood of the ice actually increasing based on those measurements is there, but it is smaller than the likelyhood that the ice area decreased by a good margin.

+/- 10% statistically insignificant? That is the error that you and another poster are making.
Remember the ice statistics? They were reported to one significant figure, therefore in that case +/- 10% is significant.

And also, it was not my intent to ridicule you, and if I did I did it with your own words.

And by the way, continue to try to teach me some basic things.

And to repeat, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect is possible!

That's like saying OJ is innocent because was pronounced not guilty.

And please, stop while you can save face on the statistical comments.

If you'd been following CA since it's inception, you'd know exactly what Steve M is requesting. After 250 posts, Tom Vonk gets it:

Steve McIntyre I know the answer on your original question .
It is called quantum thermodynamics .
However it has a rather fatal drawback - it doesn’t exist .
Why ?

Statistical thermodynamics proceeds from classical mechanics and classical definitions of pressure and temperature as being emerging parameters of a big amount of randomly moving particles .
As for (semi)classical radiation theory it is actually quite simple - rule 1 everything is black body , rule 2 everything is in the Planck law (derived from Bose Einstein statistics) .
Of an important note and one that is often forgotten is that a black body is necessarily isothermal - if it is not isothermal , then it is not a black body .
Specifically the Earth or any planet for that matter are not a black bodies .

Now your question must be reformulated to be more precise .
What you ask is “Given a variation of radiative properties (emissivity , absorptivity) of a real gaz submitted to a given radiation what would be the variation of its temperature ?”

Can the classical thermodynamics answer this question ?
Clearly no because the considered gaz is neither a black body nor in equilibrium .

As neither Einstein Bose statistics nor consequently the Planck’s law work , you have to construct the absorption/emission law for a specific non black body FLUID case .
However this must necessarily be a quantum mechanical theory as you need to know how a given matter distribution interacts with a given electromagnetical field .
It turns out to be a question of staggering complexity even in the simplest cases where no feedbacks and movements take place .

What does all that boil down to ?
That the indeed ONLY possible answer is “It is so because the computer model says so .”
You may like it or not but you have to live with it - that’s the only answer you will get .
Excuse me but I find it a very naive idea that there would be some “mainstream” physics and some “renegade” physics .
Actually we all work with the same Navier Stokes , Schrödinger , Boltzmann etc .
Of course there are differences among physicists - for instance a Gavin has not the brains to understand a tenth of what a Lubos Motl understands but they both use the same physics.

Therefore what distinguishes strongly is only the stance to computerized numerical simulation .
Some believe that computer produce meaningful results and you might call that stance “mainstream” and some believe that they don’t and you might call them “sceptics” .
During the years I have read and written about climate physics , I have found that there is only one relevant question and that is “Can numerical simulations converge to real physical solutions and if yes , under what conditions ?”
There are regrettably few people who are dedicated to such questions that are of paramount importance - Dan Hughes is one of them and his blog is one of the most relevant to the whole climate debate (question of climate sensibility included) .

Or, you could read Gavin Schmidt's pseudoscience
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/