Simple climate change refutation challenge

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale
2) What implication specifically does Stefan-Boltzmann have with respect to IPCC omitting it from AR4?

​

I am sure this paper, like all others sited by you and mhaze completely demolishes anthropogenic climate change. Even though this is nowhere discussed or suggested by the authors themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Quick guess: Any halfway smart college kid would be unravelling Trenbert's global radiative energy budget if this equation was alluded to as part of the required solution. EG, the radiative energy budget would be a laughing stock and the IPCC would then not be respected.

Once one looks at the power of heat, then it's a simple step to heat content as the required measure. Temperature is shown up as the wrong way to measure any possible AGW effect there might be on the planet. Heat content means focus on the oceans, not the atmosphere.

And there we are, agreeing with Schwartz 2007 (Heat Capacity), reaching essentially these conclusions with a climate sensitivity much, much lower than the IPCC's projections. Which seems to be supported by Douglass et al 2007's finding that the trophospheric "hot spot" fingerprint of GW was much weaker than IPCC projections indicated, perhaps 1/3 of their prediction. Track that back to a climate sensitivity, it likely agrees with Schwartz.

Then we've got that pesky Eli Rabbit all confused about his fourth power of T in his rush to debunk a denier, don't we? Is this all starting to fit together a bit? What was the exact subject of that paper that Tamino and Eli made such a todo about?

 

[David Rodale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

Quick guess: Any halfway smart college kid would be unravelling Trenbert's global radiative energy budget if this equation was alluded to as part of the required solution. EG, the radiative energy budget would be a laughing stock and the IPCC would then not be respected.

Once one looks at the power of heat, then it's a simple step to heat content as the required measure. Temperature is shown up as the wrong way to measure any possible AGW effect there might be on the planet. Heat content means focus on the oceans, not the atmosphere.

And there we are, agreeing with Schwartz 2007 (Heat Capacity), reaching essentially these conclusions with a climate sensitivity much, much lower than the IPCC's projections. Which seems to be supported by Douglaas et al 2007's finding that the trophospheric "hot spot" fingerprint of GW was much weaker than IPCC projections indicated, perhaps 1/3 of their prediction. Track that back to a climate sensitivity, it likely agrees with Schwartz.

Then we've got that pesky Eli Rabbit all confused about his fourth power of T in his rush to debunk a denier, don't we? Is this all starting to fit together a bit? What was the exact subject of that paper that Tamino and Eli made such a todo about?

Well, that'd be my take on it, anyway.

Mhaze, pass Go and collect 100 carbon credits. It is indeed the tropical troposphere. [FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif]

What is the [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif]Stefan-Boltzmann constant used for? Converting radiant energy to temperature. Why is this important?

Ad nauseum, the troposphere should be warming at 2-3 times faster rate than the surface, as IPCC climate models dictate. Invoke [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif]Stefan-Boltzmann's law and they go down the toilet in one big flush. Instead we are obliged to keep hearing "the climate modes are spot on". Of course they never say which ones as there are ~22 models in IPCC AR4.

The other important factor is, and for some reason the gullible of the warmers can't seem to grasp, the more CO2 added to the atmosphere, the less and less effect it has! It is the law of diminishing return. They are spinning their wheels trying to find every last .01 degree of warming and it just can't seem to pass that ubiquitous peak in 1998. Why is that?

Now temperatures are plummeting and it just doesn't jibe with the CO2 hypothesis. Nobody has explained to my satisfaction how the entire globe can cool at all. We've been told AGW has overtaken natural cycles. Isn't that 'business as usual'?

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif][/FONT]

 

[mhaze]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif]Ad nauseum, the troposphere should be warming at 2-3 times faster rate than the surface, as IPCC climate models dictate.[/FONT]

The famous CO2 greenhouse effect.

Weak.

Not strong.

By examination and measurement of the atmosphere.

[FONT=Arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial,helvetica] The core issue over the next ten years will not be "How much will the climate warm?" but, rather, "Why did it warm so little?" My research also leads me to believe that the next decade will see the emergence of a paradigm of "robust earth," as opposed to the fashionable "fragility" concept. The papers listed below provide some evidence for these observations. It is entirely possible that human influence on the atmosphere is not necessarily deleterious and that it is simply another component of the dynamic planet. Tomorrow's scientific and science-policy leaders will have to recognize this verity in our attempts to maintain a productive and diverse planet.[/FONT][/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial,helvetica]Dr. Patrick Michaels[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Alric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

You guys need to start reading the links you post. From the wikipedia article:

"The real Earth does not have this "gray-body" property. The terrestrial albedo is such that about 30% of incident solar radiation is reflected back into space; taking the reduced energy from the sun into account and computing the temperature of a black-body radiator that would emit that much energy back into space yields an "effective temperature", consistent with the definition of that concept, of about 255 K.[3] However, compared to the 30% reflection of the Sun's energy, a much larger fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[4][5] Since the emissivity (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates), is reduced more than than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation), the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. The Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K, as a result; global warming is an increase in this equilibrium temperature due to human-caused additions to the greenhouse gasses."

 

[bobdroege7]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Ms Serif]

It's a very simple answer, even simpler than whether water droplets freezing from the inside out or the outside in.
[/FONT]

No, it's not a simple answer, in fact it is a trick question, as the answer is neither, and irrevelant to the AGW question.

so can you get back on topic

 

[a_unique_person]

My my. Correct on both counts. Now consider this:

1) What was the consensus for ~60 years concerning water droplets freezing from the inside out or the outside in? Surely such a simple law of thermodynamics couldn't have been overlooked?

2) What implication specifically does Stefan-Boltzmann have with respect to IPCC omitting it from AR4?

All these questions, and a long, drawn out, tortuous process before anyone actually makes a claim. Why don't you just say what you think?

 

[fsol]

So is the suggestion now that climatologists don't know about Stefan-Boltzmann? Don't use it? Or what?

 

[bobdroege7]

Umm, I've been distracted a bit but here is the distraction.

3) What is the effect of Wentz 2007, your quoted paper "How much rain will global warming bring" on the 500,000 cubic km of water that falls as precip each year. A plus or minus 5% change in that 500,000 cubic km would have what effect on global sea level?

Answer: About plus or minus 50 mm.

Brilliant argument, facinating, well researched, fine example of critical thinking.

Now cite me someone who said rain affects global sea level.

 

[mhaze]

Brilliant argument, facinating, well researched, fine example of critical thinking.

Now cite me someone who said rain affects global sea level.

None, which of course opens other questions. Maybe Wentz is wrong or other feedbacks are at work.

 

[Pipirr]

Temperature is shown up as the wrong way to measure any possible AGW effect there might be on the planet. Heat content means focus on the oceans, not the atmosphere.

So we can scrap the whole surface temperature network... We obviously don't need it, its broken anyhow and it measures the wrong thing?

 

[mhaze]

Haven't about half of the stations been decommissioned anyway in the last decade or so?

 

[TrueSceptic]

So is the suggestion now that climatologists don't know about Stefan-Boltzmann? Don't use it? Or what?

Also, don't forget that these evil enviro-nazi lefties don't know about Milankovitch cycles, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, ocean currents, solar variation, or any GHGs apart from CO2.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The famous CO2 greenhouse effect.

Weak.

Not strong.

By examination and measurement of the atmosphere.

[FONT=Arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial,helvetica] The core issue over the next ten years will not be "How much will the climate warm?" but, rather, "Why did it warm so little?" My research also leads me to believe that the next decade will see the emergence of a paradigm of "robust earth," as opposed to the fashionable "fragility" concept. The papers listed below provide some evidence for these observations. It is entirely possible that human influence on the atmosphere is not necessarily deleterious and that it is simply another component of the dynamic planet. Tomorrow's scientific and science-policy leaders will have to recognize this verity in our attempts to maintain a productive and diverse planet.[/FONT][/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial,helvetica][FONT=Arial,helvetica]Dr. Patrick Michaels[/FONT][/FONT]

So there is a CO2 "greenhouse" effect? Care to tell us just how weak it is? Got some figures?

I've repeatedly asked you to explain your apparent change of mind about CO2 and you have ignored those requests. Why is that?

 

[TrueSceptic]

So we can scrap the whole surface temperature network... We obviously don't need it, its broken anyhow and it measures the wrong thing?

And then we can stop going on about the way that temps have stopped rising because, you know, they have no meaning.

 

[mhaze]

So there is a CO2 "greenhouse" effect? Care to tell us just how weak it is? Got some figures?

I've repeatedly asked you to explain your apparent change of mind about CO2 and you have ignored those requests. Why is that?

Maybe because it looked like you made all that up?

There's been no change in my opinion. You looked one factoid up, go look up some more. I'm sure you can figure it out unless you can't figure out the vbulletin search function (granted, it IS PRETTY BAD).

Maybe because you have some weird "strawman of contrarians" concept and you try to fit bunches of odd sided and shaped groups of opinions into that little box? Which I find not interesting?

Have you found any of these creatures you call "contrarians" on JREF who claim there is no CO2 greenhouse effect? If so, whom?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Funny, I thought Peiser was on your "side". Let's go down that list.

You didn't reply. Shall we do that? If so, we need to start a new thread rather than derail this one. We also need to agree on exactly which list it is, and what is claimed for it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Maybe because it looked like you made all that up?

There's been no change in my opinion. You looked one factoid up, go look up some more. I'm sure you can figure it out unless you can't figure out the vbulletin search function (granted, it IS PRETTY BAD).

Maybe because you have some weird "strawman of contrarians" concept and you try to fit bunches of odd sided and shaped groups of opinions into that little box? Which I find not interesting?

Have you found any of these creatures you call "contrarians" on JREF who claim there is no CO2 greenhouse effect? If so, whom?

What did I make up? Did you say this or not?

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

There's the "factoid".

This was a reasonable and polite question. Is it possible for you to respond in a similar manner?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
Funny, I thought Peiser was on your "side". Let's go down that list.

​

You didn't reply. Shall we do that? If so, we need to start a new thread rather than derail this one. We also need to agree on exactly which list it is, and what is claimed for it.

No, I didn't reply because doing so would have made you look foolish. You came up with 34 skeptical articles yada-yada-yada. Well, let us just pick one author.....oh, say Dr. Patrick Michaels - he'd certainly qualify as a "contrarian or denier", as you so judiciously use the phrase.

407 published articles.

So much for that argument.

What did I make up? Did you say this or not?

Originally Posted by mhaze
We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.
​

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

There's the "factoid".

Yes, I answered a question something like "Does man have an effect on the environment" and in the response noted that there might be some greenhouse effect attributable to CO2. CO2 is a trace gas with a few bands where it absorbs long wave radiation. So what? 0.5C over 50 years is nothing to be concerned about.

Note that I gave the out in the retorical question "a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out" which is not really a bad position for an intelligent person to take, is it?

Next?

 

[Alric]

Dr. Patrick Michaels - he'd certainly qualify as a "contrarian or denier", as you so judiciously use the phrase.

407 published articles.

So much for that argument.

Next?

None of his articles deny anthropogenic global warming. He said he doesn't believe in it (very cautiously by the way). Some biologists believe in God and I cab assure none of their papers demonstrate God's existence.

Did it sink yet that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant for the earth can actually be used to measure global warming and is discussed in the link Rodale provided?

....the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. The Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K, as a result; global warming is an increase in this equilibrium temperature due to human-caused additions to the greenhouse gasses.

 

[TrueSceptic]

No, I didn't reply because doing so would have made you look foolish. You came up with 34 skeptical articles yada-yada-yada. Well, let us just pick one author.....oh, say Dr. Patrick Michaels - he'd certainly qualify as a "contrarian or denier", as you so judiciously use the phrase.

407 published articles.

So much for that argument.

Next?

WTF are you on about? We are talking about the "list of 500". Do you want to check that list or not?

"Contrarian" is the polite term, BTW. What would you prefer?