what's the deal with global warming?

[EvilYeti]

Brian the Snail: I'm glad you asked.

My scenario depends on the precise definition of "greenhouse effect". If we assume it means something like "the warming of the surface due to the presence of substance X in the atmosphere, compared to the temperature without substance X", then I think the two sites can both be true. Here's why:

While H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 95% of the IR from the Earth, and thereby helps to warm it, H2O also forms clouds, which cools it. It is therefore possible that the total warming effect resulting from the presence of H2O is only 60%, as it also has a cooling effect.

Species % trapped radiation
removed radiation remaining

All 0
H2O, CO2, O3 50
H2O 64
Clouds 86
CO2 88
O3 97
None 100


(Source: Ramanathan and Coakley, Rev. Geophys and Space Phys., 16 465 (1978))

(Apologizes for the formatting, I tried to fix it)

 

[a_unique_person]

High level view of the the CSIRO model.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/info98_4.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

No, because I have not made any. You on the other hand, have made lots, but in discussions I have had with other scientists on this board, its clear that it is you, not I, which needs to retake Remedial Science 101.

You are a scientist? But what is your specialty?

Where is the flaw in this model?

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

But it is not a sign of near certainty either, though you'd never know it to hear from some people...

But there is consensus between the world's most foremost scientific institutes, foremost scientific journal, magazine as well as major historian/scientist. The evidence again is overwhelming. Not something to just shrug off as mere ideological fluff. That's the sort of thing creationists do as a matter of fact. When I tell them about the NAS, scientific american, Royal Society and Major scientists view of creationism they bring up lots of irrelevant points, as if testimony by leading scientists was worthless.


Diamond I'm sorry to say this, but if its your word vs the National Academie's, I'll side with the National Academies. Continuing this hyperbolic line of criticism is not going to make me take them any less seriously, but you.

So do you have anything more solid then the NAS, the Royal Society, or Nature journal to refute the claim that Global Warming is occuring due to human efforts? Or extraordinary proof to suggest they are incompetent or lying? Because otherwise I'm just labeling your posts as "a waste of time."

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Here's the longest continuous directly measured temperature record, we have: the Central England Temperature.

You'd have thought that with carbon dioxide levels starting to rise from 1850, the temperature record should show this, but alas the warming started much earlier, right at the Maunder Minimum of solar activity. Strange that.

Amazing, Diamond disproved the NAS, Royal Society, and Nature with a single pic, from an unknown source.......


Gee email that to the editors, I'm sure they'll come around. Unless they are involved in some grand conspiracy.

 

[EvilYeti]

Amazing, Diamond disproved the NAS, Royal Society, and Nature with a single pic, from an unknown source.......


Gee email that to the editors, I'm sure they'll come around. Unless they are involved in some grand conspiracy.

Whats funny is, I don't even have a problem with him personally rejecting the data. That his right and a personal decision.

What I find offensive is his claims that there is some sort of major debate going on in the scientific community about whether the effect is a bona-fide human induced phenomena. Its not, its about as close to a unanimous consenus as you can get. The few who don't accept it (down to the five Diamond listed) either have some political motivations or are bankrolled by the petroleum industry.

There is huge debate over the details, especially about what the long term consequences are going to be. Or what, if anything, we should do about them.

Myself, I'm in favor of the Kyoto accord, if for no other reason that is buys us some time if it turns out the consequences are going to be disasterous.

 

[Brian the Snail]

My scenario depends on the precise definition of "greenhouse effect". If we assume it means something like "the warming of the surface due to the presence of substance X in the atmosphere, compared to the temperature without substance X", then I think the two sites can both be true. Here's why:

While H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 95% of the IR from the Earth, and thereby helps to warm it, H2O also forms clouds, which cools it. It is therefore possible that the total warming effect resulting from the presence of H2O is only 60%, as it also has a cooling effect.

I'm not sure that's it. It's true that clouds increases the amount of radiation from the sun reflected back into the space, but that's the albedo, not the greenhouse effect. And in fact, Wikipedia seems to suggest that clouds have a greenhouse contribution of their own.

There's an interesting discussion of this topic at this link:

http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/gccsg/2-7.html

Negative feedback occurs when the response to primary climatic forcing acts as a secondary forcing mechanism in the opposite direction to that of the initial forcing factor. Negative feedback reduces the climate response to forcing. One example of a negative feedback due to increased radiative forcing would be cloud formation (Cubasch & Cess, 1990). As the Earth warms, so the rate of evaporation from the (warmer) oceans increases, supplying the atmosphere with more water vapour conducive to enhanced cloud formation. With greater global cloud coverage, more incident radiation is reflected, reducing radiative forcing and leading to a lowering of the global temperature.

This simple picture of the cloud feedback is, however, complicated by the fact that clouds also serve to trap terrestrial infrared radiation, augmenting the greenhouse effect, and thus act as a positive feedback, also, to increased radiative forcing. Numerical modelling has not been able to determine with any degree of certainty whether positive cloud feedbacks outweigh negative ones, or vice versa. Much depends upon the altitude of the cloud and the cloud type (Charlson et al., 1987; Wigley, 1989). High level clouds are expected to have a net positive feedback, with the effect of long-wave radiation absorption outweighing albedo effects. Clouds at high altitudes exist in colder air and tend to emit less radiation generating a stronger greenhouse effect. Low level clouds, on the other hand, probably have a net negative feedback effect.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The greenhouse gases are not the same thing as Global Warming.

 

[Brian the Snail]

The greenhouse gases are not the same thing as Global Warming.

Sorry DM, but was that directed to me?

If it was, then I agree, the greenhouse effect is not the same as Global Warming. To clarify, my understanding is that human-induced increases in some of the greenhouse gases is the proposed mechanism (together with various feedback effects) for Global Warming.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in my post.

 

[Diamond]

But there is consensus between the world's most foremost scientific institutes, foremost scientific journal, magazine as well as major historian/scientist. The evidence again is overwhelming. Not something to just shrug off as mere ideological fluff. That's the sort of thing creationists do as a matter of fact. When I tell them about the NAS, scientific american, Royal Society and Major scientists view of creationism they bring up lots of irrelevant points, as if testimony by leading scientists was worthless.

The comparison between skepticism of the claim of human-induced global warming and creationism is offensive and insulting.

I will not be debating with you again.

 

[Diamond]

Whats funny is, I don't even have a problem with him personally rejecting the data. That his right and a personal decision.

You haven't presented any. You have presented a series of bad science mistakes and attempted to browbeat everyone into submission of your view by claiming that the consensus that human-induce global warming is real and significant is near unanimous when it is none of the kind.

Science is not decided by the majority but by hypothesis, experiment, leading to prediction and theory. Not by magazines, scientific organizations or popularity contests.

Read my sig for more info.

What I find offensive is his claims that there is some sort of major debate going on in the scientific community about whether the effect is a bona-fide human induced phenomena.

But there is. Its very apparent that there is, which is why there are articles and scientific reviews which refute the human-induced climate change scenario. But you don't read them and neither do your friends. If that isn't a fixed neo-relgious viewpoint I don't know what is.

Its not, its about as close to a unanimous consenus as you can get. The few who don't accept it (down to the five Diamond listed) either have some political motivations or are bankrolled by the petroleum industry.

Which is a blatent ad hominem and lie.

There is huge debate over the details, especially about what the long term consequences are going to be. Or what, if anything, we should do about them.

Its clear to me that you know nothing of the science or the debate.

Myself, I'm in favor of the Kyoto accord, if for no other reason that is buys us some time if it turns out the consequences are going to be disasterous.

The Kyoto Protocol if fully implemented would reduce the (climate model) predicted rise of somewhere between 1.5 and 5.5 degrees by 0.07C. It would also crash the world economy.

Another way of looking at it, is that it would delay the (climate model) predicted warming by six years.

So your favouritism is based on bad science and worse ignorance of climate change.

 

[Diamond]

Amazing, Diamond disproved the NAS, Royal Society, and Nature with a single pic, from an unknown source.......


Gee email that to the editors, I'm sure they'll come around. Unless they are involved in some grand conspiracy.

The source is on the picture. Now go away.

 

[Diamond]

You are a scientist? But what is your specialty?

Where is the flaw in this model?

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf

"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible."

-from Working Group 1 - IPCC report 2001

 

[EvilYeti]

You haven't presented any. You have presented a series of bad science mistakes and attempted to browbeat everyone into submission of your view by claiming that the consensus that human-induce global warming is real and significant is near unanimous when it is none of the kind.

I have presented a paper, which you refuse to even read. Very impressive, I guess in your opinion sticking your head in the sand is how science is done.
I work in the earth sciences and 100% of the people I am in close contact with accept global warming as real and signifigant. You've even used the data from one of them, Charles Keeling.
Read DM's quotes from the National Academey of Sciences as well.
Science is not decided by the majority but by hypothesis, experiment, leading to prediction and theory. Not by magazines, scientific organizations or popularity contests.

Blatantly false, more evidence you have no idea how science is done in the real world. Ever hear of peer review? Individuals are more likely to be wrong then the whole community, so until others are able to check your work and verify your results its doesn't count.

Read my sig for more info.

Galileo was talking about thousands of regular people, not scientists. He had very few peers. A more modern version would be "In questions of science, the authority of a single individual is not worth the humble reasoning of a thousand scientists". You are that single individual.

But there is. Its very apparent that there is, which is why there are articles and scientific reviews which refute the human-induced climate change scenario. But you don't read them and neither do your friends. If that isn't a fixed neo-relgious viewpoint I don't know what is.

You keep asserting that, over and over and over again without providing ANY references. I provide ONE reference, which you refuse to read. You have the fixed, religious viewpoint. Its obvious you will never accept human-induced global warming as a phenomenon, no matter how much evidence is presented. Your religion won't allow it.

Its clear to me that you know nothing of the science or the debate.

Meaningless coming from you, as you have provided ZERO science in the debate. You just assert, assert, assert, assert. Then you assert again. If you think you know more science then me about global warming, why don't you educate us? Be sure to provide references!

The Kyoto Protocol if fully implemented would reduce the (climate model) predicted rise of somewhere between 1.5 and 5.5 degrees by 0.07C. It would also crash the world economy.

Now you are claiming special knowledge. Did you look in your crystal ball and see the crash? Or is it just another of your empty, baseless assertions?

Another way of looking at it, is that it would delay the (climate model) predicted warming by six years.

If we find out global warming will have a catastrophic outcome then those six years will make all the difference in the world.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The comparison between skepticism of the claim of human-induced global warming and creationism is offensive and insulting.

I will not be debating with you again.

....and here's me not caring.

BTW I never meant to insult the creationists.....

 

[Diamond]

Diamond: Science is not decided by the majority but by hypothesis, experiment, leading to prediction and theory. Not by magazines, scientific organizations or popularity contests.

Blatantly false, more evidence you have no idea how science is done in the real world. Ever hear of peer review? Individuals are more likely to be wrong then the whole community, so until others are able to check your work and verify your results its doesn't count.

I keep this gem for safe keeping.

Peer review does not "prove" a result. It simply checks for obvious flaws or errors. There are frequent cases of scientific reports being published after peer review that were subsequently shown to be worthless. You quote one paper and I'm supposed to fall off my chair in awe?

If you're going to argue that this one paper is so phenomenal, then point to it on the Internet and stop giving us the BS about how this proves anything.

Your physics knowledge is so poor and your use of scientific terms so wretched that I can only conclude you work as a janitor in a University someplace.

A unanimity of people around you who accept AGW as true means nothing without testable and replicable results on the foundation of a falsifiable hypothesis. That's why I have a problem with AGW, its not falsifiable. It could be true or not, but I can't tell since it doesn't predict specific phenomena that other, simpler theories predict just as well.

 

[EvilYeti]

I keep this gem for safe keeping.

If others can't verify your results, then its not considered valid science.

You must still be pissed that Nature rejected the French homeopathy claims.

 

[Diamond]

If others can't verify your results, then its not considered valid science.

You must still be pissed that Nature rejected the French homeopathy claims.

Nature published them AND THEN tested the claim by sending a team.

You obviously have no clue about science or the scientific method. Like others you claim absolute confidence in your assertions without making clear the enormous gaps in the science and the mountain of contrary evidence. Science is not decided by popularity amongst academics.

Another indication of a troll with no actual knowledge is the comparison with woo-woo beliefs or creationism. So far we have two in this thread.

 

[EvilYeti]

You quote one paper and I'm supposed to fall off my chair in awe?

Its considered to be the best meta-analysis to date by earth scientists and has not been refuted, despite spawning numerous new research.

If you're going to argue that this one paper is so phenomenal, then point to it on the Internet and stop giving us the BS about how this proves anything.

Guess what Galileo, sometime you just have to go the library. Its not available online.
Again, the article is in Science Vol 268, pages 59-68 (April, 1995)
But you won't read it. You don't care about real science. You never have.

Your physics knowledge is so poor and your use of scientific terms so wretched that I can only conclude you work as a janitor in a University someplace.

Really now, because I inverted one defenition? Do you have anything tangible to offer in support of your position? Anything at all? Have you even read ONE paper you can provide as a reference to support your position? How can you claim knowledge of the subject when you aren't even aware of the current research thats going on?
Do you have anything other than ad-homs?

A unanimity of people around you who accept AGW as true means nothing without testable and replicable results on the foundation of a falsifiable hypothesis. That's why I have a problem with AGW, its not falsifiable. It could be true or not, but I can't tell since it doesn't predict specific phenomena that other, simpler theories predict just as well.

AGW is easily falsifiable. Either show that the earth is not getting warmer or that an increase in warmth is real but due to non manmade causes.
If you would read the paper, you would understand that Dr. Thompson looked at precession, vucanism and solar flucuations to explain the rate of temperature gains this century. He found minor correlations amongst all of them. The strongest correlation, by far, however, was human CO2 emissions.
You would undestand that if you read the paper.
But you haven't and you won't, because you've already made up your mind. You have no interest in the truth, science or discovery. You stick your head in the sand and refuse to examine the evidence.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Science is not decided by popularity amongst academics.

Oh you mean what the actual scientists themselves have to say....