Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[a_unique_person]

An analogy?

Are you saying UCAR is teaching junk science, or speaking at a grade school level to make it more understandable? Or are you looking for science talk that says there actually is real glass?
[SIZE=-1]University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)[/SIZE]

Read some more. It appears you should be more careful when taking Schneibster's word for it. However, since you say it is an analogy, then should there be more heat accumulating in the troposphere than at the surface? After all that is what AGW hypothesis claims and UCAR is a principle climate model builder. I'm just asking. Perhaps a glass greenhouse is not the best analogy.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
[SIZE=+1]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
[/SIZE]http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html

And they've got the little balls joined together representing a molecule. Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that one. I'm sure they'd be very grateful to fix up that blooper as well.

 

[David Rodale]

And they've got the little balls joined together representing a molecule. Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that one. I'm sure they'd be very grateful to fix up that blooper as well.

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.

The point was AUP in case you didn't notice, the latest observational data is in clear contradiction to AGW hypothesis concerning troposphere warming, which is the analogy of a glass greenhouse used by each one of those examples given. I think you realize this.

Perhaps the peer reviewed paper below will aid programmers in their models whereby limiting one portion of their parameterization to a more realistic estimate with respect to climate sensitivity since now it is based on pre-conceived assumptions. Do you recall which chapter and verse IPCC explains how they arrive at ~2.5C increase in temperature via 2xCO2 and what peer reviewed article referenced? We can all look forward to the next IPCC report to include the many peer reviewed articles published after 2005 (did IPCC include any after 2005 in AR4?) diametrically opposed to the current "consensus". Maybe IPCC will even include the ones ignored this round.

Aren't we all interested in full and open disclosure of scientific evidence? I'm sure you are.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml

Abstract

An analysis of satellite and surface measurements of aerosol optical depth suggests that global average of aerosol optical depth has been recently decreasing at the rate of around 0.0014/a. This decrease is nonuniform with the fastest decrease observed over the United States and Europe. The observed rate of decreasing aerosol optical depth produces the top of the atmosphere radiative forcing that is comparable to forcing due to the current rate of increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Consequently, both increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and decreasing loading of atmospheric aerosols are major contributors to the top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing. We find that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. We find the empirical climate sensitivity to be between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm−2 when aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing is included.
Received 2 April 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 13 December 2007.

Hmm, that sounds vaguely similar to Schwartz's calculations. Dr. Roy Spencer will soon be releasing his paper on climate sensitivity, which no doubt will also be of interest.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.

For gods sake. It's science. It is quite certain there are parts of it that are 'wrong', in the sense that science is never right, but a progression. But it's not dogma. That's an insult to the scientists working on the issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hmm, that sounds vaguely similar to Schwartz's calculations.

But for entirely different reasons. Typical of the denier crowd. They don't care how it is arrived at, just as long as the answer was what they wanted to hear.

 

[rockoon]

But for entirely different reasons.

So there is more than one reason?

Do you then deny the conclusions of Schwartz, the methodology of Schwartz, both, or neither?

 

[a_unique_person]

So there is more than one reason?

Do you then deny the conclusions of Schwartz, the methodology of Schwartz, both, or neither?

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how someone arrives at a lower value for climate sensitivity, apparently, just as long as it's lower than the IPCC value.

 

[rockoon]

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how someone arrives at a lower value for climate sensitivity, apparently, just as long as it's lower than the IPCC value.

Are you saying that both conclusions and both methodologies are wrong?

Why don't you just say what you mean?

(you are interrested in the science, right?)

 

[a_unique_person]

It's like that Dire Straights song "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be right"

 

[rockoon]

It's like that Dire Straights song "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be right"

Are you saying that both conclusions and both methodologies are wrong?

 

[mhaze]

For gods sake. It's science. It is quite certain there are parts of it that are 'wrong', in the sense that science is never right, but a progression. But it's not dogma. That's an insult to the scientists working on the issue.

Quite interesting to see a progression in which science is moving away from the few who had the consensus dogma view.

The poll stands at 33 agree that we are making the Earth warm and 19 disagree. So, the Earth is warming.

Isn't that how these polls work?

Interesting, but no. Observations and conclusions from them rule.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite interesting to see a progression in which science is moving away from the few who had the consensus dogma view.

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.

 

[mhaze]

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.

The point was AUP in case you didn't notice, the latest observational data is in clear contradiction to AGW hypothesis concerning troposphere warming, which is the analogy of a glass greenhouse used by each one of those examples given. I think you realize this.

Perhaps the peer reviewed paper below will aid programmers in their models whereby limiting one portion of their parameterization to a more realistic estimate with respect to climate sensitivity since now it is based on pre-conceived assumptions.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml

From your link to Chylek 2007.

We find the empirical climate sensitivity to be between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm−2 when aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing is included.
​

"empirical climate sensitivity"-
All feedbacks and forcings included? The change is to this chart's bottom line?



RealClimate.org, increasingly marginalized.

At what point do they go with correct numbers, abandon the hockey stick defense, and concentrate on subjects that deserve attention, such as the Asian brown cloud?

 

[Pipirr]

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.

Quite so.

I'm reading the book right now: it's a fascinating story. At only 200 pages long it should easily fit in a Christmas stocking, for the AGW-curious in your life.

That's "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart.

 

[mhaze]

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.

Reality does tend to be somewhat more amazing than fiction. True historians have an adage, that for an unbiased view of history you must be no closer to the present than fifty years in the past. Apparently Weart hasn't heard that, since he soldiers on to the present day.

Since Weart's work is online, you're welcome to post sections of it for people on JREF to review. I think we've recently already debunked numerous of Weart's premises and conclusions, including the hockey stick, climate sensitivity, water vapor effects.

Anything else in Weart that you'd like to present?

 

[a_unique_person]

Reality does tend to be somewhat more amazing than fiction. True historians have an adage, that for an unbiased view of history you must be no closer to the present than fifty years in the past. Apparently Weart hasn't heard that, since he soldiers on to the present day.

Since Weart's work is online, you're welcome to post sections of it for people on JREF to review. I think we've recently already debunked numerous of Weart's premises and conclusions, including the hockey stick, climate sensitivity, water vapor effects.

Anything else in Weart that you'd like to present?

 

[Lonewulf]

To answer the OP:

I stand where the science takes me, and where the scientists take me. So far, I'm convinced that humans have an effect on global warming. I mean, as far as I know, CO2 gas is not light enough to drift outside of the atmosphere like Helium or Hydrogen, and CO2 gas is known to cause a global warming effect. CO2 gas is majorly responsible for the heat trapped on Venus, in spite of also being some distance from the sun. CO2 gas is also planned to terraform Mars, using the greenhouse warming effect to slowly, over the process of tens of thousands of years, to make Mars habitable, and to melt the polar ice caps. (Though it requires other things, like seeding plants that can breathe the CO2 and the like)

I can't really be convinced that all of this is bunk... the effect of CO2 on Venus (which has an atmosphere made up of a majority of CO2 gas), and the proposed use of CO2 on Mars kinda points me to the fact that CO2 has some affect, and the more you have, the more likely it's going to warm the world.

It's pretty much like suggesting that evolution is bunk in my eyes. You have to ignore quite a few data points to think that CO2 gas has little or negligable effect... and you'd have to ignore quite a few data points to think that humans aren't expelling a great deal of it. And the more countries that industrialize, without some major changes to how we deal with things on earth, the more CO2 gas that we'll spew up. Hell, if the U.S. is bad, just think about what would happen if China, still using fossil fuels, decided to really pursue rapid industrialization? Not good, IMO.

Claiming that it's all a conspiracy by all nations to tax people... well, sure. And the Moon Landings were faked, JFK's assassination was by the CIA, and the government is also controlled by reptilian humanoids.




As for the idea of it being a "natural" warming effect... maybe. But c'mon here. How long have humans been around? 10,000 years? And over the past few hundred years, the world has been warming pretty quickly. Does the world really change it's climate significantly every few centuries? That's pretty sporadic for a planet that's been around for billions of years. It's also an interesting coincidence that it happens to be "naturally warming" while simultaneously, industrialization become more and more widespread and concentrated world wide...

 

[mhaze]

To answer the OP:
I can't really be convinced that all of this is bunk...

Facts are known in some cases to aid in changing opinions.

Does the world really change it's climate significantly every few centuries?

Yes.

It's also an interesting coincidence that it happens to be "naturally warming" while simultaneously, industrialization become more and more widespread and concentrated world wide...

It's also an interesting coincidence that everywhere there is a tombstone there is a dead person. We could live forever, if we just get rid of the tombstones?

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes.

Okay.

So if it changes every few centuries, I.E., if the world is so much hotter than it was in 1000 AD... why are we still here?

That's 10 full centuries. If it significantly changes to the degree it has been, then we should be broiling alive.

It's also an interesting coincidence that everywhere there is a tombstone there is a dead person. We could live forever, if we just get rid of the tombstones?

Actually, it seems more like you're claiming that a tombstone is simply a random rock, and the corpse is some wacky sun waves.

Mhaze, a few questions:

1) Can CO2 be trapped in the atmosphere? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' atmosphere?

2) Can CO2 cause a greenhouse effect? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' climate?

3) Are current industrial processes expelling CO2? Yes or no?

 

[sol invictus]

I was a little surprised at the results of this poll, particularly by how few people said they needed more information. But then I noticed how poorly written the options are:

Do you agree with the validity of current GW/AGW claims?

Yes, they are true and the current state of the science definitively proves this. It is also certain, likely, or probable that humans are contributing to it.

Very confusing wording. Part of the claim of GW science is that human-created greenhouse gases are contributing to the temperature increase and climate change. So the first sentence says science has definitively proven that humans are making a significant contribution to climate change. But the second allows for the possibility that it is merely probable that humans are contributing to GW.

So which is it? Personally I think it's probable but a long way from definitively proven.

 

[mhaze]

Okay.

So if it changes every few centuries, I.E., if the world is so much hotter than it was in 1000 AD... why are we still here?

That's 10 full centuries. If it significantly changes to the degree it has been, then we should be broiling alive.

Medieval Warm Period?

Mhaze, a few questions:

1) Can CO2 be trapped in the atmosphere? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' atmosphere?

2) Can CO2 cause a greenhouse effect? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' climate?

3) Are current industrial processes expelling CO2? Yes or no?

1 and 2) Mechanisms on Venus are not comparable to the issues here. Total solar irradiance on Venus is huge compared to Earth. This is really not in question. Not even die hard AGW people compare Venus's climate to Earth's (although I am continually surprised at what they do come up with).

3) CO2 is output from industrial processes. CO2 is a trace gas; concentrations are measured in the parts per million. CO2 may have a very slight effect in warming temperatures on the globe, possibly 0.5C if the total concentration of CO2 was doubled. Recent science does not show it to have a huge, alarming effect (that would be if say a doubling of CO2 resulted in world temperature increase of 3-6C). The correlation of 20th century temperature with 20th century CO2 increase is in the neighborhood of R = 0.22, essentially no correlation at all.

Many excellent scientific articles have recently been posted to these threads at JREF which explain the current peer reviewed, published science in these areas. Answers to your questions are in those articles; if they are boringly technical, there are numerous websites that explain in everyday language what they mean. There are a lot of things that are not known for certain, definitely.