|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 16, 2009 12:50:12 GMT
socold writes "I suspect it's a deliberate ploy to set the bar so ridiculously high so that they can easily hand wave away any of the evidence."
To some extent you are correct. Let me expand a little on my reference to the Kelvin Fallacy. As I understand the logic, it says that we can describe in detail how radiiton is transmitted through the atmosphere. If we assume that this is the only way that matters, then we can "prove" AGW. What the Kelvin Fallacy states is that there may be other important factors that are omitted from the process. What these are, and whether they indeed exist at all, we have no idea. But until you can do the vital experiment, then there will always be doubt that AGW is real.
Yes, I want to set the bar as high as it needs to be set. It will not cost taxpayers very much money if Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not quite right. Genetically modified organisms are already making life better for us, IMHO. So it does not matter. AGW does matter, because the cost of decreasing the emissions of CO2 are extremely high. They will, for example, condemn billions of the world's poorest people to remain in abject poverty. That is why the bar must be set very high indeed. I am not sure it can be set too high.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 16, 2009 12:55:59 GMT
glc writes "What do you mean. The equations are validated. Are you suggesting that Beer-Lambert and Schwarzschild have been dreamt up by someone at NASA." What I am trying to explain to you is why it is useless to try and convince me that AGW has some basis in science. I have often referred to the Kelvin Fallacy. I am sure you know what I am referring to. You can do all the estimates and everything else you like, but until you carry out the actual experiment whereby CO2 from current levels, is added to the atmosphere, and then you measure what the resulting temperature rise is, you have not proved that AGW is real. And this experiment cannot be done. Please note. I am not arguing that AGW is not a very good hypothesis, with lots of science to support it. What I object to is our politicians spending heaven knows how many dollars on a problem which has not been, and cannot be, proven to exist. I think you are wrong to talk about the Kelvin "fallacy". Kelvin used a perfectly good set of physical assumptions to come up with the boundaries for the age of the earth. Other scientists did the same for the Sun. Kelvin's results might have been correct except for the presence of unstable isotopes whose decay kept the earth warm. The fact that the results were inconsistent with other findings was an indication that there remained unknowns to be found. So it was arguably a useful finding that contributed to the advancement of science. We're some years on since then, and advocating off the wall, novel phenomena that cancels out global warming when no such phenomena are particularly warranted and there is no evidence for such phenomena, is less appropriate to the current debate. We think the earth will get warmer because basic physics tells us it will.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 16, 2009 12:56:23 GMT
Calculations don't just involve radiation, they involve every process - convection, clouds. Not 100% accurately of course, but noone has found low climate sensitivity from doing this, so the evidence is firmly leaning towards high climate sensitivity with low climate sensitivity not even demonstrated so far as plausible.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 16, 2009 15:22:04 GMT
steve writes "We're some years on since then, and advocating off the wall, novel phenomena that cancels out global warming when no such phenomena are particularly warranted and there is no evidence for such phenomena, is less appropriate to the current debate."
I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. We have the earth's climate and weather, which is, to say the least, a chaotic system. We do not understand the fundamental physics in detail. Organizations have the very latest in high speed computers, and some of the brightest minds on the planet producing the programs to produce weather forecasts. Yet it is routine for forecasts on a 24 hr, or even in some cases, a 6 hr, period to be just plain wrong.
Now you are suggesting that when glc quotes some very simple equations to calculate how much effect a doubling of CO2 has on global temperatures, that it is virtually impossible for somethimg important to have been omitted. Maybe others are more gullible than I am. But dont expect me to believe what he claims to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 16, 2009 21:15:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 8:55:48 GMT
steve writes "We're some years on since then, and advocating off the wall, novel phenomena that cancels out global warming when no such phenomena are particularly warranted and there is no evidence for such phenomena, is less appropriate to the current debate." I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. We have the earth's climate and weather, which is, to say the least, a chaotic system. We do not understand the fundamental physics in detail. No we don't. But the fundamental physics that we do know tells us that things warm if you turn up the heat. Till there is evidence to the contrary, hypothesising that there must be something that stops things warming when you turn up the heat is sheer faith, not science. You cannot evoke "chaos" to solve your problem any more than you can evoke a supernatural being to solve it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 10:04:50 GMT
No we don't. But the fundamental physics that we do know tells us that things warm if you turn up the heat. Till there is evidence to the contrary, hypothesising that there must be something that stops things warming when you turn up the heat is sheer faith, not science. You cannot evoke "chaos" to solve your problem any more than you can evoke a supernatural being to solve it. Perhaps you can solve a puzzle for me. In simple real greenhouse experiments up to 97% of the heat generated in a glass greenhouse comes from restricting convection of heat and about 3% from restricting the radiation of LW. So why when we look at an energy budget of the earth, about 42% of the surface heat loss is attributed to LW and only about 14% attributed to convection?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 17, 2009 10:52:56 GMT
steve writes "No we don't. But the fundamental physics that we do know tells us that things warm if you turn up the heat. Till there is evidence to the contrary, hypothesising that there must be something that stops things warming when you turn up the heat is sheer faith, not science. You cannot evoke "chaos" to solve your problem any more than you can evoke a supernatural being to solve it. "
You are missing my logic.
1. It is impossible to measure how much global temperatures rise as a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels.
2. Therefore any attempt to estimate what this rise in temperature might be, could be subject to the Kelvin Fallacy.
3. With a system as chaotic as the earth's atmosphere, we have no idea what might be missing in any estimate.
4. Therefore any attempt to estimate the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 17, 2009 11:19:47 GMT
The CO2 220K signature is very important and is probably the key for understanding the atmosphere greenhouse effect. Which in my view have nothing to do with CO2 levels. The answer of some basic question may help: 1. Why is the CO2 emitting from this temperature or height? 2. Why is it the coldest part of the atmosphere? <snap> I agree with your assessment (and have pointed it out before). One of the biggest things AGW proponents seem to miss is that they expect CO2 to somehow, magically, "trap" heat....but the only trapping occurs because water vapor has already radiated most of CO2's budget away. The region isn't just cold, it's the coldest. It's cold because it's denied energy, not because it's stopping energy there. Of course the REAL killer for this whole AGW hypothesis is the idea that water vapor will increase the warming by absorbing more. This idea is delusional nonsense. Any additional water vapor will (A) cause increased aerosol cooling in the form of clouds and (B) drag the majority of the supposedly trapped energy, along with the entire troposphere, as high as is necessary to either remove the heat by condensing out all the water (and radiation) or until the tropopause is so hot that even the CO2 emits the difference. Water vapor is an extremely powerful negative feedback. Any energy it did "trap" would just go into driving the tropopause higher along with its emission temperature.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 11:20:31 GMT
steve writes "No we don't. But the fundamental physics that we do know tells us that things warm if you turn up the heat. Till there is evidence to the contrary, hypothesising that there must be something that stops things warming when you turn up the heat is sheer faith, not science. You cannot evoke "chaos" to solve your problem any more than you can evoke a supernatural being to solve it. " You are missing my logic. 1. It is impossible to measure how much global temperatures rise as a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere at current levels. It is possible to measure how much "heating" the extra CO2 causes - the radiation imbalance that it causes. The physics to calculate the heating is extremely strong and is widely tested and used in many areas of physics and engineering. Yes. But we know that the CO2 *will* cause a measurable amount of heating. I'm not going to argue about Myrhe any more because you don't seem to be able to separate the basic science of the radiative effects of a gas from the more complex feedbacks. But hypothesising about anything that cancels out the warming that is caused by this heating source should be avoided unless you have the evidence. Your arguments would apply in exactly the same way to estimates about what would happen if the sun increased its output by one or two percent. But probably you would be laughed at if you tried to claim that it is daft to assume that the earth will warm if the sun increased its output. Just because it is an invisible (to the eyes) gas, and just because it is inconvenient to consider cutting emissions of this gas, you seem to be getting away with it!
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jul 17, 2009 13:07:57 GMT
steve writes "It is possible to measure how much "heating" the extra CO2 causes - the radiation imbalance that it causes."
You are attempting to give yourself some wiggle room. glc estimates that doubling of CO2 causes a rise of 1 C. That value can NEVER be measured, with current technology. That is all I am claiming. It is the calculation that glc uses that MAY be subject to the Kelvin Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 14:23:13 GMT
steve writes "It is possible to measure how much "heating" the extra CO2 causes - the radiation imbalance that it causes." You are attempting to give yourself some wiggle room. glc estimates that doubling of CO2 causes a rise of 1 C. That value can NEVER be measured, with current technology. That is all I am claiming. It is the calculation that glc uses that MAY be subject to the Kelvin Fallacy. I'm not attempting to give myself some wiggle room. I'm trying to explain that one of the problems is highly unlikely to succumb fatally to a new finding in physics (the calculation of CO2 forcing). You always insist on munging the whole problem together which makes it hard to get to grips with any of it. Any attempt to separate the problem into its components is ignored or rejected. I note that Steve McIntyre seems to take a similar line to you (I've attempted to debate this with him too, but he always goes quiet once the discussion starts). My way of thinking, and the way of many other physicists that I know as it happens, is to state what I know and try and understand what the situation would be if what I knew covered everything. You would say this opens one up to the Kelvin "fallacy". I would say that at least I know something, and when I observe things that don't align with my basis position, I have a starting point from which to work.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2009 15:27:25 GMT
No we don't. But the fundamental physics that we do know tells us that things warm if you turn up the heat. Till there is evidence to the contrary, hypothesising that there must be something that stops things warming when you turn up the heat is sheer faith, not science. You cannot evoke "chaos" to solve your problem any more than you can evoke a supernatural being to solve it. Perhaps you can solve a puzzle for me. In simple real greenhouse experiments up to 97% of the heat generated in a glass greenhouse comes from restricting convection of heat and about 3% from restricting the radiation of LW. So why when we look at an energy budget of the earth, about 42% of the surface heat loss is attributed to LW and only about 14% attributed to convection? I doubt the figures are comparable. It sounds like they are comparing the total heat required to keep the earth warm with the net heat required to keep the greenhouse warm er than the outside. If you take the classic Trenberth image, 91W/m^2 is removed from the surface via convection and evapotranspiration. www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kiehl_Trenberth-1997_Fig7.jpgIf the greenhouse stops most of this, then the people who did this experiment are claiming the greenhouse glass stops about 3 Watts of the net difference between radiation out from the greenhouse and LW radiation into the greenhouse ("back radiation"). Anyone have any idea of what proportion of LW glass will reflect?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 16:42:52 GMT
Perhaps you can solve a puzzle for me. In simple real greenhouse experiments up to 97% of the heat generated in a glass greenhouse comes from restricting convection of heat and about 3% from restricting the radiation of LW. So why when we look at an energy budget of the earth, about 42% of the surface heat loss is attributed to LW and only about 14% attributed to convection? I doubt the figures are comparable. It sounds like they are comparing the total heat required to keep the earth warm with the net heat required to keep the greenhouse warm er than the outside. If you take the classic Trenberth image, 91W/m^2 is removed from the surface via convection and evapotranspiration. www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kiehl_Trenberth-1997_Fig7.jpgIf the greenhouse stops most of this, then the people who did this experiment are claiming the greenhouse glass stops about 3 Watts of the net difference between radiation out from the greenhouse and LW radiation into the greenhouse ("back radiation"). Anyone have any idea of what proportion of LW glass will reflect? So what you are saying is you have faith in Dr. Hansen in that he knows right? Hyugah hyugah boom boom boom.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 17, 2009 16:46:45 GMT
steve writes "It is possible to measure how much "heating" the extra CO2 causes - the radiation imbalance that it causes." You are attempting to give yourself some wiggle room. glc estimates that doubling of CO2 causes a rise of 1 C. That value can NEVER be measured, with current technology. That is all I am claiming. It is the calculation that glc uses that MAY be subject to the Kelvin Fallacy. I'm not attempting to give myself some wiggle room. I'm trying to explain that one of the problems is highly unlikely to succumb fatally to a new finding in physics (the calculation of CO2 forcing). You always insist on munging the whole problem together which makes it hard to get to grips with any of it. Any attempt to separate the problem into its components is ignored or rejected. I note that Steve McIntyre seems to take a similar line to you (I've attempted to debate this with him too, but he always goes quiet once the discussion starts). My way of thinking, and the way of many other physicists that I know as it happens, is to state what I know and try and understand what the situation would be if what I knew covered everything. You would say this opens one up to the Kelvin "fallacy". I would say that at least I know something, and when I observe things that don't align with my basis position, I have a starting point from which to work. Please steve, give us examples of your arguments with Steve McIntyre by pointing the specific thread on his forum where he "goes quiet" when your exquisite knowledge of physics overwhelms him. If you are going to make such claims, it's time to belly up the bar and produce something. You can help straighten him out here, his latest observations of IPCC shenanigans. www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#commentsYou are aware Lindzen has submitted a paper just recently on the climate sensitivity loosely based on this presentation? wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptFurther discussed here where Lindzen addresses the critics of his use of the data: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/In Christy & Douglass 2008, according to the data available, the most effect CO2 can account for is .062C/dec in the underlying trend from 1979-2008, which must be linear. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf The failure of the tropical tropospheric "hot spot" so conveniently ignored despite it being written in stone in IPCC AR4 and in various supporting references should be cause for concern. No problem right? Just make up a new storyline and claim the warming can come from any source, without references, except that of backpedaling climate modelers. That it isn't warming means? Edit: One must also be able to see through the fog and expose the statistical parlor tricks used by warmologists in climate "science", which is then used as the basis for policy considerations. David Stockwell is very adept at putting such issues under a microscope, the most recent being Rahmstorf 2007, cited 100+ times as an authority when it turns out to be a smelly fish. landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-2007-discredited/ Rahmstorf's methods are so horribly bad, it is illustrated by Steve M using the S&P 500 data whereby whereby Rahmstorf's "special" smoothing technique, profits just keep climbing. If the next year looks bad, nooo problem, Rahmstorf can fix it. Isn't that special? www.climateaudit.org/?p=6519
|
|