|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 2, 2009 16:23:11 GMT
There seems to me to be an amazing lack of science about C02 atmospheric warming - or for some reason i have not yet found it. Are there any studies on test atmospheres other than simplistic studies showing that C02 absorbs in the IR band? What about studies done over deserts where there is little water and plant vapours compared to studies done over the land where theses things are present to show the relative effects of none C02 greenhouse effects. For example it is common knowledge it gets cold at night in a desert for apparently well understood reasons: wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_cold_in_the_desert_at_nightI am inclined to think that C02 cannot have much of an influence during the day because the overwhelmingly massive energy from the sun must saturate the C02 so that it is emitting both upwards and downwards and since it is present in such tiny quanties this warmed C02 could not have much influence on the rest of the mass of the air So it must be at night that C02 plays its main role? We know that once the sun has gone the heat of the day lingers. But we also know that on a clear night it becomes much colder and we know that C02 is present in clear nights or poor visibility nights. Obviously the C02 effect is a contribution rather than being a main effect. There must be some studies done on this sort of thing to show how it plays out in the real world as measured in the atmosphere and in test atmospheres? There must be a classic study i could be referred to to show the basic physics of this topic? Radiant, you are correct. If the CO 2 forcing hypothesis was true one place it would be apparent is in the night time temperatures in arid and desert areas with almost zero humidity. These night time temperatures should average higher because if there were any CO 2 'radiative forcing' it would be more apparent at night as it slowed radiation and caused glc's 'downwelling Infra Red radiation' - more correctly scaterring of emitted radiation as soon as it was absorbed. These experiments have been done in desert areas - and there was no indication of higher night time temperatures. (I am traveling but I can find the references). As with many other validation tests, the AGW hypothesis failed this one too.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 2, 2009 16:35:54 GMT
glc, another aspect of the AGW belief system is historical illiteracy, as you so aptly demonstrate. That CO2 is not the main driver of climate change is completely proven by the geological record. We have had warmer and cooler periods of history with both higher and lower CO2 levels than now, according to the record.No-one has said CO2 is the main driver of climate. I think it's quite likely that a number of factors could offset or even rcverse CO2 warming. However as these factors tend to be cyclical, e.g. ocean oscillation, when they do flip back to a warmer phase we'll still have the CO2 as well. That CO2 has been shown to lag warming, and not drive it, is well accepted in the historical record.This is not really relevant is it. Of course, if we have a state of equilibrium such as existed during the ice ages then some external source (e.g. increased insolation) will be necessary to kick start a new warming phase. If Earth was subject to positive feedback runaways, then they would have happened before. They have not.I never mentioned "runaways". However, the earths's temperature has varied more than enough for our comfort. Now for AGW believers, that is not enough. It is not enough because belief in AGW is a non-rational belief. It cannot be falsified, there for it cannot be disproven. As you show. The depth of your emotional investment in AGW does not make it more true or less false. The lack of any evidence that CO2 is going to cause huge, dangerous changes in the climate is, for rational people, enough reason to not support radical or extreme policies. Fortunately, AGW belief is, like all apocalyptic based belief systems, very cyclical in its lifespan, and is in decline before too much damage has been done.There is evidence that increasing CO2 will cause warming. Until we see proof that the amount of warming is insignificant, I'm just suggesting we err on the side of caution. True believers may still succeed in pushing through some stupid piece of legislation. It will have no more impact on climate or carbon than Kyoto did, but it will waste still more money that could be spent doing good. The only 'head in sand' behavior happening on this blog is from true believers, like yourself. You need to include Richard Lindzen , Roy Spencer, Garth Paltridge, Jack Barrett and many more as 'true believers' since they, like me, think that doubling CO2 will produce a warming of ~1 deg C. No-one has said CO2 is the main driver of climate. Really? No-one? Have you ever heard of Andrew Dessler? He says CO2 explains climate changes over the last 50 million years. See Dessler 08 for starters.... Or how about Al Gore's big chart in his AIT propaganda movie? Did he come with his statement about temperature matching CO2 all on his own? Who was his science adviser for that, Mickey Mouse? You need to include Richard Lindzen , Roy Spencer, Garth Paltridge, Jack Barrett and many more as 'true believers' since they, like me, think that doubling CO2 will produce a warming of ~1 deg C.
There you go again, more weasel words creating a hole big enough for a 747 to taxi through. Let's guess, you weren't clear enough wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Sept 2, 2009 18:39:49 GMT
I think this thread is just one more way that deniers are denying reality. According to polls this year, more than 70% of people in the US support government action to limit carbon emissions, while only 7% classify themselves as not believing in global warming. That's 10 to 1 in the people concerned enough to do something against people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Also, it seems that many of the people commenting on denialist websites like Watts, Climate Audit and these boards are the same people.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2009 18:58:14 GMT
I think this thread is just one more way that deniers are denying reality. According to polls this year, more than 70% of people in the US support government action to limit carbon emissions, while only 7% classify themselves as not believing in global warming. That's 10 to 1 in the people concerned enough to do something against people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence. Also, it seems that many of the people commenting on denialist websites like Watts, Climate Audit and these boards are the same people. Ken: That's kinda funny, as the last Rassusmunson poll showed 62% of the US against the Waxman bill.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Sept 2, 2009 19:06:14 GMT
Whenever I hear a majority this or a majority that, I always remind myself that in 1933 the Reichstag ended democracy in Germany by a vote of 441 to 84, thus enabling one of the great slaughters of history.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Sept 2, 2009 19:20:08 GMT
I think this thread is just one more way that deniers are denying reality. According to polls this year, more than 70% of people in the US support government action to limit carbon emissions, while only 7% classify themselves as not believing in global warming. That's 10 to 1 in the people concerned enough to do something against people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence. Also, it seems that many of the people commenting on denialist websites like Watts, Climate Audit and these boards are the same people. Ken: That's kinda funny, as the last Rassusmunson poll showed 62% of the US against the Waxman bill. Zogby poll, August 11, 2005, found 71% of likely voters supported the bill passed by the House:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2009 19:27:02 GMT
Ken: That's kinda funny, as the last Rassusmunson poll showed 62% of the US against the Waxman bill. Zogby poll, August 11, 2005, found 71% of likely voters supported the bill passed by the House: I will try and find Rasmunsuns question. IF memory serves me correctly, in the question was included the economics of the bill. The question was something like this: Would you be willing to support passage of Waxam/etc if your utility rates went up 350.00 per year. Resounding no was the answer.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2009 19:39:59 GMT
I think this thread is just one more way that deniers are denying reality. According to polls this year, more than 70% of people in the US support government action to limit carbon emissions, while only 7% classify themselves as not believing in global warming. That's 10 to 1 in the people concerned enough to do something against people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence. Also, it seems that many of the people commenting on denialist websites like Watts, Climate Audit and these boards are the same people. Here are the current numbers: While most voters regard global warming as a serious problem, 47% now blame it on long-term planetary trends while 36% say human activity is the cause. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans favor the climate change bill, while 40% are opposed to it. However, the antis feel more strongly: Twenty-six percent (26%) Strongly Oppose the bill versus 10% who Strongly Favor it.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Sept 2, 2009 19:52:54 GMT
There seems to me to be an amazing lack of science about C02 atmospheric warming - or for some reason i have not yet found it. Are there any studies on test atmospheres other than simplistic studies showing that C02 absorbs in the IR band? What about studies done over deserts where there is little water and plant vapours compared to studies done over the land where theses things are present to show the relative effects of none C02 greenhouse effects. For example it is common knowledge it gets cold at night in a desert for apparently well understood reasons: wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_cold_in_the_desert_at_nightI am inclined to think that C02 cannot have much of an influence during the day because the overwhelmingly massive energy from the sun must saturate the C02 so that it is emitting both upwards and downwards and since it is present in such tiny quanties this warmed C02 could not have much influence on the rest of the mass of the air So it must be at night that C02 plays its main role? We know that once the sun has gone the heat of the day lingers. But we also know that on a clear night it becomes much colder and we know that C02 is present in clear nights or poor visibility nights. Obviously the C02 effect is a contribution rather than being a main effect. There must be some studies done on this sort of thing to show how it plays out in the real world as measured in the atmosphere and in test atmospheres? There must be a classic study i could be referred to to show the basic physics of this topic? Radiant, you are correct. If the CO 2 forcing hypothesis was true one place it would be apparent is in the night time temperatures in arid and desert areas with almost zero humidity. These night time temperatures should average higher because if there were any CO 2 'radiative forcing' it would be more apparent at night as it slowed radiation and caused glc's 'downwelling Infra Red radiation' - more correctly scaterring of emitted radiation as soon as it was absorbed. These experiments have been done in desert areas - and there was no indication of higher night time temperatures. (I am traveling but I can find the references). As with many other validation tests, the AGW hypothesis failed this one too. The difference between modelled and observed diurnal temperature variations (DTR), the differences between daytime and nightime temps, may have many causes, including increased irrigation (causing more evaporation) and the change from "solar dimming" to "solar brightening" caused by cleaning up pollution since the 1970s. Here is a brief excerpt from the IPCC AR4 (available at ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) A good explanation of the solar dimming/brightening effect is in this paper from 2008: www.atmos-chem-phys.org/8/6483/2008/acp-8-6483-2008.pdf
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Sept 2, 2009 20:05:52 GMT
More on the DTR variations from the IPCC AR4 report:
You'll notice that the above excerpt refers to five studies within two paragraphs on a very specific aspect of climate change. The IPCC report summarizes the results of thousands of studies on climate change, which overwhelmingly support the AGW hypothesis. There are studies of satellite measurements showing an increase in the atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands between 1970 and 1998, studies showing an increase in the amount of down-dwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse effect, studies detailling the amount of forcing from the sun, volcanos, pollution as well as greenhouse gasses, and thousands of studies detailing the impacts of the warming on the oceans, ice sheets, atmospheric circulation, biological ranges and changes in seasons.
You really have to be in denial to cherry-pick a finding or two, ignore the explanations for it and then state that it overturns the findings of thousands of other studies.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 2, 2009 20:12:49 GMT
There seems to me to be an amazing lack of science about C02 atmospheric warming - or for some reason i have not yet found it. Are there any studies on test atmospheres other than simplistic studies showing that C02 absorbs in the IR band? What about studies done over deserts where there is little water and plant vapours compared to studies done over the land where theses things are present to show the relative effects of none C02 greenhouse effects. For example it is common knowledge it gets cold at night in a desert for apparently well understood reasons: wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_cold_in_the_desert_at_nightI am inclined to think that C02 cannot have much of an influence during the day because the overwhelmingly massive energy from the sun must saturate the C02 so that it is emitting both upwards and downwards and since it is present in such tiny quanties this warmed C02 could not have much influence on the rest of the mass of the air So it must be at night that C02 plays its main role? We know that once the sun has gone the heat of the day lingers. But we also know that on a clear night it becomes much colder and we know that C02 is present in clear nights or poor visibility nights. Obviously the C02 effect is a contribution rather than being a main effect. There must be some studies done on this sort of thing to show how it plays out in the real world as measured in the atmosphere and in test atmospheres? There must be a classic study i could be referred to to show the basic physics of this topic? Radiant, you are correct. If the CO 2 forcing hypothesis was true one place it would be apparent is in the night time temperatures in arid and desert areas with almost zero humidity. These night time temperatures should average higher because if there were any CO 2 'radiative forcing' it would be more apparent at night as it slowed radiation and caused glc's 'downwelling Infra Red radiation' - more correctly scaterring of emitted radiation as soon as it was absorbed. These experiments have been done in desert areas - and there was no indication of higher night time temperatures. (I am traveling but I can find the references). As with many other validation tests, the AGW hypothesis failed this one too. Thanks. Good that there are some studies. I would like to see what they did and what they tested if you can find them please. Deserts for example tell us that without water it gets very cold at night. It must be possible therefore to measure desert night time coolings for various clear sky humidities when most other factors are proven to be absent for the test night, with CO2 always present at known concentration and then graph the insulating effect of the water and C02 at different water concentrations and from that you could then perhaps fairly simply calculate the amount of insulation you get from a certain C02 concentration by using the water graph. At least you could have a graph and then stand back and think about it some more.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2009 21:30:44 GMT
More on the DTR variations from the IPCC AR4 report: You'll notice that the above excerpt refers to five studies within two paragraphs on a very specific aspect of climate change. The IPCC report summarizes the results of thousands of studies on climate change, which overwhelmingly support the AGW hypothesis. There are studies of satellite measurements showing an increase in the atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands between 1970 and 1998, studies showing an increase in the amount of down-dwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse effect, studies detailling the amount of forcing from the sun, volcanos, pollution as well as greenhouse gasses, and thousands of studies detailing the impacts of the warming on the oceans, ice sheets, atmospheric circulation, biological ranges and changes in seasons. You really have to be in denial to cherry-pick a finding or two, ignore the explanations for it and then state that it overturns the findings of thousands of other studies. This is great. Proving that the cosmic effect on cloud formation is very valid.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 2, 2009 21:47:59 GMT
There you go again, more weasel words creating a hole big enough for a 747 to taxi through. Let's guess, you weren't clear enough [a href=" wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/"] wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/[/a] The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself. But this assumes that Lindzen's estimate on feedback is correct and that is a pretty big assumption. From the same post, Lindzen writes For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.Basic AGW theory suggests a warming of ~1 deg per CO2 doubling. Exactly as I said. There were no "weasel words" just the plain scientific fact. Feedback is a separate issue. Lindzen (and Spencer) believe it's negative. Others think it's positive.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 2, 2009 21:58:08 GMT
Basic AGW theory suggests a warming of ~1 deg per CO2 doubling. Exactly as I said. There were no "weasel words" just the plain scientific fact. I have asked several times for some basic scientific observations to support this theory. There must surely be some basic scientific experiments and observations to show how C02 insulates the earth after daily heating compared to how different water concentrations insulate the earth after daily heating, compared to how different plant products insulate the earth after daily heating so i can see the basic science behind this theory. There must be somewhere some wonderful graphs of the data to show how this theory was observed to be acting in a simple environment somewhere on earth. Somebody somewhere must have done this experiment.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2009 22:02:59 GMT
Basic AGW theory suggests a warming of ~1 deg per CO2 doubling. Exactly as I said. There were no "weasel words" just the plain scientific fact. I have asked several times for some basic scientific observations to support this theory. There must surely be some basic scientific experiments and observations to show how C02 insulates the earth after daily heating compared to how different water concentrations insulate the earth after daily heating, compared to how different plant products insulate the earth after daily heating so i can see the basic science behind this theory. There must be somewhere some wonderful graphs of the data to show how this theory was observed to be acting in a simple environment somewhere on earth. Somebody somewhere must have done this experiment. Radiant: When you find those please be sure and share them with the rest of us. I have never seen what you are asking either. Of course, that would require scientific study outdoors, kinda like the Woods study. Very few of those actually.
|
|