|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2009 17:04:12 GMT
As is high climate sensitivity. High climate sensitivity is also supported by theory too. This is why I think it more likely, and clearly the climate field, those dastardly scientists, tend to agree. So until skeptics pull something out of the bag and show some theory for how low climate sensitivity can work and how past climate variations can be explained in spite of it, I remain unconvinced and I guess so do the scientists. Its natural climate scientists are going to think their profession is going to be important or they would not have chosen the field in the first place. So they tend to go in with a bias Socold. I've seen that pattern in many areas of natural science. Further you tend to suggest that only your point of view is held by scientists as you constantly commit the fallacy of appealing to authority and fail to mention that many scientists do not agree. I guess thats just your style of arguing - just blurting out what somebody else believes as if that actually provides proof of anything. How you buy into it hook, line, and sinker is actually proof it is not any kind of proof. You have a theory that requires high climate sensitivity to explain changes in the climate and you know of no other mechanism that does not also require high sensitivity. But we are dealing with planetary science here, we know so little one is not exercising judgement by jumping to conclusions about things. Thats why most credible scientists tend to tell folks like you to calm down. . . .we aren't there yet where even preliminary conclusions can be made. Climate sensitivity is most likely low. . . .and the failure of continued warming from CO2 forcing is probably the best evidence of that. . . .assuming of course that the less controversial element of AGW research is correct regarding wattage forcing. Thats just a fact. To counter that conclusion you need a physical mechanism and an estimate of its forcing that is overriding the CO2 forcing. Without that, by your own argument, climate sensitivity is low. You can't just flip flop around between standards of proof to suit your take. . . .if you require a conclusion at least consistently follow the same path to it. Otherwise all you are is some variation of a drunken sot on a soapbox in a public park spieling out a lot of garbled nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 27, 2009 18:20:06 GMT
You first say: "you constantly commit the fallacy of appealing to authority"
And then you appeal to authority: "Thats why most credible scientists tend to tell folks like you to calm down"
You first say: "we know so little one is not exercising judgement by jumping to conclusions about things"
and then you jump to conclusions about things: "Climate sensitivity is most likely low"
Is your argument against AGW based on science being ignorant or is it based on science not being ignorant and knowing that climate sensitivity is low? It can't be both.
"the failure of continued warming" is of course debatable. Has the last 30 years of warming failed to continue? Well if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 then no and we can't be certain that won't be the case.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2009 19:55:13 GMT
You first say: "you constantly commit the fallacy of appealing to authority" And then you appeal to authority: "Thats why most credible scientists tend to tell folks like you to calm down" Thats because consensus does not work for science but it does work for socially/politically acceptable behavior. In my view credibility has more to do with social and political acceptability than it does scientific skill. . . .but both are required. You first say: "we know so little one is not exercising judgement by jumping to conclusions about things" and then you jump to conclusions about things: "Climate sensitivity is most likely low" Is your argument against AGW based on science being ignorant or is it based on science not being ignorant and knowing that climate sensitivity is low? It can't be both. You misunderstood, I stepped into your shoes there and calculated climate sensitivity using your theories. Your position has been that unless have a physical mechanism; you should accept the theoretical calculation of the physical mechanism you do have some calculations for. . . .e.g. more gas equals more warming, ergo the warming we seen must be caused by CO2 because all other physical mechanisms we know of are too weak. That worked fine until it stopped warming. Now you want to selectively step away from that theory and postulate some unknown mechanism that is temporarily masking CO2 warming. However, to remain consistent you should accept the original premises and just do the calculation for the warming of the last 10 years. . . .and that results in quite low climate sensitivity. But Nooooooooo! we are a scientific sot here and we want to discard the idea now that some unknown mechanism could be changing the climate (e.g. masking the warming). Seems you accept that as a mask but don't accept it as an alternative. Thats pretty inconsistent of you. I would say you are just entertaining us with your ignorance. If I were to give my viewpoint, and I have here already in a post you did not reply to, I would guess that the climate has low sensitivity to some things and higher sensitivity to other things. "the failure of continued warming" is of course debatable. Has the last 30 years of warming failed to continue? Well if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 then no and we can't be certain that won't be the case. Now you are sounding more like a skeptic.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 27, 2009 20:08:26 GMT
and then you jump to conclusions about things: "Climate sensitivity is most likely low" Is your argument against AGW based on science being ignorant or is it based on science not being ignorant and knowing that climate sensitivity is low? It can't be both. "the failure of continued warming" is of course debatable. Has the last 30 years of warming failed to continue? Well if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 then no and we can't be certain that won't be the case. Somehow you guys seem to be off in your own little universe. The only measure we really have for the bottom line on CO2 forcing IS temperature. The behavior of the climate shows LOW sensitivity. That's literally the ONLY thing supported by the direct evidence. This doesn't necessarily "prove" that sensitivity is low but that's the only way it points. That's our evidence to support our claim. Now you on the other hand...claim sensitivity is high. But when you say "if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10..." you are making a conditional statement. You are WAITING for evidence. You don't have it. Don't delude yourself into thinking you do. Since the only DIRECT measurement of climate sensitivity shows low sensitivity it is upon you (well, AGW scientists) to PROVE that it is high and to not only theorize about a mechanism that explains the apparent low sensitivity...but to PROVE that that mechanism is working and is currently undergoing the necessary changes. Basically you need to FIND the heat in the pipe.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 28, 2009 1:37:52 GMT
and then you jump to conclusions about things: "Climate sensitivity is most likely low" Is your argument against AGW based on science being ignorant or is it based on science not being ignorant and knowing that climate sensitivity is low? It can't be both. "the failure of continued warming" is of course debatable. Has the last 30 years of warming failed to continue? Well if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 then no and we can't be certain that won't be the case. Somehow you guys seem to be off in your own little universe. The only measure we really have for the bottom line on CO2 forcing IS temperature. The behavior of the climate shows LOW sensitivity. That's literally the ONLY thing supported by the direct evidence. This doesn't necessarily "prove" that sensitivity is low but that's the only way it points. That's our evidence to support our claim. Now you on the other hand...claim sensitivity is high. But when you say "if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10..." you are making a conditional statement. You are WAITING for evidence. You don't have it. Don't delude yourself into thinking you do. Since the only DIRECT measurement of climate sensitivity shows low sensitivity it is upon you (well, AGW scientists) to PROVE that it is high and to not only theorize about a mechanism that explains the apparent low sensitivity...but to PROVE that that mechanism is working and is currently undergoing the necessary changes. Basically you need to FIND the heat in the pipe. Don't forget about the "committed" warming waiting in the wings See, the future is causing the past, just not the past ten years.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 28, 2009 2:08:16 GMT
In this disucssion one thing has been missed. Is the temperature RIGHT NOW out of statistical norms for the Halocene?
1. No it is not.
Has the rise in temp been un-precedented?
2. No it has not.
The discussion about co2 being a large climate driver is just passing time. There is NOT any scientific proof that bears scrutiny that proves co2 is a large driver. There are hypothosis, models, but no real evidence.
IN FACT, historical evidence and even recent evidence is pointing that co2 is really a minor player in temps. Pure politics aside, the scientific proof is sorely lacking.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 28, 2009 18:34:24 GMT
However, to remain consistent you should accept the original premises and just do the calculation for the warming of the last 10 years. . . .and that results in quite low climate sensitivity. What original premise? "the failure of continued warming" is of course debatable. Has the last 30 years of warming failed to continue? Well if the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 then no and we can't be certain that won't be the case. Now you are sounding more like a skeptic. [/quote] Someone has to
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 28, 2009 18:56:43 GMT
Somehow you guys seem to be off in your own little universe. The only measure we really have for the bottom line on CO2 forcing IS temperature. We know the co2 forcing independently of temperature. The co2 forcing from the 280 to 395ppm rise has been just over 1.5wm-2 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg) And temperature response is only a good means of determining forcing if you already know the climate sensitivity and the total response time of the climate to that forcing. I disagree. For example models that can reproduce the 20th century temperature record do so even though they find a high climate sensitivity. Therefore if the temperature record was incompatible with high climate sensitivity, this wouldn't be possible. Even more so I can divide the 20th century temperature response by the net forcing myself. 0.7C / 1.8wm-2 = 0.38C/wm-2 And that's an underestimate given the climate doesn't respond instantly to forcing (this is what heat in the pipeline means, it means the system is yet to reach the equilibrium point determined by the elevated forcing) 0.38C/wm-2 implies 1.4C warming from doubling co2, that's our underestimate, it's not low and it requires net positive feedback to exist in climate.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2009 19:26:49 GMT
0.7C / 1.8wm-2 = 0.38C/wm-2 And that's an underestimate given the climate doesn't respond instantly to forcing (this is what heat in the pipeline means, it means the system is yet to reach the equilibrium point determined by the elevated forcing) 0.38C/wm-2 implies 1.4C warming from doubling co2, that's our underestimate, it's not low and it requires net positive feedback to exist in climate. Great picture Socold. Now we can see the data used by Hansen to adjust GISS temps. Smart deal using the models to correct history.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 28, 2009 19:42:58 GMT
Somehow you guys seem to be off in your own little universe. The only measure we really have for the bottom line on CO2 forcing IS temperature. We know the co2 forcing independently of temperature. The co2 forcing from the 280 to 395ppm rise has been just over 1.5wm-2 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg) No socold, we DO NOT have the forcing independent of temperature. What we have is a formula that tells how an isolated sample of gas absorbs radiation within its spectrum based on its temperature. We have no formula that tells us how much energy that CO2 up there is supposed to have in the first place. We have no formula that explains the complex interaction between the oceans and atmosphere, water vapor and the atmosphere, water vapor and CO2, clouds, ice, etc... Unless you know for sure what the heck is causing the temperature gradient that leads to the absorption and how it would be affected by higher CO2 levels...you have NOTHING AT ALL of any use. Now since water vapor deals with several times as much energy as CO2 ever could, overlaps CO2's spectrum...CO2's behavior in the atmosphere is probably radically different from its isolated gas sample behavior. Also odd...CO2 doesn't seem to be able to create the kind of gradient on mars that you suggest would occur on earth...even though it's at many times the concentration. So anyway, as you can see...you've got nothing but a temperature record that says you're full of it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 28, 2009 19:51:46 GMT
No socold, we DO NOT have the forcing independent of temperature. We do. Modtran, Hitran, all those absorption databases. We know how much forcing doubling co2 produces independently of how temperature reacts. The IPCC report labels that under "very high understanding" for a reason. All estimates are very tight around 3.7wm-2 per doubling. Coupled with our excellent understanding of how much co2 has risen in the past 250 years, we are in great shape to get a very accurate co2 forcing to present. mars only has 12 times the co2 of Earth and that is easily offset by it having over 2700 times less water vapor. Even so Mars does have a greenhouse effect of about 10 degrees C.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 28, 2009 21:32:40 GMT
No socold, we DO NOT have the forcing independent of temperature. We do. Modtran, Hitran, all those absorption databases. We know how much forcing doubling co2 produces independently of how temperature reacts. The IPCC report labels that under "very high understanding" for a reason. All estimates are very tight around 3.7wm-2 per doubling. Coupled with our excellent understanding of how much co2 has risen in the past 250 years, we are in great shape to get a very accurate co2 forcing to present. LOL, I'm not talking about the "high understanding" part...I'm talking about the "low understanding" bits. The LOW understanding bits (water vapor and convection) are several times more powerful than CO2. This is why the models failed to work on a VERY fundamental level (predicting the gradient). Also the water vapor would tend to react in a way that would oppose the formation of a new gradient. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that the formula for the acceleration due to gravity is what REALLY determines the speed of a feather falling in earth's atmosphere. Oh sure...it has SOMETHING to do with the speed the feather falls but in reality other factors completely change how things work.
|
|
|
Post by captainhigley on Sept 28, 2009 22:16:21 GMT
We do. Modtran, Hitran, all those absorption databases. We know how much forcing doubling co2 produces independently of how temperature reacts. The IPCC report labels that under "very high understanding" for a reason. All estimates are very tight around 3.7wm-2 per doubling. Coupled with our excellent understanding of how much co2 has risen in the past 250 years, we are in great shape to get a very accurate co2 forcing to present. First of all, when the IPCC says that they have a "very high understanding" of something, beware. They marveled how constant a thermodynamic constant was while they had actually upped it 12-fold in the process to create the supposed warming power of CO2. They cannot be trusted. One of their 1.2 deg C warming results was actually a 0.10 deg C warming from CO2's effects. This is scientific fraud and patently dishonest. The effects of this trace gas on the atmosphere are essentially spent and doubling will only, at most, warm the atmosphere by 0.1 deg C. There is no reason to worry about CO2 as, with its high partitioning into the oceans, we cannot double atmospheric CO2 no matter how hard we try. Impossible better describes it. As has been mentioned before, direct chemical CO2 measurements show that CO2 has been way over 400 ppm several times in the last 200 years. In the 1940s, it was above 440 ppm and even hit 550 ppm. So where was the forcing and where was the problem? We have even done the CO2 production decrease experiment. WHen the Great Depression hit, CO2 production dropped 30% almost overnight and sea level rise and the current temperature risse did not miss a beat. No effect, nada. But, when temperature dropped in the 1940-50s, CO2 dropped with it. The only place CO2 has been historically low and steady is in the imaginations of the upper level politicians of the IPCC. Even the master of ice core research, Zbigniew Jaworowski, says that ice cores only show general trends and cannot and should not be used to deduce absolute CO2 values. The coring process is seriously damaging to the ice cores and the resulting CO2 content subject to several types of losses. To use ice core results to indicate absolute values is another fraud. The discussion of the 5-year lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere is good, but the key point of the short lifetime is that it indicates that CO2 equilibrates quite rapidly with the sea such that when the sea temperatures change, there is a 5-8 years lag before the CO2 levels begin to change. Isn't is funny how this lag correlates perfectly with the established 5.4 year half-life of CO2? The 200 year half-life created out of nothing by the IPCC was designed to pretend that the CO2, even from the 1800s, released by man has been accumulating - a huge effort to really spread the blame. Many of the scientists in the IPCC probably do decent science, but their results are adulterated by the IPCC upper echelon to match their needs. When the science section says that they still cannot find a human fingerprint in the climate, the upper level edits this to read that they are 95% certain that most of current climate changes (i.e., warming) is due to human activities. CO2 is plant food and I think any discussion of CO2 aimed at decreasing the food for our plants and the source of our oxygen is ingenuous. As there is no real evidence that CO2 is anything out of the ordinary today and that the climate is doing anything unusual, the thermodynamics are strictly an academic exercise. CO2 has been much, much higher during most of the history of life on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by captainhigley on Sept 28, 2009 22:17:12 GMT
We do. Modtran, Hitran, all those absorption databases. We know how much forcing doubling co2 produces independently of how temperature reacts. The IPCC report labels that under "very high understanding" for a reason. All estimates are very tight around 3.7wm-2 per doubling. Coupled with our excellent understanding of how much co2 has risen in the past 250 years, we are in great shape to get a very accurate co2 forcing to present. First of all, when the IPCC says that they have a "very high understanding" of something, beware. They marveled how constant a thermodynamic constant was while they had actually upped it 12-fold in the process to create the supposed warming power of CO2. They cannot be trusted. One of their 1.2 deg C warming results was actually a 0.10 deg C warming from CO2's effects. This is scientific fraud and patently dishonest. The effects of this trace gas on the atmosphere are essentially spent and doubling will only, at most, warm the atmosphere by 0.1 deg C. There is no reason to worry about CO2 as, with its high partitioning into the oceans, we cannot double atmospheric CO2 no matter how hard we try. Impossible better describes it. As has been mentioned before, direct chemical CO2 measurements show that CO2 has been way over 400 ppm several times in the last 200 years. In the 1940s, it was above 440 ppm and even hit 550 ppm. So where was the forcing and where was the problem? We have even done the CO2 production decrease experiment. WHen the Great Depression hit, CO2 production dropped 30% almost overnight and sea level rise and the current temperature risse did not miss a beat. No effect, nada. But, when temperature dropped in the 1940-50s, CO2 dropped with it. The only place CO2 has been historically low and steady is in the imaginations of the upper level politicians of the IPCC. Even the master of ice core research, Zbigniew Jaworowski, says that ice cores only show general trends and cannot and should not be used to deduce absolute CO2 values. The coring process is seriously damaging to the ice cores and the resulting CO2 content subject to several types of losses. To use ice core results to indicate absolute values is another fraud. The discussion of the 5-year lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere is good, but the key point of the short lifetime is that it indicates that CO2 equilibrates quite rapidly with the sea such that when the sea temperatures change, there is a 5-8 years lag before the CO2 levels begin to change. Isn't is funny how this lag correlates perfectly with the established 5.4 year half-life of CO2? The 200 year half-life created out of nothing by the IPCC was designed to pretend that the CO2, even from the 1800s, released by man has been accumulating - a huge effort to really spread the blame. Many of the scientists in the IPCC probably do decent science, but their results are adulterated by the IPCC upper echelon to match their needs. When the science section says that they still cannot find a human fingerprint in the climate, the upper level edits this to read that they are 95% certain that most of current climate changes (i.e., warming) is due to human activities. CO2 is plant food and I think any discussion of CO2 aimed at decreasing the food for our plants and the source of our oxygen is ingenuous. As there is no real evidence that CO2 is anything out of the ordinary today and that the climate is doing anything unusual, the thermodynamics are strictly an academic exercise. CO2 has been much, much higher during most of the history of life on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 29, 2009 11:19:19 GMT
We do. Modtran, Hitran, all those absorption databases. We know how much forcing doubling co2 produces independently of how temperature reacts. The IPCC report labels that under "very high understanding" for a reason. All estimates are very tight around 3.7wm-2 per doubling. Coupled with our excellent understanding of how much co2 has risen in the past 250 years, we are in great shape to get a very accurate co2 forcing to present. LOL, I'm not talking about the "high understanding" part...I'm talking about the "low understanding" bits. The LOW understanding bits (water vapor and convection) are several times more powerful than CO2. This is why the models failed to work on a VERY fundamental level (predicting the gradient). Also the water vapor would tend to react in a way that would oppose the formation of a new gradient. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that the formula for the acceleration due to gravity is what REALLY determines the speed of a feather falling in earth's atmosphere. Oh sure...it has SOMETHING to do with the speed the feather falls but in reality other factors completely change how things work. Just a reminder for people who are using the word MODTRAN®, you need to conform to international trademark law: www.ontar.com/Download/DownloadHandler.ashx?key=modtran5_eula_20090721b. The Software bears the legend “Licensed from the United States of America, as represented by the United States Air Force, under U.S. Patent Nos. 5,884,226 and 7,433,806 and U. S. Patent Pending Serial No. 11/398696” or a similar legend. Licensee shall not alter or remove this legend.
c. The Software bears the legend “The MODTRAN® trademark is being used with the express permission of the owner, the United States of America, as represented by the United States Air Force.” Licensee shall not alter or remove this legend.
|
|