|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 5, 2009 16:09:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 5, 2009 16:34:01 GMT
Well, the first article is an example of "Ah-ha! They don't know everything so they must be wrong!" denialism. The basic science behind AGW is as proven as gravity -- rises in CO2 levels will increase the amount of energy trapped in the system. If the system lacks negative feedbacks, the temperature will rise and the temperature will stabilize based on increased radiation back into space. The uncertainties are -- - What is the impact of solar minima / maxima on the environment. Sooner or later the present minima will end and when it does, the positive impact will return. This can't save us long term.
- What negative feedbacks exist and when do they get triggered? If "increasingly chaotic weather" resists AGW, do we want to live with "increasingly chaotic weather"? I know I don't.
- Can the global economy actually afford the BAU scenario? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything because we do know that we're running out of fossil fuels, especially liquids, whether AGW exists or not.
None of those items means AGW science is "wrong".
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 5, 2009 16:47:59 GMT
You are right....it is just "corrupt"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 5, 2009 17:57:29 GMT
Well, the first article is an example of "Ah-ha! They don't know everything so they must be wrong!" denialism. The basic science behind AGW is as proven as gravity -- rises in CO2 levels will increase the amount of energy trapped in the system. If the system lacks negative feedbacks, the temperature will rise and the temperature will stabilize based on increased radiation back into space. The uncertainties are -- - What is the impact of solar minima / maxima on the environment. Sooner or later the present minima will end and when it does, the positive impact will return. This can't save us long term.
- What negative feedbacks exist and when do they get triggered? If "increasingly chaotic weather" resists AGW, do we want to live with "increasingly chaotic weather"? I know I don't.
- Can the global economy actually afford the BAU scenario? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything because we do know that we're running out of fossil fuels, especially liquids, whether AGW exists or not.
None of those items means AGW science is "wrong". Catherder, your points: "[/li][li] What is the impact of solar minima / maxima on the environment. Sooner or later the present minima will end and when it does, the positive impact will return. This can't save us long term." You are making an assumption that AGW is real. The hypothesis that CO 2 has caused 'global warming' is already falsified as temperatures have been falling contrary to all the models. So your assumption that "the positive impact will return" is just an article of faith and not of any scientific merit. The other hypothesis that the cycles of the sun and other long natural cycles of ocean currents probably driven by the sun can account for all the temperature changes including the warming in the twentieth century has yet to be falsified. " [/li][li] What negative feedbacks exist and when do they get triggered? If "increasingly chaotic weather" resists AGW, do we want to live with "increasingly chaotic weather"? I know I don't.[/i]" Negative feedbacks have already been identified in the tropical convective clouds that have been shown to have huge negative forcing effects possibly higher than 100W/M 2. There are probably others if people were funded to look for them. So what increasingly chaotic weather are you talking of? This is another article of faith from watching too many Al Gore speeches and DVDs. "[/li][li] Can the global economy actually afford the BAU scenario? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything because we do know that we're running out of fossil fuels, especially liquids, whether AGW exists or not."[/i] There is quite a lot of coal still around - its just that the 'carbon footprint crowd" - the mob rule of "post normal science" - disregard the facts and use perceptions instead - have spent some time trying to stop all use of coal (there are adverts running in the USA "there is no such thing as clean coal" - this is purely to win the perception argument. It is matched by the anti nuclear power lobby who have tried to maintain the perception of danger. Even though the major accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have disappointed them by not killing as many as have died in chemical plant disasters such as Bhopal and Flixborough. You are right though fossil fuel in terms of oil will run out in the next 40 -- 50 years - but already there are several different methods being used to replace sweet crude - Virgin Atlantic, Continental and Quantas have all flown aircraft now using kerosene from algae and non-food plants. This will be the new boom industry.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 5, 2009 20:02:06 GMT
FurryCatHerder... "The basic science behind AGW is as proven as gravity -- rises in CO2 levels will increase the amount of energy trapped in the system."
You are right, and so what. The amount of extra heat trapped in the system is trivial... WITHOUT A POSITIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM!!! AGW requires that the trace amount of heat trapped by the added C02 cause an out of control water vapor feedback loop. This has never happened. Period. Even at much greater concentrations of C02 and warmer temperatures. Why. Because it is fantasy. The only place this sort of positive feedback loop has EVER been seen is inside a computer instructed by its programmer in a kind of what if scenario. NONE of these models has EVER been validated to model the real world. NOT ONE.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 5, 2009 20:44:16 GMT
Even without a no feedbacks a doubling of co2 leads to about 1C warming. That's more than 20th century warming, so not an insignficant amount.
Higher values rely on the sum of feedbacks being positive, not "out of control" though. For example if for every 1C of temperature gain, you get an additional 0.7C aditional warming from feedbacks then the direct warming from a doubling of co2 would be suplemented by an additional 2C warming from feedbacks, making about 3C altogether.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 5, 2009 21:14:48 GMT
Even without a no feedbacks a doubling of co2 leads to about 1C warming. That's more than 20th century warming, so not an insignficant amount. Higher values rely on the sum of feedbacks being positive, not "out of control" though. For example if for every 1C of temperature gain, you get an additional 0.7C aditional warming from feedbacks then the direct warming from a doubling of co2 would be suplemented by an additional 2C warming from feedbacks, making about 3C altogether. You are back to your assumption that CO 2 in the atmosphere is not saturated - if you want to carry on saying this you are going to have to give a reference to actual measurements made in the atmosphere that show there is sufficient absorption left in the CO 2 absorption bands to provide ANY warming from new CO 2 in the atmosphere. As all the references that I find say that the CO 2 absorption bands are saturated and the only 'argument' against this is a spurious claim about 'absorption band spreading' which appears to be instrument error or misunderstanding of Doppler effects. So not a model - actual measurements.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 5, 2009 22:11:29 GMT
Even without a no feedbacks a doubling of co2 leads to about 1C warming. That's more than 20th century warming, so not an insignficant amount. That 1C is not the current status, it's the business as usual, year 2100, 1C total. It's trivial. We'll still be significantly cooler than during the medieval warm period. No, the only way you get 2C additional warming is to foolishly use trough to peak measurements. If you were in a math class trying to work out the increase for a sign wave on a slope...would you measure the trough to peak or peak to peak? Due to the logarithmic nature of CO2's absorption the CO2 increase from 1940 to 1980 should have had just as much affect on climate as during the 1980 to 2007 time frame (if not MORE). The observed data for the last 70 years simply does not support the outrageous figures OR those silly feedback assertion. Deal with it! Deal with it! Deal with it! Get it through your skull, the observed data DOES NOT FIT your projection. Doing a projection of the 70 years of data we should have a total of about 1C of warming by 2100. That's 1C! One is not equal to three, even for exceptionally large values of "one". I mean THINK ABOUT IT! 70 years has passed already...From now to 2100 is roughly 90 years...we shouldn't expect much more warming than we've already had and we've already had...about .5C. Thing is, we won't even see THAT 1C total either...unless it's from perfectly natural forces after this low period of solar activity. Do you honestly think we'll be burning substantial amounts of coal in 2040? Side note: ya do realize that if we do (as all evidence suggests) go through a cooling period that CO2 levels will NOT increase at current levels. They'll taper off, probably by quite a lot. Since CO2 absorption and degassing of the oceans is related to temperature we will most likely fall WELL below projected year 2100 CO2 levels (there should only be one warming period and two cooling periods between now and then). Even assuming current rates, we'll only hit twice the pre-industrial level of CO2. So to recap: The observed data for the last 70 years doesn't fit what is suggested by AGW proponents. This is a cold, hard, FACT. CO2 levels aren't rising at the levels AGW proponents suggest...again, observed data. Since the climate sensitivity to CO2 suggested by AGW proponents has NOT been observed in 70 years, it's highly unlikely that feed backs could be significant or even positive. Either a negative feedback or DRASTICALLY REDUCED CO2 sensitivity are required to fit the theory to the observed data. The assumption that carbon fuel use will continue for 90 more years is also fundamentally flawed. It's likely we'll naturally shift to renewable sources as well as various forms of nuclear as the technologies get cheaper. And finally this all assumes that the .5C increase observed over the last 70 years is entirely man's fault. It's quite likely that a significant portion of it was natural.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 5, 2009 22:14:03 GMT
Even without a no feedbacks a doubling of co2 leads to about 1C warming. That's more than 20th century warming, so not an insignficant amount. Higher values rely on the sum of feedbacks being positive, not "out of control" though. For example if for every 1C of temperature gain, you get an additional 0.7C aditional warming from feedbacks then the direct warming from a doubling of co2 would be suplemented by an additional 2C warming from feedbacks, making about 3C altogether. You are back to your assumption that CO 2 in the atmosphere is not saturated - if you want to carry on saying this you are going to have to give a reference to actual measurements made in the atmosphere that show there is sufficient absorption left in the CO 2 absorption bands to provide ANY warming from new CO 2 in the atmosphere. No you don't. It is true that greenhouse gases fully absorb certain frequencies within a short distance throughout much of the atmosphere. However, the atmosphere thins as you go higher. So the distances over which bands are effectively saturated get longer and longer as you get higher. Above a certain height you truly cannot say that the bands are saturated. Calculations using well-known properties of the gases in the atmosphere show that for typical atmospheric profiles, the doubling of CO2 results in about 4 Watts per metre squared less emission into space. This is sufficient to raise temperatures about 1C without feedbacks. We have had about 1C of warming since CO2 levels started rising. On the one hand, some of it is certainly natural. On the other, the oceans have not yet caught up with the relatively rapid warming. So the fact that we've had more warming than what would be calculated on the basis of changes in greenhouse gases (other than water vapour) is good evidence for positive feedbacks, perhaps from an increase in water vapour. Other evidence of positive feedbacks is the large swings in climate that have occurred in the past such as during the ice age cycle. The changes in greenhouse gas levels, the albedo and the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near enough to explain the ice ages.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 5, 2009 22:54:43 GMT
You are back to your assumption that CO 2 in the atmosphere is not saturated - if you want to carry on saying this you are going to have to give a reference to actual measurements made in the atmosphere that show there is sufficient absorption left in the CO 2 absorption bands to provide ANY warming from new CO 2 in the atmosphere. No you don't. It is true that greenhouse gases fully absorb certain frequencies within a short distance throughout much of the atmosphere. However, the atmosphere thins as you go higher. So the distances over which bands are effectively saturated get longer and longer as you get higher. Above a certain height you truly cannot say that the bands are saturated. Calculations using well-known properties of the gases in the atmosphere show that for typical atmospheric profiles, the doubling of CO2 results in about 4 Watts per metre squared less emission into space. This is sufficient to raise temperatures about 1C without feedbacks. We have had about 1C of warming since CO2 levels started rising. On the one hand, some of it is certainly natural. On the other, the oceans have not yet caught up with the relatively rapid warming. So that's good evidence for positive feedbacks. Other evidence of positive feedbacks is the large swings in climate that have occurred in the past such as during the ice age cycle. The changes in greenhouse gas levels, the albedo and the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near enough to explain the ice ages. "Calculations using well-known properties of the gases in the atmosphere show that for typical atmospheric profiles, the doubling of CO2 results in about 4 Watts per metre squared less emission into space."I am sure that calculations have shown it. Now let's see what a real world experiment shows. Its really easy to sit in a windowless room and model your assumptions. Science would require you to go out and check if you were right in the real world. "Other evidence of positive feedbacks is the large swings in climate that have occurred in the past such as during the ice age cycle. The changes in greenhouse gas levels, the albedo and the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near enough to explain the ice ages."
What it is to be omniscient - must be all that climatology you are doing Themis satellites show something about FTE that the NASA scientists say they thought totally impossible - yet you have the confidence to know precisely what happened at the entry to the ice ages and what could and could not have caused them? People didn't even know about the PDO until recently - and even now there are people that do not accept them (ask glc). It is false logic to assume that all is known, therefore the complex weather and climate system can ONLY work in the way that you hypothesize.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 5, 2009 23:13:09 GMT
You are back to your assumption that CO 2 in the atmosphere is not saturated - if you want to carry on saying this you are going to have to give a reference to actual measurements made in the atmosphere that show there is sufficient absorption left in the CO 2 absorption bands to provide ANY warming from new CO 2 in the atmosphere. I will continue saying it because it is a fact. co2 is not saturated in the atmosphere. Each doubling will produce about the same amount of warming. Do any of your references include actual climatology books, climatology courses or studies from climate organisations? I doubt it. The saturation argument is truely fringe stuff along with the likes of other nonense such "co2 is caused by ocean emissions" and such like.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 5, 2009 23:32:14 GMT
That 1C is not the current status, it's the business as usual, year 2100, 1C total. It's trivial. We'll still be significantly cooler than during the medieval warm period. We might already be ahead of the medieval warming period in terms of the last decade. As for the 1C warming, it's roughly what a doubling of co2 will provide directly. This has nothing to do with lines on a graph, it is simply that warming has effects that cause additional warming. For example warming causes ice to draw back and albedo reduces causing more warming. that's a positive feedback and so it amplifies any warming. co2 increased 8% between 1940 and 1980 It increased 14% between 1980 and 2007 The logarithm of those increases shows that the warming from the co2 rise 1940 to 1980 should have been roughly half the warming from the rise 1980 to 2007. We've had 0.8C over the 20th century, and the breakdown in contributors is roughly as follows: Yes. And even if we reduced fossil fuel emissions dramatically, that would remove the negative forcing from aerosols very quickly and so that would cause additional warming. Not given the rate of our emissions. [QUOET]The assumption that carbon fuel use will continue for 90 more years is also fundamentally flawed. It's likely we'll naturally shift to renewable sources as well as various forms of nuclear as the technologies get cheaper.[/QUOTE] I believe fossil fuels, more so coal, will remain the cheapest form of energy over the 21st century. It's been stored away by nature over millions of years, all we have to do is mine and burn it. Reducing fossil fuel use will just make it cheaper and so use of it will increase again, ie only supply can taper it off, demand cannot be removed except though an unrealistic outright ban.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 5, 2009 23:41:14 GMT
You are back to your assumption that CO 2 in the atmosphere is not saturated - if you want to carry on saying this you are going to have to give a reference to actual measurements made in the atmosphere that show there is sufficient absorption left in the CO 2 absorption bands to provide ANY warming from new CO 2 in the atmosphere. I will continue saying it because it is a fact. co2 is not saturated in the atmosphere. Each doubling will produce about the same amount of warming. Do any of your references include actual climatology books, climatology courses or studies from climate organisations? I doubt it. The saturation argument is truely fringe stuff along with the likes of other nonense such "co2 is caused by ocean emissions" and such like. The "theory" was already shown to no worky in 2002. Upon that inconvenience, Hansen switched gears and decided the oceans are where the heat must be hiding; he found "the smoking gun". Oops, that ain't happenin' either. Of course, Warmologists have spent the last 7 years trying to prove observations are erroneous, to no avail. Now, in desperation, the latest farce is Santer et al 2008 in hopes their statistical trickery wouldn't get noticed. Oh, and of course the "Antarctic is cooling warming just as models predicted" facade. Please read: www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N14/EDIT.php And of course, there is the following verifying the aforementioned: www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdfNo doubt it must be bothersome all warmers have to show after 20+ years are faulty climate models and the failure of the atmosphere to perform as expected. BTW, I'm sure you know what this graph means.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 6, 2009 0:40:13 GMT
We've had 0.8C over the 20th century, and the breakdown in contributors is roughly as follows: Socold, when I first got involved with the AGW issue, I argued that the 3 to 8C warming forecast at the time by IPCC and NOAA was without merit based on science. Are we in agreement on this?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 6, 2009 1:01:10 GMT
It would be nice if in addition to having a go at me, people would also have a go at the obviously faulty saturation argument. Or please win your Nobel prize by constructing an earth-like atmosphere that cannot be influenced by the instantaneous doubling of a gas that strongly absorbs infrared.
Einstein based most of his science on thought experiments. It wasn't till many years after that there was any decent experimental confirmation. But we do have plenty of experimental evidence that supports CO2-induced warming (including measurements of the top of atmosphere radiation balance).
Yes much of it is about piecing together sometimes circumstantial evidence.
But frankly, the level of proof demanded here is tantamount to requiring that unless Einstein really did take observations while riding on top of a photon, he was merely trying to make his name by pulling the wool over the eyes of his betters.
I now await the "Well if you are trying to kill poor people with your stupid business destroying eco-theories you need better evidence" reply.
|
|