|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 10:19:42 GMT
By uniformly doubling CO2 concentrations you decrease the mean free path of an emitted photon throughout the atmosphere. Fascinating. How much by? How 'uniform' are co2 concentrations in the real world?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 10:30:07 GMT
"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." - Karl Popper
So how does our knowledge of the physical properties of CO2 enable us to fix a definite figure on the extent of warming due to man while we are ignorant of the properties of so many other possible variables in the climate system?
Perhaps because" "Science may be described as the art of systematic 0ver-simplification." - Karl Popper
And if we start to alter the climate in the belief we can 'reverse climate change'?
"Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell." - Karl Popper
How do we avoid this outcome?
"We have become makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets." - Karl Popper
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 18:12:35 GMT
Nice to see you also have perfect working knowledge of the sun's behavior as well. You should probably go talk to some solar physicists to tell them EXACTLY how the sun's output changes over time. I'm sure you know all along that the sun's UV output would undergo substantial changes and that the earth's outer atmosphere would drop by 100 miles. You know all that stuff, right? I am going with what is known about solar output, not speculating about what isn't known. What is known is that TSI over the past 50 years cannot explain all the warming. They are not a forcing that causes temperature change, they are a reflection of temperature change itself - internal variation. Over the 20th century the PDO trend is essentially flat. So even if it were a forcing (which it isn't), it wouldn't be able to explain any of the 0.8C 20th century warming. co2 rise is accelerating, not increasingly linearly. The temperature rise by 2100 will be significantly greater than 1C if that continues. The 0.1C influence is explained. It's those others you mention that either are zero explainations or have no basis to act as explainations at this time (and possibly ever) About 0.1C I guess, at most. Other solar minimums have not shown dramatic drops in temperature. In fact it takes real effort to discern the effect from the temprature record because it's that small. Yes, but a small amount compared to the future co2 forcing.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 8, 2009 18:14:43 GMT
By uniformly doubling CO2 concentrations you decrease the mean free path of an emitted photon throughout the atmosphere. Fascinating. How much by? 1/sqrt(2). I said "If you uniformly double CO2 concentrations". I didn't say how uniform CO2 is. But it's quite uniform especially in the parts of the atmosphere I'm referring to.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 18:20:44 GMT
But by the same token, AR4 in Chapter 2.7 fails to prove that, other than a change in the solar constant, no other solar effects exist. The IPCC merely cherry picks the available information, and leaves the impression that it has proved that there are no other solar effects, but it has not done so, nor do it claim to have done so. So it is simply wrong to conclude that only greenhouse gases can account for the recent warming. That conclusion is based on current knowledge. The IPCC doesn't claim there are no other solar effects, it even mentions some possible ones, but they haven't been "proven" or quantified, both of which are required before they can be factored into current knowledge. Based on current knowledge, the recent warming cannot be explained without including the forcing from greenhouse gases.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 19:01:21 GMT
Fascinating. How much by? 1/sqrt(2). I said "If you uniformly double CO2 concentrations". I didn't say how uniform CO2 is. But it's quite uniform especially in the parts of the atmosphere I'm referring to. So the photon finds it's mean free path decreased by 1/sqrt(2) after a doubling of co2. Hmmm. Thats 0.707. Which unit's are we talking here Steve? And are we talking about the atmosphere as a whole, or the co2 element of it? Which parts of the atmosphere are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 8, 2009 19:07:36 GMT
socold writes "Based on current knowledge, the recent warming cannot be explained without including the forcing from greenhouse gases."
We simply have to disagree. You are forgetting the Kelvin fallacy. Kelvin claimed he was right because he had taken into account "all known factors". He was wrong. If you are basing your claim on "current knowledge", you are, in effect, saying precisely what the great Lord Kelvin said.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 8, 2009 19:27:30 GMT
That conclusion is based on current knowledge. The IPCC doesn't claim there are no other solar effects, it even mentions some possible ones, but they haven't been "proven" or quantified, both of which are required before they can be factored into current knowledge. Well, what some warmies claim is that there is no mechanism by which those other effects happen. The most notable is GCR -- they say "Well, there is no mechanism ..." and yet, GCR modulation of the climate seems a pretty done deal if one looks at GCR v. Global Temp records.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 8, 2009 19:37:08 GMT
That conclusion is based on current knowledge. The IPCC doesn't claim there are no other solar effects, it even mentions some possible ones, but they haven't been "proven" or quantified, both of which are required before they can be factored into current knowledge. Well, what some warmies claim is that there is no mechanism by which those other effects happen. The most notable is GCR -- they say "Well, there is no mechanism ..." and yet, GCR modulation of the climate seems a pretty done deal if one looks at GCR v. Global Temp records. Is this a shift in view from you, fch?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 20:39:22 GMT
That conclusion is based on current knowledge. The IPCC doesn't claim there are no other solar effects, it even mentions some possible ones, but they haven't been "proven" or quantified, both of which are required before they can be factored into current knowledge. Well, what some warmies claim is that there is no mechanism by which those other effects happen. The most notable is GCR -- they say "Well, there is no mechanism ..." and yet, GCR modulation of the climate seems a pretty done deal if one looks at GCR v. Global Temp records. The claim is that there is no demonstrated mechanism. Until the physical mechanism is shown and quantified noone can base any calculations on it.
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Feb 8, 2009 22:01:36 GMT
co2 rise is accelerating, not increasingly linearly. The temperature rise by 2100 will be significantly greater than 1C if that continues. Do you have a source to back that up? From what I've seen, like the link below, it seem linear. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/to:2008
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 22:14:48 GMT
Socold is confused. The rise of human co2 emissions is accelerating. The rise of atmospheric co2 content is pretty much linear, slowing slightly at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 22:50:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 8, 2009 22:52:08 GMT
Socold is confused. The rise of human co2 emissions is accelerating. The rise of atmospheric co2 content is pretty much linear, slowing slightly at the moment. If it was linear it wouldn't be known as the Keeling Curve
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 9, 2009 1:56:50 GMT
Over the years i have worked with many scientists and professors, they were all very smart and very clever people but like most (but not all) of the people in these forums most lacked one very important quality and that is COMMON SENSE.
These type of people were not allowed to use a soldering iron as they would only burn themselves and were not to go near the toolbox in case they took out an eye.
Dr Evans was employed by the Australian government from 1999 to 2005, his job was to prove AGW is real so he went looking for the hot spot as this was the cornerstone of the theory. After years of studying radiosonde thermometer readings it became obvious to him that the hot spot does not exist and therefore either does AGW.
But no what a second, the radiosondes may have "missed" the hot spot we can use the wind shear data to calculate the temperature and looky here there is a hot spot.
COMMON SENSE tells me, and those of us who have it that a thermometer is the best way to measure TEMPERATURE. If anyone cannot see this then i am sorry but you are completely mistaken.
To those who believe in a complete understanding of the suns effect on climate, if i were to listen to you then i could picture the sun being like a light switch, if i turn the sun on the Earth has a climate if i turn the sun off the Earth has no climate. There is no in between. For those that have the audacity to think like this try applying a bit of COMMON SENSE to what you are saying rather than just regurgitating what you read on another web site.
For some it might be time to put away the text books and turn off the calculators and start applying COMMON SENSE rather than to just type illogical arguments.
As i said Dr Evans proved the AGW theory wrong as there is no hot spot end of story, end of discussion.
|
|