|
Post by donmartin on Feb 20, 2009 7:25:07 GMT
I don't really understand the argument about CO2. As I stated in another thread: the atmosphere of Earth is comprised of .03% CO2, whereas the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, and I have not yet been told that Mars has a "hospitable" climate. Having regard to the atmospheres and temperature of planets seems to indicate that temperature and the dynamic aspect of atmospheric temperature co-relates more closely with density of atmosphere than composition. Check it out. The atmospheric temperature of Venus is 900deg. diurnally and the atmosphere is 92 times more dense than Earth. The atmosphere of Mars is 100 times less dense than Earth and has lower and more extreme temperatures than Earth. On the other hand, Mercury, which has an atmosphere less dense than Venus, is cooler than Venus, although it is closer to the Sun. To see what atmospheric density can do to atmospheric temperatures, check out Jupiter. Perhaps Mr. Gore should have been trying to do something about gravity. Now that would be worth a Nobel. Roll over Einstein.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 20, 2009 10:24:34 GMT
Falsifying the CO2 hypothesis would involve the following. Some of them are pretty implausible:
1. Finding another mechanism for controlling CO2 levels in the atmosphere that overrides the anthropogenic emissions (which currently equate to about 2-3 times the observed increase). 2. Identifying another net cause of warming that would mean that the observational assessments of climate feedbacks would be wrong. Other anthropogenic influences such as changes to other atmospheric components, albedo/land use changes, that lead to other causes of climate change are studied in reasonable detail and as yet have not undermined the CO2 thesis. TSI changes are not significant enough. PDO has little scientific support. Cosmic rays have limited evidence of correlation to some clouds, but little physical evidence to support causation. Similarly for other components of solar influence. 3. Some evidence of positive feedbacks comes from assessments of ice age cycles etc. Identifying a reason why such positive feedbacks would not apply to the current scenario. 4. Clear and strong evidence from global observations of a mismatch between expectations for eg. ocean warming, earth radiation balance, relative humidity, over a long-ish period and properly taking into account uncertainties and natural variability. Such evidence casts doubt on the current models without necessarily undermining the basic theory.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 20, 2009 10:34:12 GMT
gettingchilly,
The model responses to warming (eg. positive feedbacks due to changes to water vapour, and slightly greater rates of warming in the mid-troposphere) are not just related to warming due to CO2. The same or similar response might be expected from other causes of warming.
donmartin, As stated in another thread, the *amount* of CO2 on Mars is 8 or 9 times the amount on Earth. Increasing earth's CO2 level by 8 times would raise temperatures only 3C before water vapour feedbacks. (Obviously there are no water vapour feedbacks on Mars). Why should there be a magical link between atmospheric density and temperature - each planet is different. Jupiter actually emits more heat than it gets, so why people think there should be a correlation between warming on earth and more storm activity on Jupiter is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2009 12:04:46 GMT
Falsifying the CO2 hypothesis would involve the following. Some of them are pretty implausible: 1. Finding another mechanism for controlling CO2 levels in the atmosphere that overrides the anthropogenic emissions (which currently equate to about 2-3 times the observed increase). 2. Identifying another net cause of warming that would mean that the observational assessments of climate feedbacks would be wrong. Other anthropogenic influences such as changes to other atmospheric components, albedo/land use changes, that lead to other causes of climate change are studied in reasonable detail and as yet have not undermined the CO2 thesis. TSI changes are not significant enough. PDO has little scientific support. Cosmic rays have limited evidence of correlation to some clouds, but little physical evidence to support causation. Similarly for other components of solar influence. 3. Some evidence of positive feedbacks comes from assessments of ice age cycles etc. Identifying a reason why such positive feedbacks would not apply to the current scenario. 4. Clear and strong evidence from global observations of a mismatch between expectations for eg. ocean warming, earth radiation balance, relative humidity, over a long-ish period and properly taking into account uncertainties and natural variability. Such evidence casts doubt on the current models without necessarily undermining the basic theory. Strange that at no point do you mention cooling of the atmosphere when it is warming of the atmosphere that is used as the 'evidence for AGW'. The IPCC models all show an overall linear rise in atmospheric temperature that is directly related to the rise in CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere. NONE of the models show what has actually happened to atmospheric temperature. Now you have interjected a rather difficult-to-test phrase 'long-ish period' - which is rather humpty dumpty like i.e. it means just what you want it to mean. I think what is needed is a definition of 'weather' which I would propose would be: Weather - any fluctuation in the atmosphere's parameters or behavior with a duration less than one year. The AGW hypothesis is that gases from human activity (not including water vapor) in the troposphere that absorb and remit infra-red radiation cause so much delay in the radiation heat from the planet that the Earth's radiation budget is changed to the extent that the troposphere warmed by the observed warming in the last century. The IPCC got the best climatological models in the world together creating an ensemble that showed a linear increase in temperature from 2000 to 2100 based on the hypothesis and ALL that was known about the Earth's climate. This was then the basis for the AR4 report. Unfortunately, the atmosphere has NOT increased in temperature over the last 10 years and has dropped in the last 2. Indicating that the planet's heat content has not increased as expected. But more importantly: Expected result - temperature after 10 years will be measurably higher than start temperature in proportion to CO 2 rise. Observed result - temperature has not risen. Validation - failed - for ALL models. The response of the modelers is of course - that their models haven't failed they just need to change the models. or The models haven't failed they just did not include every climate effect at the right levels or The models haven't failed - they just haven't been allowed to run for a longish period (any period longer than a climatologist's lifetime) Underlying this is the basic hypothesis: - GHG act to impede the escape of infra-red thus warming the planet. Expected result : More GHG - more impedance of infra red escape indicated by the atmospheric temperatures rising Observation : Higher than expected concentrations of GHG - atmospheric temperatures not risen, over a decade; indeed there is some evidence that they have started to drop. Base hypothesis falsified Response from modelers - decade does not equal a sufficiently longish period So now - what is needed is a formal restatement of the AGW hypothesis including: * a formal and testable definition of 'longish period', and* an explanation based on physical laws of why the relationship of GHG to temperature is non-linear over a period of a decade to the extent that infra red can escape from the planet at a HIGHER rate than normal - as it must have done for the temperatures to drop - despite constant heat input and the presence of a higher than expected concentration of GHG.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 20, 2009 17:44:41 GMT
"cooling of the atmosphere" comes under point 4 - not specifically mentioned.
Yes. And most of them show an overall fluctuating pattern as a result of "natural variation" that leads to reasonably common periods of steady or cooling temperatures lasting up to 10 years.
I'm not a climate scientist, so I use fluffy words. Long-ish means statistically unlikely when compared with past behaviour of the climate and when compared with models (though it may be that models don't properly represent natural variability fully - remember point 4 was about falsifying models more than falsifying CO2 warming).
It's not true that heat content has not increased. Heat content of the planet includes the oceans. Warming of the upper layers of the ocean since ten years ago vastly outweighs any net difference in atmospheric energy content between 1998 and now.
Even so, taking a random sample of models and forcing them with increasing CO2, over a 10 year period 5-10% of the models show net atmospheric cooling. Of course that might mean that 1980s and 1990s were warmer than the expected trend.
My gut feeling is that if we got rid of the La Niña and went back to neutral/El Niño conditions without getting towards 1998 sort of temperatures then we could start hoping that this century's warming will be at the lower end of the projections. But I'm not a climate scientist.
I'm really not a dogmatic believer in "catastrophic climate change this century", though I think it'll likely be horrible for a lot of people. I'm merely arguing that the case laid out by the scientists appears to be reasonable given the observations.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 20, 2009 18:10:37 GMT
[trimmed] [trimmed]I'm merely arguing that the case laid out by the scientists appears to be reasonable given the observations. If it's so reasonable, why do modeling "scientists" almost always refuse to publish their code? Where can we find Steig's code? Where can we find Mann's algorithms? Their stubborn avoidance of transparency must be motivated by something. What are they hiding? www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Feb 20, 2009 18:20:20 GMT
Falsifying the CO2 hypothesis would involve the following. Some of them are pretty implausible: 1. Finding another mechanism for controlling CO2 levels in the atmosphere that overrides the anthropogenic emissions (which currently equate to about 2-3 times the observed increase). 2. Identifying another net cause of warming that would mean that the observational assessments of climate feedbacks would be wrong. Other anthropogenic influences such as changes to other atmospheric components, albedo/land use changes, that lead to other causes of climate change are studied in reasonable detail and as yet have not undermined the CO2 thesis. TSI changes are not significant enough. PDO has little scientific support. Cosmic rays have limited evidence of correlation to some clouds, but little physical evidence to support causation. Similarly for other components of solar influence. 3. Some evidence of positive feedbacks comes from assessments of ice age cycles etc. Identifying a reason why such positive feedbacks would not apply to the current scenario. 4. Clear and strong evidence from global observations of a mismatch between expectations for eg. ocean warming, earth radiation balance, relative humidity, over a long-ish period and properly taking into account uncertainties and natural variability. Such evidence casts doubt on the current models without necessarily undermining the basic theory. Proving the ACO2 hypothesis would include: 1. eliminating the LIA and MWP - essentially proving the hockey stick is correct. 2. showing why the models are incorrect about mid-troposphere warming 3 validating the mean global surface temperature readings. 4. explaining why CO2 always lags temperature changes in proxy records. 5. proving the laboratory experiments and understanding of GHG forcing correlate in the natural environment. 6. Show how the small percentage of ACO2 in the atmosphere is forcing current temperature changes.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 20, 2009 21:46:15 GMT
Here's the main problem with AGW.
The hypothesis is...CO2 causes warming
The primary evidence used is...that there's been warming
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 21, 2009 1:51:34 GMT
Hello Steve;
Air density is related to both temperature and pressure through the "equation of state" and decreases with increasing altitude. There is a direct relationship between density and temperature:
Boyle's law : For a given mass, at constant temperature, the pressure times the volume is constant: pV=C1
and:
Charles and Gay-Lussac: For a given mass, at constant pressure, the volume is directly proportional to the temperature: V=C2 T
Mass divided by volume = density gravity = pressure
quare: would not the measurement of altitude from Earth's surface to the exosphere provide an estimate of atmospheric temperature?
And Jupiter BTW is say -125degC in its outer atmosphere, further into the interior, say 20degC, and in the interior, goodness knows how hot. You are correct about emitting more energy than it receives - leads some to conclude we are in a binary star system.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 21, 2009 2:43:51 GMT
"cooling of the atmosphere" comes under point 4 - not specifically mentioned. Yes. And most of them show an overall fluctuating pattern as a result of "natural variation" that leads to reasonably common periods of steady or cooling temperatures lasting up to 10 years. I'm not a climate scientist, so I use fluffy words. Long-ish means statistically unlikely when compared with past behaviour of the climate and when compared with models (though it may be that models don't properly represent natural variability fully - remember point 4 was about falsifying models more than falsifying CO2 warming). It's not true that heat content has not increased. Heat content of the planet includes the oceans. Warming of the upper layers of the ocean since ten years ago vastly outweighs any net difference in atmospheric energy content between 1998 and now. Even so, taking a random sample of models and forcing them with increasing CO2, over a 10 year period 5-10% of the models show net atmospheric cooling. Of course that might mean that 1980s and 1990s were warmer than the expected trend. My gut feeling is that if we got rid of the La Niña and went back to neutral/El Niño conditions without getting towards 1998 sort of temperatures then we could start hoping that this century's warming will be at the lower end of the projections. But I'm not a climate scientist. I'm really not a dogmatic believer in "catastrophic climate change this century", though I think it'll likely be horrible for a lot of people. I'm merely arguing that the case laid out by the scientists appears to be reasonable given the observations. Look at the IPCC ensemble diagram that you showed before from the AR4 report and show me the models that show 10 years of cooling. There are none. We are rehearsing our previous discussion again, Only 5 of the models showed a one year inflexion NONE of the models showed anything like what has happened in reality. www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm Download the full report and look at figure 3.2 in the main report - Even the static concentration model B-1 shows warming. We have experienced higher than expected increases in so called green house gases in the last decade rises above those assumed for scenario A-2 YET THE TEMPERATURES HAVE COOLED.
This is a TOTAL validation failure. The AGW hypothesis as published by the IPCC with their 2500 best in the world climatologists has been falsified. Reasonable waffle from nice guys in the pub does not cut it. This is a United Nations publication of the results apparently of the best models in the world from the climatologists AND THEY ARE INCORRECT. I have yet to hear a mea-culpa What I _have_ heard is more taxation - forcing coal fired power stations into bankruptcy - refusals to use oil reserves... because the empty headed politicians have been convinced by the UN reports that are total fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 21, 2009 6:33:02 GMT
And there is no co-relation between storm activity on Jupiter and temperature of Earth's atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 8:52:28 GMT
What I _have_ heard is more taxation - forcing coal fired power stations into bankruptcy - refusals to use oil reserves... because the empty headed politicians have been convinced by the UN reports that are total fallacy .
The name of this fallacy is "Affirming the Consequent". onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htmWhat worries me is that not only do they know it is a fallacy, but they know exactly what they want to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 21, 2009 15:35:03 GMT
poitsplace, While you are no doubt convinced of your view, many other impartial and intelligent people have a different view. You are convinced that these people know that it was warmer in the recent past and that as the warmth wasn't disastrous then it won't be now. But it isn't true that they think it was warmer (globally and all year round) in the recent past. You're also convinced these people have an idea of the ideal climate. That's not true either. So feel free to be optimistic that some vague numerological correlation between ocean currents and temperature is the cause of the warming, and let's hope you're right. No, I'm convinced that they're mostly normal people...normal, flawed people. I'm convinced that there's the same kind of "consensus" today that there was over 30 years ago when the "consensus" said it was cooling. I'm convinced that in both cases the "consensus" did/does exist, but in a much weaker form than most are lead to believe...something along the lines of "Yeah, I can see how that might be true." I am also convinced that it was warmer in the past than it is now...because all we have to indicate it was cooler in the past are really bad proxies (most of which were shreaded almost immediately after they came out) and because quite frankly...even the world's colonization, ART and businesses reflect the climate changes of the past including both the medieval warm period and the little ice age (as well as a great deal of proxy data). Now I KNOW that CO2 in the ice cores does not show the kind of correlation that alarmists like to say it does. The CO2 was driven by the temperature, pure and simple. I KNOW the straight physics of absorption (which BTW ignores re-emission) says CO2 shouldn't have a substantial impact on temperatures (more than about a degree). I also know that similar warming periods occurred in the very recent past and without the help of substantial CO2 rises. We basically just have a few of vocal scientists that for one reason or another are VERY passionate about the piss-poor CO2 correlation and a bunch of political groups that know nothing of what they're saying jumping on the bandwagon because it suits their other agendas. The "consensus" is mostly composed of people that thought as I did a few years back...having not actually looked into the matter. It simply sounds reasonable on the surface and what the heck, I'm all for reduction in ACTUAL pollution and people conserving resources. I'm still for cutting pollution and conserving resources...but this preoccupation with CO2 is ill conceived and potentially harmful to many people. It would collapse the economies of the developed nations and would leave the impoverished developing nations wallowing in their own filth. You know, you need to give some long, hard thought to those "billions that might die" in developing nations and realize that with an average lifespan of 40 or under...THEY ARE ALREADY DYING UNNATURAL DEATHS due to lack of infrastructure. Not one, not hundreds, not thousands, not ten percent...essentially 100% of the people of the developing world are dying what WE would consider unnatural deaths. You and others poorly supported (ie, not at all) vilification of CO2 and the attempt to stop developing nations from using available resources...THAT is what will truly harm them. Wow!!! Well done poitsplace!!!
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 21, 2009 15:50:15 GMT
A sickening allegation made without thought and without supporting evidence, and probably derived from some insane denier's blogsite (perhaps via a few other thoughtless blog posters). Actually, what is sickening is the time and resources wasted on the whole AGW issue. Look at the facts. One side of the AGW debate has been caught repeatedly cooking the books. One side of the AGW debate attacks PEOPLE on the other side of the debate, not their position. One side of the AGW debate claims the science is settled and refuses to publicly debate the issue, instead they are racing to implement a socialist agenda (socialist at best) before the house of cards collapses. One side of the AGW issue advocates breaking the law as long as it is in support of their cause. This position has been stated under oath in a court of law. One side of the AGW issue believes that the ends justify the means. This puts them in a rather unsavory position with many bad guys in history. You got to ask yourself. "What side am I on?"
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 21, 2009 18:05:59 GMT
One side of the AGW debate supports the government physically and forcibly entering people's homes to monitor energy usage. -As espoused by Stephen Schneider, IPCC "Scientist"
|
|