Slashdot Mirror

Doubling CO2 and basic physics disagrees with you.

Show the actual math that shows otherwise.

I have and I've also looked at how the physics of doubling CO2 works.

jet fuel fires burn at one specific temperature

Odd comment considering in the above post there is a link to a chart showing the specific heat capacity is different for the different gases, which was meant to show it would take differing amounts of heat being radiated by a single CO2 molecule to raise all of those others equally by 1 degree.

Read this:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1...
It gave me a fairly good understanding of how the IR absorption with CO2. Some parts of it is speculation, but the basic science of how it works looks to be sound if compared with:
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

(With the above, please use more than one source for your data.. Look for multiple sources before just accepting and single one as fact)

It's more complex than testing it in a lab... More studies are needed and that requires us to throw some cash at it... Screaming "climate change denier" does nothing except causes us to ignore valid data, and that may cause us to throw a lot more $$ on the issue that we would need to.

Not saying we are not causing it... i'm saying "we don't know" and we need more research into the issue..

We may need to act like we are the cause before knowing for sure we are the cause to prevent it from getting worse. If it turns out we are not the cause it may have cost us a big of $$ but if it turns out we are the cause without acting it may wipe out a large chunk of earth's population.

It is, of course, well understood that water vapor is a greenhouse gas-- this accounted for in all the models. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. This is a feedback cycle. One of several feedback cycles.

Well it seems the the humidity:

Relative humidity has substantially declined in recent decades, defying global warming computer models predicting higher amounts of atmospheric water vapor that will exacerbate global warming. The decline in relative humidity indicates global warming will be much more moderate than claimed by global warming activists. Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models

The IPCC's CAGW hypothesis necessitates that troposphere humidity increases as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase. Simply stated (this is not rocket science):

          *First CO2 levels increase, thus
              *Atmospheric warming increases, thus
              *Earth's surface warms, thus
              *Earth surface water evaporates, thus
              *Atmosphere humidity increases, thus
              *Atmosphere water vapor increases (i.e. greenhouse gas), thus
              *Atmosphere warms further, thus
              *Earth's surface warms even more, thus
              *More Earth's water evaporates into atmosphere, thus
              *A positive feedback loop established, and continues

For the above climate "tipping point" to initiate, the atmosphere humidity has to absolutely increase, which the above chart of empirical evidence reveals it has not.

In fact, as seen, the atmospheric (relative) humidity is decreasing over time while CO2 levels increase - the exact opposite of all climate model and "consensus" expert predictions. http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-c... Atmosphere Humidity: NOAA Scientists Determine Reality Is Opposite Of Climate Models' Prediction

just isn't cooperating with the GCM's; of course we all know when reality diverges from the model predictions, reality will be adjusted as necessary.

You're saying that that little sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 is the only frequency that energy is radiated away from earth on? That's nonsense.

Of course I'm not saying that. Please re-read what I did say. Water vapour blocks much of the outgoing energy, and CO2 blocks some of what's left. Their effect is added.

we are seeing plants respond to the increase in CO2.

Sure, and the ocean has increased its CO2 uptake too (hence the acidification). But it's not nearly enough, hence our CO2 levels are still rising. Plant uptake would have to increase enormously to make a substantial difference, especially as it's a relatively small fraction of the total.

Therefore, radiative heat transfer is not how heat flows through our atmosphere. It isn't possible.

Heat moves through our atmosphere with both radiative and convective transfer (and probably a little conduction too). Heat cannot leave our atmosphere by convective transfer, as we're surrounded by a vacuum. Therefore, radiative transfer is the only way heat can actually leave our planet. That's why it's important.

Your citation is only an abstract, but models both convective transfer of heat to upper atmosphere layers, and radiative transfer as a Planck black-body radiator. It agrees that CO2 has a warming effect, though the amount calculated is much lower than more recent research (the exact figure is still being determined).

Explain why my reading of the spectrum charts is wrong.

It's not so much wrong, as not really the point. Yes, there's a lot of overlap between CO2 and water. But even if atmospheric water blocked 100% of the radiation covered by its absorption spectrum (it doesn't), CO2 would still have an additional effect. And any overlapped frequencies that aren't blocked completely by water, CO2 will also have an additional effect.

The point is, degree of overlap is not the issue. Amount of outgoing energy blocked by CO2 is the issue. And the figure to look for there is radiative forcing, calculated as 3.7 W/m^2 (this article shows how to derive CO2 forcing from first principles, and compares it to satellite measurements). This is the raw effect that increasing CO2 has on our atmosphere (which is then complicated by numerous positive & negative feedback effects).

I just don't see how it could matter.

You haven't done the maths. Your gut feeling is not reliable here. Look at the science, not your preconceptions.

In regards to not listening to the progressives but listening to the scientists... the problem is that the the one will misrepresent themselves as the other.

What evidence do you have that any scientific papers have misrepresented anything?

I can't just trust anyone. The only defense I have is to use what intelligence I have and go through the argument and logically evaluate it brick by brick.

Unfortunately, without years of study and experience, that's simply not enough.

Your choices are: a) get enough experience in the field to be considered an expert, run your own evaluation on the massive amounts of data acquired in the last 30 years, then make an expert judgement of your own, or; b) listen to the many experts who have done exactly that.

Unfortunately, too many people choose c) none of the above, and make snap judgements on limited understanding of the field, and even more limited evidence. This is all but guaranteed to run afoul of preconceptions, political and otherwise. The Dunning-Kruger effect prevents most of these people from even realising how far off base they usually are.

Given your difficulty in even dealing with ocean heat c

hahahaha bunch of alarmist, tree-hugging, social justice warriors. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5... so as per mr best, there's another explanation and it actually makes a lot more scientific sense than mr mann. Oh and the anthropomorphic constant (Ac) in that Best equation = 0 or, try this for an even better idea of what is going to happen: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2... plus he has several other explanations, Ac = 0 for those also.

hahahaha bunch of alarmist, tree-hugging, social justice warriors. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5... so as per mr best, there's another explanation and it actually makes a lot more scientific sense than mr mann. Oh and the anthropomorphic constant (Ac) in that Best equation = 0 or, try this for an even better idea of what is going to happen: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2... plus he has several other explanations, Ac = 0 for those also.

The IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.23C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend

That doesn't sound like a failed prediction...

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/plotcomp1.png

Have there been any attempts at litigation over these clear and present impacts? If so, how have they fared? (Honest question). If this has not been successful then do you still think that litigation is a solution for the trickier problem of greenhouse gasses?

Results have been largely positive for those suing for local contamination. Lawsuits have hit energy companies for illegal discharges from coal slurry 'ponds', heavy metal contamination of waterways, etc. Various suits for coal ash and coal dust pollution have also resulted in either very large victories or in agreements under which energy companies operating dirty plants have made large scale, substantive changes to fix the problems. Yet I'd like to see more; a lot more. I'd like to see states jumping in to help organize and motivate citizens to go after those who do things destructive to the local environment and to the health of local citizens.

As for the "problem of greenhouse gasses", I think that's a bridge to cross when we come to it. I've never stated that it's impossible human activities are affecting the global climate (in fact, any activity will invariably affect a system, though not necessarily in any measurable way). What I've said is that the evidence we have thus far is very unconvincing and our understanding of the global climate extremely incomplete. We've only just scratched the surface of how our global climate operates and we have a heck of a lot of work to do before we can start reaching any serious conclusions about it. Certainly the climate is changing (and it always has; this idea of a "stable climate" is a myth completely countered by all available evidence even just from recorded human history) and we should be preparing ourselves for those changes. However, that does not mean we should jump to unsupported conclusions and it certainly doesn't mean we should start actively trying to affect the global climate (e.g. these suicidally stupid climate engineering proposals coming out lately).

Let's work on preparing ourselves for the climate changes we're observing today, stopping the obviously destructive activities we're doing today, and expanding our understanding of the global climate so we can one day understand our role. Those all seem like perfectly reasonable actions which would get broad-base support, generate little controversy among anyone, and would accomplish 95% of the stated goals of the AGW crowd. However, since those actions don't praise the Truth(TM) of the AGW faith, the true believers will act like typical religious zealots and reject the whole thing. It's not enough to do the right thing for other reasons, one must fully accept the righteous path of the AGW faith as leading to salvation or one is just as damned as the polluters themselves.

And that fact right there - easily observed in every single discussion on global climate change - should tell you quite a bit about what's really happening here. It's been quite an eye opener for me.

No one is seriously doing that.

Except when they do.

Like when a Lack of snowfall becomes a sign of global warming. Until it gets cold, then cold winter is a sign of global warming. And those are scientists quoted in both those articles, it's not just some 'unscientific journalists.'

Every time some 'weird weather' happens, it's a sign of global warming. If you don't realize this, it's because you aren't paying attention. Hurricane Sandy, Japan Tsunami, whatever it is, you see articles popping up about global warming.

The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.

The core principles are sound. We know that CO2 can have an effect on the atmosphere. We know that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

The mainline predictive theories are not staggeringly accurate (as the snow problem in England, mentioned above, shows). As graphs like this and this and this show, it's seeming more and more like the climate change models are overly pessimistic (which of course is a value judgement; if you like warm weather, then you might say they are overly optimistic).

There is also plenty of unscientific behavior among scientists, as the Chris Landsat hurricane situation shows, and the CRU emails show.

Actual climate says he was right.

The 1990 IPCC report was 100% inaccurate. That is the one we can compare their predictions to what has happened up to this point, not only were they wrong, they were completely wrong. Their new report you ask? Well they say that one is 95% accurate, despite never being correct at ANY time in the past, and they just ignored how they have been wrong every time in the past. Thats not science, that is religious belief.

The BIble is more provably accruate than any IPCC report.

Graph shows 1990 IPCC predicitons with REALITY. There is a range of values predicted by the IPCC and the "settled consensus of climate scientitst" and then there is reality which isn't in the range they selected. They are WRONG, 100% WRONG. They made their predictions, gave a range, told everyone to stop debating, and were wrong, period.

Go ahead back to your church of AGW and keep tithing and singing hymns or whatever else you do there. The rest of us used failed scientific predictions as PROOF they were wrong.

Spin away at those facts. Attack me, attack the graph, pretend I didn't post this, whatever. The fact remains the IPCC FAILED no matter how you want to try and look at it.

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png

HadCrut3 disagrees with GISS on that.

GISS is well known for fabricating their data using 1,200 km radius circles with just one temperature station in them. That is not permitted in science when you are representing that the data is actual temperature measurements since it leads people - such as your self - to the incorrect conclusions about the data. GISS data is NOT pure raw observational temperature data, it's got tons of fabricated data in it. Thus GISS can't be relied upon for factual temperature data.

Also in the graph is the bonus that you'll see how the IPCC "climate models" are worth nothing as their predictions were ALL falsified by Nature herself.

Oh, and yeah, the temperature hasn't risen in the last decade or so, sure it goes up and down but as the graph shows... it more trending down than up.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

So, given that the models for CO2 concentration vs. average global temperature have been well out of bounds of predictions, the hypothesis has been falsified?

Well I'm glad you're engaging me in this debate, rather than writing me off, so first, thank you.

I don't know why you put such faith in Climatologists. Lets look at the IPCC predictions from the 1990s Are they close to accurate? Well they were, but they are falling. And when compared to the CO2 data (the last chart), the correlation with CO2 is breaking down.

I do have contempt for climatologists because its not actual science. Mythbusters does small scale and then full scale. Climatologists cannot run an experiment on any scale. The small scale lacks real-world complexity and the large scale is impossible to do. Still I hope one day we do develop a model which is able to come close to approximating reality. They get to make predictions with impunity, and 20 years later we get to test the result. But even then, I am betting you find some way to ignore the predictions of the 1990s, which have not come true. So given that IPCC failed to make a prediction that is valid in 2011 (and actually, they are diverging from reality at this point) how do you get to treat them as gospel? Obviously with a falling correlation, their model is leaving something out. But what is it? Do we continue to believe in a model that is failing? I'd have given them credit up to 2007, but now, we know the model is wrong.

No. We're well within the bounds. That plot is comparing three different things without normalizing to a common point (i.e. the temperature in 1990) so it is deliberately misleading. If you actually go to Dr. Best's site you'll see the three adjusted to a common reference, in which case they are much closer to being within the bounds shown. But the bounds shown by Dr. Best are incorrect because they don't allow for error analysis or annual variance. The ones shown at realclimate.org are much more realistic. And Dr. Best has included temperature numbers for 2011 in his analysis apparently at the same weight as full year data. That point will be very inaccurate because it only includes data for a small portion of the year, which could skew the moving average.

Wow...

Just because it's been cooler at your house for the last two years, does not mean the earth, as a whole, is not getting warmer in general.

It's perfectly plausible that the average temperature on the planet could rise significantly while a region, like Europe, gets colder.

Except we are getting cooler, overall, for the last 12 years. The trend is unmistakable and now well outside the bounds of the IPCC report. The fact that recent global data does not match the models would indicate the models are wrong and need to be modified.

And they're going to be sorely disappointed when the warming continues despite reduced solar output.

Even if the Sun went into a new Maunder Minimum Global Warming will continue because the forcing from increased GHG's (primarily CO2) overwhelms the change in insolation. There is a peer reviewed paper on the subject here: On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010).

So what will the "naysayers" response be to continued warming despite reduced insolation?

Except for the fact we've been cooling for the last 13 years, even as carbon emissions continued to grow. Perhaps the models are wrong? Maybe there's something else controlling the majority of our climate change? Because they certainly don't seem to predict or model what's happening now - temperatures falling while carbon emissions increasing.

1) Of course I stand by that. To assume that it is natural variation is simple - we simply assume that things happen the same way today for the same reasons that they did in the past. To assume that it is primarily driven by CO2 requires us to assume all sorts of ad hoc explanations for why the past record does not show CO2 as a driver, and all sorts of assumptions as to how CO2 will leverage water vapor in the atmosphere, etc, etc.

2) The reason why we have the kinds of temperature differentials we do during the seasons is because of the complex interactions of oceans and atmosphere, in addition to the tilt of the earth's axis. See: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Oceans_played_critical_role_in_ancient_global_cooling_999.html

3) My hypothesis simply states that you cannot ignore the internal heat of the earth as a non-trivial driver. A falsification of it would be to observe some large volcanic eruption, and note no significant effect on the weather. How many climate models do you know of actually take into account geothermal activity and distribution?

4) Again, you're fighting a strawman I'm not putting forth. I accept that with cherrypicking, you can show the earth is warming, cooling, or even staying stable. My contention is that no amount of warming trend you can show with your cherry picking, it does not refute the idea that this warming is simply a natural occurrence, nor does it prove that this warming must be driven by CO2.

That all being said, enjoy this retrospective on IPCC predictions of temperature: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

30 years of data, which by your estimate should be enough to validate predictions, right? :)