Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[AndyH]

Go ahead, Reg - submit the pseudo-science. May the odds be ever in your favor...

 

[RegGuheert]

Go ahead, Reg - submit the pseudo-science. May the odds be ever in your favor...

All the links are there to the papers and the government sources for all the data. It's plain for all to see that cloudiness is THE major factor in the temperature of the Earth and it correllates very well with historical cosmic ray flux levels. Deny the science if you will.

 

[klapauzius]

Go ahead, Reg - submit the pseudo-science. May the odds be ever in your favor...

All the links are there to the papers and the government sources for all the data. It's plain for all to see that cloudiness is THE major factor in the temperature of the Earth and it correllates very well with historical cosmic ray flux levels. Deny the science if you will.

So let us know if you got the $30k with this approach.
Given the shortcomings of this model, as identified by many before, I have my doubts though, since simple curve fitting wont cut it with climate science these days.

 

[donald]

No, you got it wrong again, but I assume you know that.

All you have to do is show another mechanism, i.e not man-made, that explains the current global climate of the past 200 years, specifically is causal to it.

I'm sorry, but from my POV you have it all wrong.

I am not saying there is no AGW. I have never said that, and I can't say that because it seems unlikely there is no effect.

What I am saying is that if there wasn't any AGW then it would still be impossible to disprove the theory.

Best Disproof of the 'AGW theory':
The best possible thing I can imagine that could be said here is to point out that between 1900 and 1920, and then between 1940 and 1980, there was global cooling, and yet CO2 was increasing. So the only disproof that makes sense is to observe an inverse of what the theory proposes, that is, for 60 years [the majority] of the last century there was global cooling when 'the AGW theory' says there should be warming.

Now, the next thing that would happen after I make that observation is that someone will come back and say 'Ah, but you have not disproved the existence of other mechanisms that caused cooling during those periods', and your damned right I haven't because I can't prove the existence of a negative. It would be non-scientific to come back and add 'modifiers' to the theory to explain away contrary observations, such as the 60 years of cooling. The theory has to explain those cooling periods too, else there's no way to 'disprove' it. Either the theory is comprehensive so that it will predict the cooling, or it is wrong.

But as that will be rejected by the natural climate change deniers, and there will always remain on those asking the questions to prove anything contrary that line of questioning leads to (rather than the other ways around, as it should be) so the only thing left is to back up the observations of cooling with further comments, as you are now demanding. A disproof of something should NEVER demand that an alternative explanation is required, yet you are doing exactly that.

So I offer you:

Best Argument for Uncertainties:
The solar output needs to vary by only +0.1% to cause an increase in radiative power in excess of the proposed forcing factor from CO2. Are we really so certain that solar variations are below 0.1%? On the contrary, the IPCC say that solar variation mechanisms are 'very uncertain'.

Best Alternative explanation for warming:
Interglacial climate is critically unstable, because as the glaciers recede so the albedo of the planet drops. As it does so, the planet warms faster and the glaciers recede quicker. The albedo changes related to glacier changes leads to erratic climate, and it is a clear and evidentially demonstrated mechanism that the planet will warm during de-glaciation, and it may do so quite suddenly, geologically speaking, because of this strong feedback instability. This is not a 'theory', like AGW, this is a matter of geological stratigraphic record.

 

[klapauzius]

I'm sorry, but from my POV you have it all wrong.

I am not saying there is no AGW. I have never said that, and I can't say that because it seems unlikely there is no effect.

What I am saying is that if there wasn't any AGW then it would still be impossible to disprove the theory.

The Michelson-Morley experiment 'disproved' the existence of the luminiferous aether about 130 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, yes, you can 'disprove' 'non-existent' things in science.
Keep in mind that in the sciences it is sufficient to show irrelevance of something. From a philosophical standpoint,
the luminiferous aether could still exist (or not exist), but as far as real-world observations of the speed of light are concerned, its existence has no bearing it. It is as if it does not exist.

If you want to win the $30k you have to show the same for the human part in global warming.
Many smart people haven been working on this for decades now, but so far nobody has succeeded.
However, a lot of positive evidence of human involvement has been accumulated.

 

[klapauzius]

Best Alternative explanation for warming:
Interglacial climate is critically unstable, because as the glaciers recede so the albedo of the planet drops. As it does so, the planet warms faster and the glaciers recede quicker. The albedo changes related to glacier changes leads to erratic climate, and it is a clear and evidentially demonstrated mechanism that the planet will warm during de-glaciation, and it may do so quite suddenly, geologically speaking, because of this strong feedback instability. This is not a 'theory', like AGW, this is a matter of geological stratigraphic record.

Yes, the underlying random variation of climate is a powerful argument.

An analogy would be to claim psychic powers and by staring hard at some dice, we convince ourselves that we can influence the outcome of the roll.
Now we have examined a series of three or four sixes in a row and claim this as proof of our powers.

For a six sided dice it is easy to answer that question, as we know the exact probabilities for each outcome. The chance level for getting e.g. four sixes in a row is 1 in 1296.
So if someone claimed psychic powers and you get this result, at least in the life-sciences, that would be pretty strong evidence.
In physics typically one in a few million is required.

So one would have to answer the question: What is the probability of observing a 200 year warming trend of the current magnitude, based on previous global temperatures from e.g. the last interglacial (where human activity didnt play a role)?


I am sure somebody put the data online (its great how all these data sets are publicly available...this field is enormously transparent compared to other branches of science), so you check yourself.
But I am also sure somebody did the work already, so just read the papers on it.

 

[donald]

The Michelson-Morley experiment 'disproved' the existence of the luminiferous aether about 130 years ago.

I don't agree the theories are comparable. In regards the existence of 'an ether' a mechanism was proposed which could be proved incorrect.

In the case of AGW, I don't believe there is any doubt that CO2 can cause a warming of the climate, and I don't think anyone [sensible] has ever doubted that.

What is in doubt are the consequences of that mechanism being true: Is it dominant, or trivial compared with other changes, and to what degree do natural counter-mechanisms mitigate any such effects? I do not think these matters are properly addresses within the 'theory' of AGW. My understanding is that it declares humans emit CO2 and when they do the temperature goes up. Please excuse me if I have misunderstood that, but that is clearly insufficient a theory to explain the cooling periods of the 20th century.

I say again, I want to see the line of global temeratures that climate scientists believe the earth should have followed, if it were not for humans' CO2 emissions. Without that line, and proof of it being correct, then it cannot be proved that the current temperatures deviate from it.

 

[donald]

So one would have to answer the question: What is the probability of observing a 200 year warming trend of the current magnitude, based on previous global temperatures from e.g. the last interglacial (where human activity didnt play a role)?

My understanding is that this is absolutely the norm for interglacials, and the temperature changes are usually more than a few degrees.

Certainly, the ice cores reflect that sort of rate of temperature change in Greenland, and don't even reflect anything slower.

8,000 years ago there was a temperature delta of almost 4 degrees in that sort of time-scale, of course the question is whether this is local only, or reflects a global trend. The fact that the peaks in Greenland samples co-incide with historical records of warm climates seems to confirm the relationship:

per the data : http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is what interglacials do, temperature-wise. The little peak in the last 200 years can be seen to be a ramp-rate of temperature that is not at all out of the ordinary.

 

[AndyH]

I say again, I want to see the line of global temeratures that climate scientists believe the earth should have followed, if it were not for humans' CO2 emissions. Without that line, and proof of it being correct, then it cannot be proved that the current temperatures deviate from it.

You've already been given that on page 1 of this thread. I gave it to you in direct response to your original question in the form of a link to Skeptical Science. Here it is again with the relevant chart:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

As you've said, we are in between glacial periods. Barring 'un-natural' forcings, the planet should be cooling and we should be headed for the next glacial period. But we're not - planetary temperatures are going the other way - and it's a dramatic course change. (Also worth noting is that much of the climate reporting is in form of 'anomaly' - temperature anomaly, ice volume anomaly, etc. One must have a baseline to show a departure from said baseline..."

 

[WetEV]

What "natural climate change deniers" are you talking about?

Those who seem to side-step the fact that we are in an inter-glacial of an ice age, and climate is always chaotic in such circumstances. Those who advocate for the theory of AGW never seem to explore by how much the climate would be varying anyway, the assumption is that it would stay constant, which is ridiculous in an interglacial.

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic doesn't mean wild variations without limit, however. Flow in the Mississippi is chaotic as well, but I assure you that doesn't disprove the standard physics model that water flows downhill, rather it is part of that model. And as well, stating that climate is chaotic doesn't imply that the standard physics model of climate is in any serious doubt, but rather is part of the model.

 

[donald]

You've already been given that on page 1 of this thread.

Sorry. That is a representation of a temperature in which 'anthropogenic' forcing are simulated and deducted from the current levels.

I want to see a model showing simulated interglacial temperature changes in the absence of human contributions.

(PS, I added a graph to my last post)

 

[donald]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

 

[klapauzius]

What is in doubt are the consequences of that mechanism being true: Is it dominant, or trivial compared with other changes, and to what degree do natural counter-mechanisms mitigate any such effects? I do not think these matters are properly addresses within the 'theory' of AGW. My understanding is that it declares humans emit CO2 and when they do the temperature goes up. Please excuse me if I have misunderstood that, but that is clearly insufficient a theory to explain the cooling periods of the 20th century.

It is established that concentrations as high as the current human caused output of CO2 caused large increases in global temperature.

So it is not a trivial effect.

Interglacial variation causes random increase in global temperature, emitting large quantities of CO2 causes certain increase in global temperature.

Which is why it is prudent to act. Especially, since the long term costs to our civilization associated with curbing CO2 are irrelevant.

 

[downeykp]

+ 7+\- billion. If the windbag deniers are wrong civilization as we know it is finished. That would be a hell of a legacy to leave our kids. We need to stop our reliance on burning **** for energy. The money spent on renewables will put a lot of people to work and make the Earth a healthier place to live. If in the overwhelmingly, unlikely scenario that the deniers are right, we end up with a cleaner planet by doing something now.
I, many have been following this thread for a long time and would like to thank all for their contributions to it. Klapusius, Andy H, wet EV et all thank you for spending the time to educate those that want to be educated.
Mahalo

What is in doubt are the consequences of that mechanism being true: Is it dominant, or trivial compared with other changes, and to what degree do natural counter-mechanisms mitigate any such effects? I do not think these matters are properly addresses within the 'theory' of AGW. My understanding is that it declares humans emit CO2 and when they do the temperature goes up. Please excuse me if I have misunderstood that, but that is clearly insufficient a theory to explain the cooling periods of the 20th century.

It is established that concentrations as high as the current human caused output of CO2 caused large increases in global temperature.

So it is not a trivial effect.

Interglacial variation causes random increase in global temperature, emitting large quantities of CO2 causes certain increase in global temperature.

Which is why it is prudent to act. Especially, since the long term costs to our civilization associated with curbing CO2 are irrelevant.

 

[donald]

+ 7+\- billion. If the windbag deniers are wrong civilization as we know it is finished. That would be a hell of a legacy to leave our kids. We need to stop our reliance on burning **** for energy. The money spent on renewables will put a lot of people to work and make the Earth a healthier place to live. If in the overwhelmingly, unlikely scenario that the deniers are right, we end up with a cleaner planet by doing something now.
I, many have been following this thread for a long time and would like to thank all for their contributions to it. Klapusius, Andy H, wet EV et all thank you for spending the time to educate those that want to be educated.
Mahalo

Which 'windbag deniers' here have indicated they don't want to take these measures?

Not being satisfied that there is evidence one way or the other does not exclude one from being committed to nuclear and renewables. It's stupid to burn fossil fuels when there are alternatives, and it is irrelevant whether there is climate change from fossil fuel burning or not.

Typically, I find it is engineers that view 'climate science' with less than conviction. I think this is simply that as engineers we like to know that if you pull lever A then X happens, and pull lever B and Y happens. But you only have to look at global temperature and if lever A is being pulled all the time, then why does X happen sometimes and Y happen other times? In the first flush, lever A doesn't seem to have the effect claimed. BUT, likewise, I've never come across an engineer that doesn't want to be rid of fossil fuel burning. It is a mech eng's dreams that first inspire them to build a 1,000 mpg car, or suck energy from tides or telluric currents. So you're dead right, burning old dinosaur blood is really daft, but who else is going to solve that conundrum apart from engineers who, I find, largely have a healthy distrust of 'climate science'.

You don't have to 'believe' in AGW to be part of a move to renewables. Likewise, there is a shed load of lip-service devoted to 'climate issues' by those hypocrites who continue to promote oil industry.

So I suggest you line you target up right - if you want to take a pot-shot then aim for the people that give lip-service to AGW but act to perpetuate the oil industry. Best not take pot-shots at those who have doubts but are the ones who are actually taking the actions to moving to renewables.

(I might mention that the only 'denying' that has gone on in this thread is denying that natural climate mechanisms might be more powerful than CO2 forcing.)

 

[AndyH]

+ 7+\- billion. If the windbag deniers are wrong civilization as we know it is finished. That would be a hell of a legacy to leave our kids. We need to stop our reliance on burning **** for energy. The money spent on renewables will put a lot of people to work and make the Earth a healthier place to live. If in the overwhelmingly, unlikely scenario that the deniers are right, we end up with a cleaner planet by doing something now.
I, many have been following this thread for a long time and would like to thank all for their contributions to it. Klapusius, Andy H, wet EV et all thank you for spending the time to educate those that want to be educated.
Mahalo

Which 'windbag deniers' here have indicated they don't want to take these measures?

All of them - that's a side effect of thinking it's a 'belief' issue and then 'believing' in propaganda from the fossil fuel industry rather than experts in the field.

Not being satisfied that there is evidence one way or the other does not exclude one from being committed to nuclear and renewables. It's stupid to burn fossil fuels when there are alternatives, and it is irrelevant whether there is climate change from fossil fuel burning or not.

Typically, I find it is engineers that view 'climate science' with less than conviction. I think this is simply that as engineers we like to know that if you pull lever A then X happens, and pull lever B and Y happens.

Nope. This just means that some engineers are more comfortable with simple systems and that their egos get in the way of admitting they're not qualified to judge.

But you only have to look at global temperature and if lever A is being pulled all the time, then why does X happen sometimes and Y happen other times? In the first flush, lever A doesn't seem to have the effect claimed. BUT, likewise, I've never come across an engineer that doesn't want to be rid of fossil fuel burning. It is a mech eng's dreams that first inspire them to build a 1,000 mpg car, or suck energy from tides or telluric currents. So you're dead right, burning old dinosaur blood is really daft, but who else is going to solve that conundrum apart from engineers who, I find, largely have a healthy distrust of 'climate science'.

You don't have to 'believe' in AGW to be part of a move to renewables. Likewise, there is a shed load of lip-service devoted to 'climate issues' by those hypocrites who continue to promote oil industry.

So I suggest you line you target up right - if you want to take a pot-shot then aim for the people that give lip-service to AGW but act to perpetuate the oil industry. Best not take pot-shots at those who have doubts but are the ones who are actually taking the actions to moving to renewables.

(I might mention that the only 'denying' that has gone on in this thread is denying that natural climate mechanisms might be more powerful than CO2 forcing.)

The problem with your rant, Amigo, is that you are spouting, almost word for word, multiple lines given to people such as yourself by the fossil-fuel funded denial machine. You might 'believe' that you're just being an 'engineer' and trying to work through the problem, but the words you use, the objections you raise, and the tact you take against 'natural climate change deniers' is straight out of the Heartland Institute playbook.

I don't know you - you might be a nice guy, and you might actually be an engineer of some flavor. But that doesn't mean you know jack about climate. Your first mistake is acting as if you do, and your second is ignoring both evidence and fact from actual working/publishing climate scientists. It's difficult to learn when one leads with a shield of hubris.

Spend some quality time with Merchants of Doubt so you can recognize the climate messaging and the sources.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

You've already been given that on page 1 of this thread.

Sorry. That is a representation of a temperature in which 'anthropogenic' forcing are simulated and deducted from the current levels.

I want to see a model showing simulated interglacial temperature changes in the absence of human contributions.

(PS, I added a graph to my last post)

That chart shows global average temperature without fossil fuel inputs. When you take time to understand the science, you'll learn that when models are fed both sets of inputs that they are both supported by the climate history on this planet. Yet again you stare the answer to your question in the face but refuse to recognize it. I don't care if you 'think' or 'believe' that you are or are not a climate denier because you are accomplishing the same effect. You are pulling lever A and opening the passageway to the Heartland Institute and BP. How's it feel to be a tiny cog in the machine responsible for the planet's sixth major extinction event? :x

edit...typos.

 

[WetEV]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Oh? And you know this.. How?

Source, please.

 

[AndyH]

Add another new study to the pile. Yup, the problem's still CO2...

http://www.sciencecodex.com/study_t...substitutes_for_reducing_co2_emissions-136558

Pierrehumbert himself hopes that his work will help lead policymakers to abandon Kyoto-style multi-gas trading schemes, which treat the gasses equivalently, and put the emphasis on CO2 for the next 50 years or so. "I see puncturing the excessive enthusiasm about short-lived climate pollution control as a step in the right direction," he said, "because it takes away one of the grounds for procrastination on CO2. If you're serious about protecting climate, it's the CO2 you've got to deal with first."

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054843

 

[klapauzius]

Typically, I find it is engineers that view 'climate science' with less than conviction. I think this is simply that as engineers we like to know that if you pull lever A then X happens, and pull lever B and Y happens. But you only have to look at global temperature and if lever A is being pulled all the time, then why does X happen sometimes and Y happen other times? In the first flush, lever A doesn't seem to have the effect claimed. BUT, likewise, I've never come across an engineer that doesn't want to be rid of fossil fuel burning. It is a mech eng's dreams that first inspire them to build a 1,000 mpg car, or suck energy from tides or telluric currents. So you're dead right, burning old dinosaur blood is really daft, but who else is going to solve that conundrum apart from engineers who, I find, largely have a healthy distrust of 'climate science'.

Engineers, unlike scientists, deal with known problems.
And global warming is no ordinary engineering problem.
This is why even today, there is still a degree of uncertainty in all these prediction. But the uncertainties are shrinking and the odds are not really in favor of doing business as usual.

The earth is certainly not a simple machine, where you can pull a lever and something is guaranteed to happen. Because of the many interactions in this complex system, one is presumably always changing many variables at the same time, so in response to each lever pull, a lot of things will happen at the same time.

Having identified CO2 as one relatively independent factor is remarkable enough, possible due to the extreme levels that we have reached now.