Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Assuming that source actually has any consequences in the first place.

No assumption necessary.
Unless you consider the physics of radiative forcing to be assumptions. If that's the case, well, I guess you'll just have to sit on your hands and watch for a while.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Actually, they do work, within their limitations.
But you're right, models are not evidence. Increasing CO2 levels along with increasing temperatures are. Are you claiming that neither are occurring?

CO2 levels, sure. Temperatures, no. I'm not impressed by fractions of fractions of 'increase'' that are blown out of proportion by the media, compared to a degrees of deviation at least a magnitude higher.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If you are referring to climate models and past predictions of catastrophic rising sea levels

Not so much.
Though worst case scenarios are hardly a basis on which to judge the accuracy of modelling.

Then what are they supposed to be judged on?

a reply to: Teikiatsu
I guess the fact that far more all time high temperature records are being set, on an ongoing basis, than all time low temperature records doesn't mean anything at all?
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Forget models.

Do you accept the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes. Do you accept the fact that its thermal absorption efficiency is logarithmic instead of linear?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Then what are they supposed to be judged on?

Averages. Over time.

Worst case scenario: You get hit by a drunk driver when you pull out of your driveway. Do you base your habits on that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Assuming that source actually has any consequences in the first place.

No assumption necessary.
Unless you consider the physics of radiative forcing to be assumptions. If that's the case, well, I guess you'll just have to sit on your hands and watch for a while.

Fair point, I should have said 'negative consequences'

a reply to: Phage
I'm not sure that making a binary decision here is the right approach. Does having CO2 go up 10 ppm lead to a mean temperature increase of 0.01 degC or 0.0001 degC? It's necessary to be quantitative in climate discussions if you want to get to some agreement.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Forget models.

Do you accept the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes. Do you accept the fact that its thermal absorption efficiency is logarithmic instead of linear?

Uh, yeah. It doesn't stand alone, though.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Forget models.

Do you accept the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes. Do you accept the fact that its thermal absorption efficiency is logarithmic instead of linear?

Could you elaborate on the relevancy of this claim?

a reply to: Phage

No source? Why use predictions which are 25 years old? You know that science does change, right? It does improve.

Source is IPCC from memory page 30 or somewhere close.

If we are to gauge the performance of anything/anyone including IPCC we should examine their past performance and IPCC has been a dismal failure and that's being awfully kind.

You know that the math which demonstrates that rising CO2 levels will produce rising temperatures is solid, right?

Perhaps you should send your math to people like Physicist Frederick Seitz, ex-President of the US National Academy of Sciences and Rockefeller University. Receiver of the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. Also why are there 31,487 American scientists signing this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating there is no evidence that CO2 from human sources has effected recent climate change if you are right.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
I guess the fact that far more all time high temperature records are being set, on an ongoing basis, than all time low temperature records doesn't mean anything at all?
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Not really, no. 30 years doesn't impress me much inthe grand schem, and then they admit "This tool provides simplistic counts of records to provide insight into recent climate behavior, but is not a definitive way to identify trends in the number of records set over time. This is particularly true outside the United States, where the number of records may be strongly influenced by station density from country to country and from year to year. These data are raw and have not been assessed for the effects of changing station instrumentation and time of observation."

Translation: simple data, no context, not the best for trending, stations in other countries are not very reliable, we don't know how much they are affected by preventative maintenance or when the measurement is actually taken.

But sure, let's base a global initiative to depress energy output, innovation and technological advancement on some sketchy numbers

a reply to: StanFL

It's necessary to be quantitative in climate discussions if you want to get to some agreement.

Not really. You will continue to get disagreement as to the quantitative effects due to uncertainties in feedback effects as well as other factors. Does CO2 increase radiative forcing?

Does having CO2 go up 10 ppm lead to a mean temperature increase of 0.01 degC or 0.0001 degC?

That is somewhat of a strawman argument. Similar to what you said earlier about the efficacy and methodology of modelling.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not really, no. 30 years doesn't impress me much inthe grand schem,

30 years is the minimum requirement for a particular station. The records many of those stations goes well beyond that.

But sure, let's base a global initiative to depress energy output, innovation and technological advancement on some sketchy numbers

Where is there an initiative to depress energy output based on these data?

originally posted by: glend
Perhaps you should send your math to people like Physicist Frederick Seitz, ex-President of the US National Academy of Sciences and Rockefeller University. Receiver of the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. Also why are there 31,487 American scientists signing this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating there is no evidence that CO2 from human sources has effected recent climate change if you are right.

Ah, appeal to a (dead) authority. Great job.

So, how about this authority...

In 1984 Seitz was the founding chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, and was its chairman until 2001. The Institute was founded to argue for President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, but "in the 1990s it branched out to become one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk the science of climate change." A 1990 report co-authored with Institute co-founders Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg "centrally informed the Bush administration's position on human-induced climate change". The Institute also promoted environmental skepticism more generally. In 1994, the Institute published a paper by Seitz titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. Seitz questioned the view that CFCs "are the greatest threat to the ozone layer". In the same paper, commenting on the dangers of secondary inhalation of tobacco smoke, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances."

Yeah, no.

Some people sell their reputations. Prostitutes sell low. Scientists? They sell high.

As for that petition? There have been numerous fake names added to that thing. It's garbage.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Forget models.

Do you accept the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes. Do you accept the fact that its thermal absorption efficiency is logarithmic instead of linear?

Could you elaborate on the relevancy of this claim?

The thermal energy retention is not directly related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just because CO2 could double from 325ppm to 650ppm does not mean that the temperature will likewise double, and raising from 325ppm to 400ppm is even less significant.

I also wish they'd point out that we are at a current starvation level of CO2 for plants at 400ppm, and they would be much happier at 1400ppm. I guess if they did that though, they'd have to admit live on Earth developed at much higher CO2 levels, huh?

Not really, no. 30 years doesn't impress me much inthe grand schem,

30 years is the minimum requirement for a particular station. The records many of those stations goes well beyond that.

And in those 30 years there have been no repairs, upgrades or modifications that they admit could have impact on the readings?

originally posted by: Phage

But sure, let's base a global initiative to depress energy output, innovation and technological advancement on some sketchy numbers

Where is there an initiative to depress energy output based on these data?

Switching from energy-rich petroleum to sporadic wind and solar? Not even entertaining nuclear? Does any of that ring a bell?

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Again, CO2 isn't the only thing out there. It causing warming contributes to things like melting methane hydrates, etc.

As for 'starvation level' of plants? I would like to see a reference to that. Do you happen to know when the last time CO2 was over 400ppm... or 1400 ppm for that matter?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The thermal energy retention is not directly related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ah. I see. You're using "energy retention" as a red herring.

The way it works is this; The problem isn't the "heat" that CO2 absorbs, the problem is that it absorbs infrared radiation. For a little while. It then re-emits it.

Think about it like flipping a coin. There is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit infrared radiation into space instead of back to Earth. (above the horizon or below it). Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.

Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get "tails". Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.

Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.

With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance. Increasing GHGs means that more infrared radiation stays in the atmosphere and less leaves. The concept is called radiative forcing, not heat absorption.

Ever notice how on an overcast night it is often warmer than on a clear night? That's because the clouds are reflecting infrared radiation back to the surface. Same principle except that clouds are a bit more directional than CO2 molecules.

I guess if they did that though, they'd have to admit live on Earth developed at much higher CO2 levels, huh?

Yes. And the TSI was significantly less as well, with that toddler of a Sun at the time.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Switching from energy-rich petroleum to sporadic wind and solar? Not even entertaining nuclear? Does any of that ring a bell?

I never heard that nuclear is off the table. Though it is problematic.