Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

Phage
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

That was my point

But you must have missed mine. The purpose of the "tweaking" is to get the models to match observations. Current models are doing a better job of it than older models. It's all right there in the report.

But the reason I made that comment was because a long way back in another thread I was told most of us would be gone by now due to being swallowed up by rising sea levels.

I don't know who told you that but it wasn't the IPCC.

edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

If the government was honest, the purpose of tweaking is to get the models to match observations.

Since the government is not honest, and is predominately invested in generating revenue, it's more likely that they are tweaking the models to support their would be policy.

You also said

Weather is not climate. The climate is changing, whether or not you are aware of it.

But this is not true. Weather IS climate.

cli·mate
ˈklīmit/
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

1.
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

And since Climate is the observation of weather conditions in an area in general/over a long period -- we would notice. The weather wouldn't be the same today, as it was last year, and the year before, and so on.

It's consistently not changing, a point you seem to not want to believe. A point that is observable by everyone.

That's a good question. You're right, the lapse rate does appear to reverse, actually before the stratopshere, at the haze layer, and I'm not sure why exactly. Perhaps someone could elucidate on that? My calculation of the lapse rate is an approximation in any case. I have taken the lapse rate of 6.5/km at 5km and multipled it by 50 since the atmospheric pressure and temperature on Venus was similar to Earth's at 50km. Since atmospheric heat rises with pressure, albeit perhaps not linearly, the mounting pressure should increase temperatures nevertheless. This is why temperatures start increasing as you get closer to the bottom of the ocean and why the top of mountains are so ball-shrivelingly cold. The lapse rate is not something I've researched much on, I must say. Whatever the case, Venus is certainly not hot from CO2 as the IPCC's equations clearly show. Another thing worth pointing out is that the warming effect from CO2 on Mars is essentially zero. I forgot the temperature of Mars was revised. It's average temperature is 210K and its effective temperature from solar-radiation is 210K (Source: NASA Fact Sheet Mars). So despite having a CO2 level of 96.5% there is apparently no sign of any greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars.

reply to post by Laykilla

If the government was honest, the purpose of tweaking is to get the models to match observations

Except it isn't the government who is working on the models.

Since the government is not honest, and is predominately invested in generating revenue, it's more likely that they are tweaking the models to support their would be policy.

Then why are the models getting better at matching the observations?

But this is not true. Weather IS climate.

No. Climate is the accumulated and averaged result of weather. Average temperatures, average rainfall. That is what climate is. Weather is a cold snap. Weather is a rain storm.

It's consistently not changing, a point you seem to not want to believe. A point that is observable by everyone.

Everyone? That's quite a claim. You sure about that? How about that hottest summer on record in the US last year? And it does seem that there have been consistently more record high temperatures than cold temperatures being set in the past few decades, doesn't it?
en.wikipedia.org...

Just to make clear, the effective temperature is the average temperature of Mars from solar-heating alone. Mars' average surface temperature is 210K and its effective temperature is 210.1K. Unlike Earth which has an average surface temperature of 288K and an effective temperature of 255K. So, the temperature of Mars can be explained entirely by solar radiation and the 96.5% of CO2 has effectively 0% impact.

I think all the scientist are full of crap. Life has been on earth for millions of years and it will likely be here millions more. We take a century of info about global temps and guess what it means.
That's like pulling three seconds of info from a human life and thinking you can predict every thing about the whole lifespan.
Maybe we will have another toba eruption and then you can all argue what cause the new ice age.

reply to post by ParasuvO

Secondly why is it not warmer at all anywhere on earth.

Have you taken a look at Australia I just read September has been the hottest on record.

reply to post by Nathan-D

Just to make clear, the effective temperature is the average temperature of Mars from solar-heating alone.

As is the average temperature of Venus (enhanced by positive forcing). As is the average temperature of Earth (enhanced by positive forcing). Solar radiation is the source of heat for all three planets. Forcing does not add heat, it retains it. Your theory about atmospheric pressure being responsible does not explain the positive lapse rate of the stratosphere and your extrapolation of the lapse rate is of questionable validity.

So, the temperature of Mars can be explained entirely by solar radiation and the 96.5% of CO2 has effectively 0% impact.

Nearly 0%. Yes. Because the density of the Martian atmosphere is so low. Even though there is a high relative concentration of CO2, there is still not very much of it. If the atmosphere were denser (with the same concentration) there would be more molecules of CO2 to scatter infrared back to the surface. Forcing would increase. Increased forcing would result in higher temperatures.

Mars is a cold place and its infrared spectrum shows that because there is little atmosphere and thus little absorption. A great deal of the radiated infrared is lost to space.

Venus is a hot place because but its infrared spectrum makes it look like a cold place because there is a great deal of absorption. A great deal of the radiated infrared is trapped within it's atmosphere.

Thanks Phage. But I don't see how Mars having a less dense atmospheric CO2 mass than Venus would result in 0% warming. The CO2 density on Mars at 167.6kg/m2 is significantly greater than on Earth, 28 times higher, and the current atmospheric CO2 on Earth is sufficient by itself (according to the IPCC's equations) to increase the surface temperature by 8C, or 32W/sq.m above its effective temperature. So, the idea that the CO2 on Mars would have near 0% effect would be impossible if CO2 had the heat-catching potency as claimed by the IPCC. I don't know what the first half of your paragraph in your post is meant to be addressing, but as far as the lapse rate calculation being questionable goes, well, as far an approximation, which is what it was, it seems alright to me. But that wasn't the main driving point of my post. The point was that the back-radiation from CO2 on Venus is only enough to increase the surface temperature by 38C. That was the intention of my post.

reply to post by Nathan-D

But I don't see how Mars having a less dense atmospheric CO2 mass than Venus would result in 0% warming.

Then it would seem you don't have a firm grasp of the concept of radiative forcing.

The CO2 density on Mars at 167.6kg/m2 is significantly greater than on Earth

I assume, since you are talking about density, you mean m3. I'm confused. Can you explain how the density of CO2 on Mars can be more than 8,000 times the total atmospheric density (0.02kg/m3)? www.marsinstitute.info...
Can you explain how the CO2 density on Mars can more that 100 times the total atmospheric density of Earth?

Based on the actual number, the relative density of CO2 on Mars by volume is about 0.019kg/m3 as compared to 0.036 for Earth. Twice as high on Earth over Mars.

The point was that the back-radiation from CO2 on Venus is only enough to increase the surface temperature by 38C. That was the intention of my post. To demonstrate that point.

You don't seem to have done so. You provided no indication that the high density of the atmosphere was considered in the forcing calculations, you provided no evidence of any other source of heat, and you failed to explain the low infrared flux levels. All of which are essential to your argument.

Regardless of credentials I cannot take this serious. For something like this where so many scientists already agree about global warming and they have no vested interest to push this idea, other than helping the future of mankind why write it off.

If you look at the opposite side and the thousands of companies worth trillions of dollars (probably serious underestimate) who all stand to lose a lot of money by having their practices proven to be part of the problem. Those are the people who have a vested interest in pushing the idea the other way, even good scientists can be convinced to interpret data in a way more beneficial for them for enough money. They probably even are able to convince themselves of whatever they are pushing to feel less guilty about twisting the data.

For something like this I say follow the money and who stands to gain or lose and who would want to push information one way or another. No one gets any direct benefit saying global warming is real yet the majority of scientists agree on that. Look at all of the major companies who stand to gain by pushing the idea the opposite direction and saying it is not real.

I'm typing this through my Xbox (controller) so I can't quote you as I should. I got that figure from someone on James Delingpole's site funnily enough who referenced a paper, which cites Mars as having 176.6kg/m2 and Earth as having 28 times less. It's a paper called 'A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon' by Martin Hertzberg. Anyway, using simpler units that are readily available, Mars has an atmospheric density of 25 teratonnes and Earth has density of 5148 teratonnes (I can't link it. Google it. The Wikipedia page provides references). Mars has a CO2 concentration of 96.5% thereby making the atmosphere 24 teratonnes, and Earth has a concentration of 0.04% thereby making its atmosphere 2 teratonnes. So that would give Mars about 12 times more CO2. A little less than that suggested by the paper. But as far as I can make out, Mars has more CO2 than Earth. Do you disagree with the above calculations? I hope this goes some way to untangling our wires.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Its funny to me how 98 percent of climatologists state global warming is FACT, but this one guy is the one who is right according to right wingers, because he agrees with the big oil/polluter position.

reply to post by Nathan-D

Mars has an atmospheric density of 25 teratonnes and Earth has density of 5148 teratonnes

Those figures are not densities, they are masses and they are accurate.

While it isn't strictly accurate to use volumetric percentages directly with masses, we find that Mars does have about 10-12 times as much CO2 (by mass) as Earth. (Which is also what my previous post should have shown, I made a really careless error).

So I do have to backpeddle a bit but in comparing Mars and Earth it must be considered that Earth does have a lot of water vapor as well as lesser amounts of other GHGs while Mars does not. Would Earth be as cold as Mars if it had no other GHGs in its atmosphere, even though it receives more than twice as much sunlight?

Using mass figures as I did is probably oversimplifying things too. I just realised that the size of planets also determines the density as well. Mars' density at the surface is 0.020kg/m3 and Earth's density is 1.217kg/m3 (NASA Fact Sheet Earth/Mars). That would make the CO2 in Mars' atmosphere at the surface a lot more dense (x40). As for why the CO2 on Mars isn't increasing its temperature above its effective temperature, which I agree it should. Perhaps the problem lies with the equation used to calculate its effective temperature. It's a blackbody equation and assumes that the Moon absorbs all light. The Moon's surface is not really a blackbody I suppose, so the Stefan-Boltzmann equation has to have an absorptivity/emissivity factor multiplied on the temperature side of the equation. This would lower the effective temperature of the Moon, giving us a large enough temperature difference that could be accounted for by CO2. And you're right, I need to take into account Venus' density on my blog.

Phage
reply to post by Laykilla

 

"If the government was honest, the purpose of tweaking is to get the models to match observations"

- Except it isn't the government who is working on the models.

"Since the government is not honest, and is predominately invested in generating revenue, it's more likely that they are tweaking the models to support their would be policy."

- Then why are the models getting better at matching the observations?

But this is not true. Weather IS climate.

No. Climate is the accumulated and averaged result of weather. Average temperatures, average rainfall. That is what climate is. Weather is a cold snap. Weather is a rain storm.

It's consistently not changing, a point you seem to not want to believe. A point that is observable by everyone.

Everyone? That's quite a claim. You sure about that? How about that hottest summer on record in the US last year? And it does seem that there have been consistently more record high temperatures than cold temperatures being set in the past few decades, doesn't it?
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 10/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Exactly my thoughts. Everyone crying 'Conspiracy' is missing the trees for the forest (yes, I said that right)

All the people that are claiming TPTB are using 'climate change' to institute laws, taxes, etc... are RIGHT, but that doesn't automatically make the science untrue.

We ARE warming. Glaciers ARE retreating. Ice IS melting.

It IS happening on it's own, BUT being accelerated by human intervention since the industrial revolution.

The fact that we are trying to be manipulated and controlled by this information does NOT make it any less true.

This is ONE guy negating the UN report - I seem to remember a graphic somewhere showing 99.9% of all peer-reviewed climatology research confiriming that human caused climate change is fact. Period. When was that information refuted?!

WHY IS QUOTATION WITHIN QUOTATION NOT WORKING?

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

This is ONE guy negating the UN report - I seem to remember a graphic somewhere showing 99.9% of all peer-reviewed climatology research confiriming that human caused climate change is fact. Period. When was that information refuted?!

First you tell us very vaguely that you 'seem' to 'remember' a graphic 'somewhere' showing 99.9%...
Next you try to turn this vague statement into undeniable fact with the word 'period'
Then you ask when this was refuted?

Come on. That is so logically wishy washy as to be quite funny.

How about some real facts with a link. The stuff you are trying just does not pass any sensible test for credibility. It is just an insult to our combined intelligence.

I don't think our politicians would be stupid enough to fall for that type of argument, well, then again ROFL

P

reply to post by pheonix358

First you tell us very vaguely that you 'seem' to 'remember' a graphic 'somewhere' showing 99.9%...
Next you try to turn this vague statement into undeniable fact with the word 'period'
Then you ask when this was refuted?

Come on. That is so logically wishy washy as to be quite funny.

How about some real facts with a link. The stuff you are trying just does not pass any sensible test for credibility. It is just an insult to our combined intelligence.

Yeah, that was sarcasm - it was everywhere. So... you're saying that you've never seen this graphic before...?:



(it's appeared many times on ATS, and elsewhere on the interwebs - a simple Google search would've taken less time than your smart-ass reply did)

Or, seen this source article that accompanies the pie chart (?): desmogblog.com...

An excerpt for you:

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.

Now... what were you saying again?!

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


The peer-review system isn't infallible.

Could it be that only those papers that support the official line (ie AGW) are favorably reviewed?

Could it be that climatologists can only get funding for research if they toe the line?

Just asking.

CJCrawley
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

The peer-review system isn't infallible.

Sure - I'll accept that. But, what's the margin of error, here?! Certainly not more than a few % pts. So, where does that leave us... 95% minimum? Argument still holds, mathematically.

Could it be that only those papers that support the official line (ie AGW) are favorably reviewed?

He used a pretty unbiased methodology (which he included in the link)

Could it be that climatologists can only get funding for research if they toe the line?

Maybe. I suppose anything's possible... but, to THAT degree? Unlikely.

Just asking.

Fair enough.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


You keep posting the 'chart', but you still don't seem to have any idea what it actually means. It only tells you that someone did a keyword search for 'global warming', 'climate change' etc and found 13k odd peer-reviewed scientific papers that match the search, nothing more.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming.

The person who created it wants you to believe that this is what the chart shows, but it doesn't.