Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You are a deniers, denier c1ue. You comment on a period 242,000 years ago and I ask if you still believe CO2 forced atmospheric cooling during that period as you contented...sorry, you said the data made you do it and that CO2 forced cooling was the best explanation.

Yep, as usual your so-called reasonable tone was a mere facade over the AGW fanatic inside. I think you should throw in a few "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyahs" to complete your unveiling.

As for the 'best' solution - I'm not the one whose position states "the science is settled".

The "settled science" should be able to answer this glaring contradiction as well as the long list of questions and inconsistencies which have arisen in this thread.

The hypothesis I put forward was merely an observation which contradicts the "settled science" but not the historical record. In a normal scientific endeavor, many hypotheses are put forward and validated or invalidated over time. As has been already noted: the existence of positive or negative feedback due to CO2 is not conclusive (IPCC) or small/negative (Lindzen), yet the models all assume large positive values of feedback. Thus the assumption of a negative feedback due to CO2 is not at all unreasonable given the complete lack of conclusive evidence thus far.

In contrast to the hypothesis put forward - the AGW faithful appear to have an agenda to use theoretical future climate catastrophe to force through equally catastrophic societal and economic changes now.

I cannot be more clear: if AGW (and I mean catastrophic AGW because even mild AGW is different) is based truly upon a best fit of a combination of observations, theory, experiments, and backwards consistency checks then this topic would be much less controversial.

Instead the AGW arguments seem to derive more from achieving the desired agenda of restricting human activity via restriction of the universal constant of CO2 emissions via fossil fuels than an unbiased attempt to explain a natural behavior via scientific investigation:

1) The increasingly tortured arguments: its warming, no its not warming yet but it will warm, there will be a tipping point at 350 ppm, there will be a tipping point at 560 ppm, there will be a ______ (insert 20 or 50 year future excuse)

2) The inability to square both with backwards historical events: past instances of dramatically higher CO2 levels without either tipping or runaway climate, past instances of CO2 rises lagging temperature spikes, transparent attempts to remove well documented global climactic events like the Medieval Warming period - attested to not just by Greenland but high altitude South American civilizations - to better fit AGW theory. As opposed to theory conforming to fact

3) The inconsistency between even what little theory exists and observations: Where is the tropospheric warming if CO2 is indeed doing its many multiple heat amplification magic? Where is the warming that was supposed to accelerate but in fact has decelerated? Why can the climate models not even predict well known major hemispherical phenomenon like El Ninos?

4) The amount of money involved on the AGW side is literally THOUSANDS of times larger than the 'denier' side. Yet the deniers are the ones motivated by "dirty money" and "greed"?

All these point toward something besides a science based rationale.

So please by all means give up the fight. Take your AGW marbles and go home.

Your inflexible and equally uninformed and uninforming stance has not been of benefit to me - I won't speak for anyone else.

[Orforded]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for that article. It gives me a new mindset. Just ignore the crazies. I don't know whether it will help the country, but it will help to keep me sane.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

And as I've pointed out before - you seem to believe AGW is the answer no matter what historical record, ongoing scientific inquiry, or internal (lack of) self consistency brings up with respect to key AGW tenets.

You are a deniers, denier c1ue. You comment on a period 242,000 years ago and I ask if you still believe CO2 forced atmospheric cooling during that period as you contented...sorry, you said the data made you do it and that CO2 forced cooling was the best explanation.

As is your usual style, you yammer on and on with regard to AGW denial when the point you made and my follow-up have nothing to do with AGW unless you now contend that humans had something to do with that period...:rolleyes:

It's really a yes or no question. Or you can have a third option: Just say you have no intention of answering the question but would prefer to rant for 20 additional paragraphs...

And no answer is fine too, I'm done talking about climate on iTulip for the time being. The sum of iTulip user's knowledge and opinion is well captured in this thread. At least the Freds will be happy about that.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

One of my favorite economists and commentators, Howard S. Katz, the self-proclaimed One Handed Economist, has a good post on his blog today regarding the Global Warming Controversy. See PASCAL’S WAGER. Mr. Katz figures that a little global warming would be a blessing, not a curse (he lives in New Hampshire, where the winters are too cold) and he concludes by suggesting that if there is even the slightest chance that the Global Warming Alarmists might prevent a little much desired warming, then "perhaps they should all be rounded up and sent far away to a very bad place so the rest of us good people can be left in peace."

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Jneal3 asked for the relationship between CO2 and the heating of the atmosphere, it is now provided, but as I predicted, we now have overturned Planks Law and several of the foundations of electromagnetic wave theory.

I assume you really mean Planck's law - or more specifically black body radiation. Unless you're referring to tree rings? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

Yes, black body radiation is a great proxy for the sun/gases/earth/climate behavior. Or not.

First of all, normal black body radiation calculation assumes a theoretical perfect absorption as well as an even and regular body. Earth ain't it.

In fact I suggest you refer back to your own side's arguments: what AGW theory is saying is not merely that 2x CO2 equals more heat equals to 1 to 3 degrees C rise in temperature - what AGW is saying is 2x CO2 equals more heat equals 5 to 7 degrees C rise in temperature due to unproven and never observed 'positive feedback' effects.

Please demonstrate for me using black body radiation calculations or electromagnetic wave theory or whatever where X going into an equation yields 2X, 3X, or 5X coming out.

Then please find the missing hot layers of atmosphere where this supposed extra heating is occurring. Or if short term soot cooling is why these aren't visible, then find the similarly missing cool spots near the soot emitting areas.

Runaway never occurred before when CO2 levels were 10 times what they now. Runaway has never occurred period in the historical record.

But for AGW its different this time. I guess human-produced CO2 is qualitatively different than when it was created by nature.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

For the record, in case it is not clear from what I just wrote, I agree with c1ue.

Also for the record, I don't know enough to agree or disagree with c1ue, but he is properly focused on the right question with plenty of data, theory, and logic to back up his position, and deserves better than the responses received so far, few if any of which show that his posts were being read. I have taught in the past, and there's no patience of the teacher in any of the pro-AGW posts (hint: it requires carefully listening to and responding in an empathetic way to the question being asked).

And though I appreciate the response from toast'd, that was a hypothesis only, not the supporting data that would help confirm it.
I've resigned myself to reading the entire IPCC ar4 and letting that lead me where it goes.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question:

That answer might end this thread for you; I suspect that this thread will end when c1ue gets tired of pushing this rock up the hill.

I have ceased to respect AGW advocacy sometime ago. I am a bit puzzled as to why c1ue persists in this Sisyphean task. This thread is (yet another) monument to the obduracy of the collective human mind.

For the record, in case it is not clear from what I just wrote, I agree with c1ue.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Sorry bubba, you've just failed physics 101.

Greenhouses work primarily by preventing convection, not by 'absorbing' more energy. The greenhouse analogy is simply a nice marketing ploy for the simple minded. This thread has already seen discussions on the differences between convection and radiation/black body absorption.

But to refresh for those unable to remember:

In a greenhouse:

The ground which the sun - whatever wavelength you choose to focus on - is the same whether it is in a greenhouse or not. The energy absorbed by the ground - some is reflected but the majority heats the ground. This heat then is transferred to the air right above the ground.

In the normal convection process this resulting hot air rises.

A greenhouse prevents this hot air from escaping hence the greenhouse allows retention of more of the sun's energy.

This is easy to test: open a door in a greenhouse and compare the resultant temperature vs. a sealed greenhouse.

The greenhouse gases operate entirely differently. There is no blockage of convection. Instead the GHGs are supposed to absorb energy directly.

Even a cursory mind experiment shows even this incorrect greenhouse analogy is wrong beyond just the convection vs. radiation issue:

How can CO2 absorb only in one direction? If CO2 is encountered by the sun coming into the atmosphere, why is it different when photons reflect off the ground and then head back out into space?

Similarly, why would energy absorbed by CO2 radiate away only in one direction? It should radiate in all directions.

But even were there some unique feature of the reflected photons, then why aren't there temperature anomalies in the atmosphere layers which supposedly 'block' or 'reabsorb' or whatever ridiculous assertion which physics contorting climate science computer drovers postulate? The 'greenhouse' layer around the earth doesn't seem to do squat - and even this analogy is ridiculous because the atmosphere mixes very rapidly and evenly. The 'greenhouse gas layer' is no more a layer than salt is a layer in sea water.

The AGW greenhouse theory isn't matched by either physics behavior or observed behavior, much less the multiplicative factor which basically has been pulled out of alarmist's needs.

Jneal3 asked for the relationship between CO2 and the heating of the atmosphere, it is now provided, but as I predicted, we now have overturned Planks Law and several of the foundations of electromagnetic wave theory.

Welcome to the denier twilight zone.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Greenhouse Analogy: Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically.
The greenhouse gases have the same property as the glass towards the IR radiation. Think of the greenhouse gases acting as an invisible glass shield around the earth.

Sorry bubba, you've just failed physics 101.

Greenhouses work primarily by preventing convection, not by 'absorbing' more energy. The greenhouse analogy is simply a nice marketing ploy for the simple minded. This thread has already seen discussions on the differences between convection and radiation/black body absorption.

But to refresh for those unable to remember:

In a greenhouse:

The ground which the sun - whatever wavelength you choose to focus on - is the same whether it is in a greenhouse or not. The energy absorbed by the ground - some is reflected but the majority heats the ground. This heat then is transferred to the air right above the ground.

In the normal convection process this resulting hot air rises.

A greenhouse prevents this hot air from escaping hence the greenhouse allows retention of more of the sun's energy.

This is easy to test: open a door in a greenhouse and compare the resultant temperature vs. a sealed greenhouse.

The greenhouse gases operate entirely differently. There is no blockage of convection. Instead the GHGs are supposed to absorb energy directly.

Even a cursory mind experiment shows even this incorrect greenhouse analogy is wrong beyond just the convection vs. radiation issue:

How can CO2 absorb only in one direction? If CO2 is encountered by the sun coming into the atmosphere, why is it different when photons reflect off the ground and then head back out into space?

Similarly, why would energy absorbed by CO2 radiate away only in one direction? It should radiate in all directions.

But even were there some unique feature of the reflected photons, then why aren't there temperature anomalies in the atmosphere layers which supposedly 'block' or 'reabsorb' or whatever ridiculous assertion which physics contorting climate science computer drovers postulate? The 'greenhouse' layer around the earth doesn't seem to do squat - and even this analogy is ridiculous because the atmosphere mixes very rapidly and evenly. The 'greenhouse gas layer' is no more a layer than salt is a layer in sea water.

The AGW greenhouse theory isn't matched by either physics behavior or observed behavior, much less the multiplicative factor which basically has been pulled out of alarmist's needs.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Of course, we could just deny Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theories and maybe some of the other fundamental principles of physics.

No requirement for a "denier" to deny Maxwells Wave theories, just an admission that the current science and theory can not fully explain or account for the process as seen in the real climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/...ate-feedbacks/

In Their Own Words: The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks

November 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.
The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
This is a rather amazing admission. Of course, since these statements are lost in a sea of favorable (but likely superfluous) comparisons between the models and various aspects of today’s climate system, one gets the impression that the 99% of the IPCC’s statements that are supportive of the climate models far outweighs the 1% that might cast doubt.
But the central importance of feedbacks to projections of future climate makes them by far more important to policy debates than all of the ways in which model behavior might resemble the current climate system. So, why has it been so difficult to measure feedbacks in the climate system? This question is not answered in the IPCC reports because, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to dig into the reasons.
Rather unexpectedly, I have been asked to present our research results on this subject at a special session on feedbacks at the Fall AGU meeting in San Francisco in mid-December. In that short 15 minute presentation, I hope to bring some clarity to an issue that has remained muddied for too long.
To review, the feedback measurement we are after can be defined as the amount of global average radiative change caused by a temperature change. The main reason for the difficulty in diagnosing the true feedbacks operating in the climate system is that the above definition of feedback is NOT the same as what we can actually measure from satellites, which is the amount of radiative change accompanied by a temperature change.
The distinction is that in the real world, causation in the opposite direction as feedback also exists in the measurements. Thus, a change in measured radiative flux results from some unknown combination of (1) temperature causing radiative changes (feedback), and (2) unforced natural radiative changes causing a temperature change (internal forcing).
The internal forcing does not merely add contaminating noise to the diagnosis of feedback – it causes a bias in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity). This bias exists primarily because forcing and net feedback (including the direct increase of IR radiation with temperature) always have opposite signs, so a misinterpretation of the sum of the two as feedback alone causes a bias.
For instance, for the global average climate system, a decrease in outgoing radiation causes an increase in global average temperature, whereas an increase in temperature must always do the opposite: cause an increase in outgoing radiation. As a result, the presence of forcing mutes the signature of net feedback. Similarly, the presence of feedback mutes the signature of forcing.
The effect of this partial cancellation is to result in diagnosed net feedbacks being smaller than what is actually occurring in nature, unless any forcing present is first removed from the data before estimating feedbacks. Unfortunately, we do not know which portion of radiative variability is forcing versus feedback, and so researchers have simply ignored the issue (if they were even aware of it) and assumed that what they have been measuring is feedback alone. As a result, the climate system creates the illusion of being more sensitive than it really is.
One implication of this is that it is not a sufficient test of the feedbacks in climate models to simply compare temperature changes to radiation changes. This is because the same relationship between temperature and radiation can be caused by either strong forcing accompanied by a large feedback parameter (which would be low climate sensitivity), or by weak forcing accompanied by a small feedback parameter (which would be high climate sensitivity).
Only in the case of radiative forcing being either zero or constant in time – situations that never happen in the real world – can feedback be accurately estimated with current methods.
Our continuing analysis of satellite and climate model data has yet to yield a good solution to this problem. Unforced cloud changes in the climate system not only give the illusion of positive feedback, they might also offer a potential explanation for past warming (and cooling). [I believe these to be mostly chaotic in origin, but it also opens the door to more obscure (and controversial) mechanisms such as the modulation of cloud cover by cosmic ray activity.]
But without accurate long-term measurements of global cloud cover changes, we might never know to what extent global warming is simply a manifestation of natural climate variability, or whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. And without direct evidence, the IPCC can conveniently point to carbon dioxide change as the culprit. But this explanation seems rather anthropocentric to me, since it is easier for humans to keep track of global carbon dioxide changes than cloud changes.
Also, the IPCC can conveniently (and truthfully) claim that the behavior of their models is broadly “consistent with” the observed behavior of the real climate system. Unfortunately, this is then misinterpreted by the public, politicians, and policymakers as a claim that the amount of warming those models produce (a direct result of feedback) has been tested, which is not true.
As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question:

What data supports the hypothesis that CO2 causes (not correlates to) increasing global temperatures.

This question is an opportunity, not a threat; if a response to the above question comes along it will sway a lot of fence-riders. I've read the posts, and not one has directly addressed this question.

I for one believe that there is an answer to this specific question out there (scientists really are about the science, I'm pretty confident there's a strong rationale behind the consensus) that none of the pro-AGW posters on this thread are capable of putting forth. I'm trying to get there, but it requires more than sitting in an echo-chamber.

Click for larger image	Greenhouse Gases Absorb Infrared Radiation Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example, infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left. Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the slinky.
	Greenhouse Analogy: Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically. The greenhouse gases have the same property as the glass towards the IR radiation. Think of the greenhouse gases acting as an invisible glass shield around the earth.
Click for larger image	Greenhouse Gas Molecules: The greenhouse gas molecules are shown in the next series of figures along with the IR spectra and the bending and vibrations caused by absorbing the IR radiation. The arrows on the molecules indicate the direction of the bends and vibrations of the bonds. The IR spectra indicates the specific energies at certain wavelengths which are absorbed. Radiation that is 100% transmittance is not blocked but travels straight through the sample. The dips in the lines are caused by the absorption of energy, hence only 10% of the energy is transmitted. The graphic on the left is carbon dioxide. Figure 1: Water Figure 2: Methane Figure 3: Nitrous Oxide Figure 4: All Greenhouse Gases Overall Question: In your own words, explain how greenhouse gases cause global warming.

Of course, we could just deny Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theories and maybe some of the other fundamental principles of physics.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.

This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question:

What data supports the hypothesis that CO2 causes (not correlates to) increasing global temperatures.

This question is an opportunity, not a threat; if a response to the above question comes along it will sway a lot of fence-riders. I've read the posts, and not one has directly addressed this question.

I for one believe that there is an answer to this specific question out there (scientists really are about the science, I'm pretty confident there's a strong rationale behind the consensus) that none of the pro-AGW posters on this thread are capable of putting forth. I'm trying to get there, but it requires more than sitting in an echo-chamber.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your own excerpt shows the 3rd lower Arctic sea ice AND the third HIGHEST Antarctic ice. Seems inconsistent with global temperature rises.

:p

Please see my comment above about, not everywhere on the earth having the same climate changes at the same time.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Arctic sea ice covered an average 2.1 million square miles in September - the third lowest for any September since records began in 1979. The coverage was 23.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and the 13th consecutive September with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent on record, behind 2006 and 2007.

Your own excerpt shows the 3rd lower Arctic sea ice AND the third HIGHEST Antarctic ice. Seems inconsistent with global temperature rises.

:p

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

NOAA: Global Surface Temperature Was Second Warmest for September

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.
NCDC scientists also reported that the average land surface temperature for September was the second warmest on record, behind 2005. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was tied for the fifth warmest on record for September.
Global Temperature Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.12 degrees F above the 20th century average of 59.0 degrees F. Separately the global land surface temperature was 1.75 degrees F above the 20th century average of 53.6 degrees F.
• Warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed most of the world’s land areas during the month. The greatest warmth occurred across Canada and the northern and western contiguous United States. Warmer-than-normal conditions also prevailed across Europe, most of Asia and Australia.
• The worldwide ocean temperature tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest September on record, 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 61.1 degrees F. The near-Antarctic southern ocean and the Gulf of Alaska featured notable cooler-than-average temperatures.

Other Highlights

• Arctic sea ice covered an average 2.1 million square miles in September - the third lowest for any September since records began in 1979. The coverage was 23.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and the 13th consecutive September with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
• Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent on record, behind 2006 and 2007.
• Typhoon Ketsana became 2009’s second-deadliest tropical cyclone so far, claiming nearly 500 lives across the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The storm struck the Philippines on September 26, leaving 80 percent of Manila submerged.

As the tea leaf reading, 911 conspiracy reasoning, pseudoscience of the denialists continues to expand the universe of unreason, REAL science marches on.

But wait! Ah Ha! Thermometers don't really measure temperature, they actually measure something completely different, and what about that uncalibrated thermometer in southern France, it means all the rest of the measurements are wrong, and here's a chart of Neanderthal thermometers from 40,000 years ago that show the earth is actually cooling, and you can't tell me it was warm when my state had one of the coldest Septembers in years, after all, the rest of the world surely has the same weather as I have, and everyone knows that all those NOAA scientists are involved in one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the universe...