Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
What, like the Royal Society, you mean..?
Pardon me, but -------->
Please name me any major science institute anywhere in the world that is protesting the AGW theory and I'll happily look into it. I've tried and failed many times to find one.Pardon me, but -------->
Considering this issue threatens the whole basis of science-based decision making, you'd think there might be more than a few dissenting voices.
KareemK said:
You seem to go big on this signal thing. Can you formulate it into a letter and get it off to a random climate institute where you (and we) might actually get an answer? A simple google throws up (say) The Climate Institute in Washington, US. Try them. God alone knows why you're asking people on here questions they can't possibly have an answer to when there are eminently more suitable people to ask.
If you post up your letter and any reply we can all see how you deal with that response and formulate our opinions accordingly. At least we'll hopefully have somebody answering who can give your marvellous show-stopper of a question a decent stab. Sound like a plan?
I'd be honestly interested to get an answer to this and all we're waiting on is the question being asked. Perhaps they too have no answer?
KareemK - there can't be a CO2 signal in the Historical Temperature records. It's impossible. By using the mid point Tmax and Tmin to get an average for the day it eliminates any CO2 signal from the data (As even Plunks admitted - quantised IR radiation does not increase the surface temperature only reduces its cooling rate). Therefore not only is there no manmade CO2 signal in the temperature record there is no CO2 signal in the record at all. So any society (or union - Union gives it the political overtones these societies deserve) that claims there is a human produced CO2 signal in the temperature record is lying or just stupidly following the bandwagon/funding machine.If you post up your letter and any reply we can all see how you deal with that response and formulate our opinions accordingly. At least we'll hopefully have somebody answering who can give your marvellous show-stopper of a question a decent stab. Sound like a plan?
I'd be honestly interested to get an answer to this and all we're waiting on is the question being asked. Perhaps they too have no answer?
durbster said:
Please name me any major science institute anywhere in the world that is protesting the AGW theory and I'll happily look into it. I've tried and failed many times to find one.
Considering this issue threatens the whole basis of science-based decision making, you'd think there might be more than a few dissenting voices.
The bit I made bold is a bit alarmist, don't you think? The "science" will get there in the end, the "decision making" will eventually follow. It's just with so much invested in this, it's a bit like turning round a supertanker. Considering this issue threatens the whole basis of science-based decision making, you'd think there might be more than a few dissenting voices.
Remember this particular bandwagon has only been rolling (in terms of influencing policy) for about 20 years, a blip in terms of scientific history. 40-45 years ago, the newspapers were carrying articles regarding the dangers of global cooling!
Compare AGW with how long other incorrect scientific "orthodoxies" took to be overturned? Supposed inferiority of people with non-"white" skin, hundreds of years, for example? Did you read the excellent example above about antibiotics and stomach ulcers?
As for your first paragraph, please name me any major church that is protesting the existence of its chosen god...
Jinx said:
KareemK - there can't be a CO2 signal in the Historical Temperature records. It's impossible. By using the mid point Tmax and Tmin to get an average for the day it eliminates any CO2 signal from the data (As even Plunks admitted - quantised IR radiation does not increase the surface temperature only reduces its cooling rate). Therefore not only is there no manmade CO2 signal in the temperature record there is no CO2 signal in the record at all. So any society (or union - Union gives it the political overtones these societies deserve) that claims there is a human produced CO2 signal in the temperature record is lying or just stupidly following the bandwagon/funding machine.
IR absorption and re-emission in the atmosphere means the surface temperature is higher than it would be without said absorption. This is not controversial climate science.Jinx said:
As even Plunks admitted - quantised IR radiation does not increase the surface temperature only reduces its cooling rate
...which leads to a higher temperature profile in the troposphere all the way down to the surface. The theory also requires the stratosphere to cool which has been observed.hairykrishna said:
IR absorption and re-emission in the atmosphere means the surface temperature is higher than it would be without said absorption. This is not controversial climate science.
As I understand it, the whole "back radiation can't warm..." meme is a slightly pedantic semantic argument that "warming" means "making it hotter than it is", whereas what back radiation does is "keep it warmer that it would be without the back radiation" in the presence of an existing energy source.In that sense, it's true that IR back radiation can't "warm" anything. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature if the sun wasn't pumping energy into the system.
At least, I hope that's what it is because, otherwise, those expounding it are simply barking.
More CO2 in the atmosphere does lead to a warmer planet and it doesn't matter whether that's because the CO2 warms it or just stops it cooling as much, any more than it matters whether a blanket on a cold night is actually warming you or just helping you to warm yourself.
Whether or not the effect of that CO2 in an unimaginably complex system is a problem is the real question, and the evidence outside of Model World is increasingly suggesting that it isn't
plunker said:
Jinx said:
As even Plunks admitted - quantised IR radiation does not increase the surface temperature only reduces its cooling rate
...which leads to a higher temperature profile in the troposphere all the way down to the surface. The theory also requires the stratosphere to cool which has been observed.plunker said:
...which leads to a higher temperature profile in the troposphere all the way down to the surface. The theory also requires the stratosphere to cool which has been observed.
No problem with this plunks but HK is claiming the Surface temperature is higher. A cooling object will release radiation at specific energies. If these energies are returned to the object it cannot physically reach a higher temperature than it had before any of this energy was released (without work being done).Tmax and Tmin are two points on the diurnal temperature curve - the energy in the system is the area under the curve - you can increase the area under the curve without any effect on Tmax and Tmin. CO2 effects the energy decay from Tmax to Tmin but to expect to see a signal by using midpoint Tmax and Tmin is hubris.
Variomatic said:
As I understand it, the whole "back radiation can't warm..." meme is a slightly pedantic semantic argument that "warming" means "making it hotter than it is", whereas what back radiation does is "keep it warmer that it would be without the back radiation" in the presence of an existing energy source.
In that sense, it's true that IR back radiation can't "warm" anything. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature if the sun wasn't pumping energy into the system.
At least, I hope that's what it is because, otherwise, those expounding it are simply barking.
More CO2 in the atmosphere does lead to a warmer planet and it doesn't matter whether that's because the CO2 warms it or just stops it cooling as much, any more than it matters whether a blanket on a cold night is actually warming you or just helping you to warm yourself.
Whether or not the effect of that CO2 in an unimaginably complex system is a problem is the real question, and the evidence outside of Model World is increasingly suggesting that it isn't
Yes!In that sense, it's true that IR back radiation can't "warm" anything. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature if the sun wasn't pumping energy into the system.
At least, I hope that's what it is because, otherwise, those expounding it are simply barking.
More CO2 in the atmosphere does lead to a warmer planet and it doesn't matter whether that's because the CO2 warms it or just stops it cooling as much, any more than it matters whether a blanket on a cold night is actually warming you or just helping you to warm yourself.
Whether or not the effect of that CO2 in an unimaginably complex system is a problem is the real question, and the evidence outside of Model World is increasingly suggesting that it isn't
There's been long arguments on here in the past that AGW theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the like and you'll still find heretics who believe it's 'impossible' and looking for a paradigm-shift in the physics - for a while post-climategate they had some time in the sun (in internet land at least) but it seems to be on the wain now.
plunker said:
Yes!
There's been long arguments on here in the past that AGW theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the like and you'll still find heretics who believe it's 'impossible' and looking for a paradigm-shift in the physics - for a while post-climategate they had some time in the sun (in internet land at least) but it seems to be on the wain now.
Gosh. 'Yes' from Plunker to 'Whether or not the effect of that CO2 in an unimaginably complex system is a problem is the real question, and the evidence outside of Model World is increasingly suggesting that it isn't'There's been long arguments on here in the past that AGW theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the like and you'll still find heretics who believe it's 'impossible' and looking for a paradigm-shift in the physics - for a while post-climategate they had some time in the sun (in internet land at least) but it seems to be on the wain now.
At last.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
...which leads to a higher temperature profile in the troposphere all the way down to the surface. The theory also requires the stratosphere to cool which has been observed.
No problem with this plunks but HK is claiming the Surface temperature is higher. Jinx said:
A cooling object will release radiation at specific energies. If these energies are returned to the object it cannot physically reach a higher temperature than it had before any of this energy was released (without work being done).
It can be less cool though due to that back radiation, and when there's an energy source heating the surface the back-radiation can indeed make the surface temperature higher than it would be if that back radiation didn't exist.rovermorris999 said:
plunker said:
Yes!
There's been long arguments on here in the past that AGW theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the like and you'll still find heretics who believe it's 'impossible' and looking for a paradigm-shift in the physics - for a while post-climategate they had some time in the sun (in internet land at least) but it seems to be on the wain now.
Gosh. 'Yes' from Plunker to 'Whether or not the effect of that CO2 in an unimaginably complex system is a problem is the real question, and the evidence outside of Model World is increasingly suggesting that it isn't'There's been long arguments on here in the past that AGW theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the like and you'll still find heretics who believe it's 'impossible' and looking for a paradigm-shift in the physics - for a while post-climategate they had some time in the sun (in internet land at least) but it seems to be on the wain now.
At last.
plunker said:
It can be less cool though due to that back radiation, and when there's an energy source heating the surface the back-radiation can indeed make the surface temperature higher than it would be if that back radiation didn't exist.
The quanta will be released at a specific energy - when returned to the source object they cannot increase the temperature of the object above the temperature at which they were released. Are you suggesting that this returned energy will somehow stop the emission of energy from the source therefore increasing the sources temperature (or how else does the surface temperature increase)?Does a torch use less power if I shine it on a mirror?
Jinx said:
plunker said:
It can be less cool though due to that back radiation, and when there's an energy source heating the surface the back-radiation can indeed make the surface temperature higher than it would be if that back radiation didn't exist.
The quanta will be released at a specific energy - when returned to the source object they cannot increase the temperature of the object above the temperature at which they were released. Are you suggesting that this returned energy will somehow stop the emission of energy from the source therefore increasing the sources temperature (or how else does the surface temperature increase)? "Does a torch use less power if I shine it on a mirror? "
mmm no I think it would use more power as the resistance in the element increases (due to higher temperature) - but I haven't thought about it much!
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
There's currently a low side deviation in the obs vs models which is yet to turn around so I don't see much point in arguing that particular point.
You have a very strange definition of low side deviation, what would high side deviation require r=0.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff