Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
happygoron said:
It was posted in the Politics thread where it seemed appropriate in some ways.I note that the modelled estimates match well with the rapid development of digital computer technology. Thus one can speculate that computers are the most likely cause of climate change estimates over the past 50 years.
mondeoman said:
"I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 microns we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole."
So what is going on with ozone? What is the impact on temps? Didn't we kill that with aerosols?
If the person who wrote that is a professional IR astronomer then I'm pope. Wien's displacement law tells you that 13 microns peak does in fact correspond to a black body with a peak with temperature of about -50C. However the emission is a continuous curve - see Planck's law. The earth therefore radiates a large amount of IR in the CO2 absorption band as anyone who knows anything about it could tell you.So what is going on with ozone? What is the impact on temps? Didn't we kill that with aerosols?
Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Contributes a fraction of the amount CO2 does (~1/3 if my memory is correct). We have depleted it although it's recovering now CFC's are banned. It has a complicated relationship to temperature not least because the depletion/recovery is itself temperature dependent.
LongQ said:
It was posted in the Politics thread where it seemed appropriate in some ways.
I note that the modelled estimates match well with the rapid development of digital computer technology. Thus one can speculate that computers are the most likely cause of climate change estimates over the past 50 years.
So many things wrong with that graph - slightly disappointed in Randell Munroe. For a start sticking the modern temperature record onto proxy data with a resolution in hundreds of years is a no-no - you would need to reduce the resolution of the modern era to 100 year points to even come close to a realistic graph. Other issues - claiming the MWP was only the Northern hemisphere whilst not acknowledging the modern warm period is also only the northern hemisphere - again definitely not science.I note that the modelled estimates match well with the rapid development of digital computer technology. Thus one can speculate that computers are the most likely cause of climate change estimates over the past 50 years.
And as an aside - there are no actual bad events against the warm periods!
Jinx said:
LongQ said:
It was posted in the Politics thread where it seemed appropriate in some ways.
I note that the modelled estimates match well with the rapid development of digital computer technology. Thus one can speculate that computers are the most likely cause of climate change estimates over the past 50 years.
So many things wrong with that graph - slightly disappointed in Randell Munroe. For a start sticking the modern temperature record onto proxy data with a resolution in hundreds of years is a no-no - you would need to reduce the resolution of the modern era to 100 year points to even come close to a realistic graph. Other issues - claiming the MWP was only the Northern hemisphere whilst not acknowledging the modern warm period is also only the northern hemisphere - again definitely not science.I note that the modelled estimates match well with the rapid development of digital computer technology. Thus one can speculate that computers are the most likely cause of climate change estimates over the past 50 years.
And as an aside - there are no actual bad events against the warm periods!
hairykrishna said:
mondeoman said:
"I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 microns we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole."
So what is going on with ozone? What is the impact on temps? Didn't we kill that with aerosols?
If the person who wrote that is a professional IR astronomer then I'm pope. Wien's displacement law tells you that 13 microns peak does in fact correspond to a black body with a peak with temperature of about -50C. However the emission is a continuous curve - see Planck's law. The earth therefore radiates a large amount of IR in the CO2 absorption band as anyone who knows anything about it could tell you.So what is going on with ozone? What is the impact on temps? Didn't we kill that with aerosols?
Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Contributes a fraction of the amount CO2 does (~1/3 if my memory is correct). We have depleted it although it's recovering now CFC's are banned. It has a complicated relationship to temperature not least because the depletion/recovery is itself temperature dependent.
It is possible he might have some scientific training but I am wary of unpublished scientists, especialy those who might end their doctorate with 'it's the water vapour stupid'.
Halb said:
This popped up on my youtube feed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&fe...
the sea temp is going up, so that's wht the air temp hasn't gone up?
the ice packs are rapidly dwindling.
Any thoughts?
No fighting, I'm not an advocate, for those that don't know me.
sea temps is a bit vague. the only reasonable data on sea temps (forget argo , some floats reporting ocean temps at depth from the middle of africa, others that reported cooling trends were discarded with no physical explanation and the distribution is sparse ) are surface temps from satellites, even then there appear to be issues as i personally know of discrepancies of up to several degrees . possibly explained by satellites measuring the immediate skin temp ? who knows, but anyone telling you global ocean "heat content" is known to any degree of accuracy is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&fe...
the sea temp is going up, so that's wht the air temp hasn't gone up?
the ice packs are rapidly dwindling.
Any thoughts?
No fighting, I'm not an advocate, for those that don't know me.
Can anyone give me a breakdown on the number of AGW skeptic posts by US people on US blogs compared to the rest of the world?
I think the mass of posts on the AGW debate is actually more of interest, scientifically, to sociologists rather than actually adding to determining a solution to the question.
It's a good job people were not blogging during the first few years of Quantum Mechanics! Imagine that.
Galileo, the Church and Twitter .....
I think the mass of posts on the AGW debate is actually more of interest, scientifically, to sociologists rather than actually adding to determining a solution to the question.
It's a good job people were not blogging during the first few years of Quantum Mechanics! Imagine that.
Galileo, the Church and Twitter .....
Halb said:
If as they claim we have reached the tipping point is there any point in carrying on with the decarbonisation of society? Would it not be advisable to put the money into mitigation of the supposed effects that it might or might not bring ?Halb said:
The graph entirely lacks error bars.Comparing a smoothed heavily estimated (from proxy sources) derived number with something measure in real time for a "blip" of years (in geological terms) is not entirely honourable in terms of science but bang on a career development trajectory for advocates seeking a long term career in ecology based journalism.
It looks like a site with some money behind it. Do we know who funds it?
Halb said:
Ice core CO2 data (where to be fair didn't have much CO2 producing flora and fauna around it during its formative years) with the Mauna Loa volcano CO2 data spliced on the end. Different resolution, different source and different location spliced on the same graph and that is supposed to be science is it!!!!Apparently reservoirs play a significant part in Global Warming.
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
LongQ said:
Apparently reservoirs play a significant part in Global Warming.
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
What about the Sea level rise!!!!!! OMG we're all gonna die..... http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
Well we are arn't we? At some point in the future
It seems there is a Multinational project underway to find out more about Jetstreams with a view to making better weather forecasts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3750...
Cool idea I thought. Always good to have more information and refine one's knowledge.
But the way Mr. Shukman's report reads the project is not about refining knowledge as it is about starting to discover anything of significant note about Jet stream dynamics.
In fact the way the report is written suggests that even the most basic of details is "not well understood". Or, more probably, not known at all.
Is that likely?
If it is I'm left somewhat baffled by such newly identified lack of knowledge. I thought the basic dynamics of the Jet Stream were quite well understood even if what might influence its path was still a bit of a puzzle.
It seems not.
How long has it been technically possible to look into this sort of science to at least some extent? And why has it not been done before - especially before Climate Models and the like were accepted as any degree of "proof" of anything?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3750...
Cool idea I thought. Always good to have more information and refine one's knowledge.
But the way Mr. Shukman's report reads the project is not about refining knowledge as it is about starting to discover anything of significant note about Jet stream dynamics.
In fact the way the report is written suggests that even the most basic of details is "not well understood". Or, more probably, not known at all.
Is that likely?
If it is I'm left somewhat baffled by such newly identified lack of knowledge. I thought the basic dynamics of the Jet Stream were quite well understood even if what might influence its path was still a bit of a puzzle.
It seems not.
How long has it been technically possible to look into this sort of science to at least some extent? And why has it not been done before - especially before Climate Models and the like were accepted as any degree of "proof" of anything?
Even 'The Sun' getting onto the cooling bandwagon: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1904563/planet-earth...
jshell said:
Even 'The Sun' getting onto the cooling bandwagon: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1904563/planet-earth...
Conversely if there are no sunspots and the Earth doesn't cool down then does that add a feather into the cap of AGW???LongQ said:
Apparently reservoirs play a significant part in Global Warming.
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
Because the plus points outweigh environmental impact.http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...
Should we drain them now?
If not, why not?
Caveat: generally, but not always.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff