Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
So you're waiting for physics to change?
The emission spectrum of the earth, a bar heater and an IR LED are very different. 'IR' is a broad spectrum. If the atmosphere was opaque to everything from 700nm to 1mm wavelengths then we'd have bigger problems than AGW.
You obviously missed the "ink in water" demo's claiming that CO2 is the same re opacity.... The emission spectrum of the earth, a bar heater and an IR LED are very different. 'IR' is a broad spectrum. If the atmosphere was opaque to everything from 700nm to 1mm wavelengths then we'd have bigger problems than AGW.
The Earth may emit a broad spectrum but CO2 doesn't even cover the whole IR bit - so plenty of space in the spectrum for the earth to shed energy.
A bar heater predominately emits IR that warms the objects of the room (certainly no real convection from the device) - the room contains as much CO2 (probably a lot more) than the atmosphere which is supposedly "overheating" due to CO2!
So no I'm not waiting for physics to change. CO2 led CAGW requires physics to change (and history and geology and chemistry and reality).
So HK do you believe CO2 can cause CAGW when even if we immediately burn our entire reserves of fossil fuels tomorrow we are unlikely to get above 620 ppm?
Jinx said:
You obviously missed the "ink in water" demo's claiming that CO2 is the same re opacity....
The Earth may emit a broad spectrum but CO2 doesn't even cover the whole IR bit - so plenty of space in the spectrum for the earth to shed energy.
A bar heater predominately emits IR that warms the objects of the room (certainly no real convection from the device) - the room contains as much CO2 (probably a lot more) than the atmosphere which is supposedly "overheating" due to CO2!
So no I'm not waiting for physics to change. CO2 led CAGW requires physics to change (and history and geology and chemistry and reality).
So HK do you believe CO2 can cause CAGW when even if we immediately burn our entire reserves of fossil fuels tomorrow we are unlikely to get above 620 ppm?
What does ink in water have to do with anything? It might be a simplified explanation used sometimes but simplifications often turn out to be flawed. Yes radiative heaters heat objects more than the air. What does the the conditions in a room, with something emitting a significantly different IR spectrum than the earth, tell you about IR transport in the bulk atmosphere? The Earth may emit a broad spectrum but CO2 doesn't even cover the whole IR bit - so plenty of space in the spectrum for the earth to shed energy.
A bar heater predominately emits IR that warms the objects of the room (certainly no real convection from the device) - the room contains as much CO2 (probably a lot more) than the atmosphere which is supposedly "overheating" due to CO2!
So no I'm not waiting for physics to change. CO2 led CAGW requires physics to change (and history and geology and chemistry and reality).
So HK do you believe CO2 can cause CAGW when even if we immediately burn our entire reserves of fossil fuels tomorrow we are unlikely to get above 620 ppm?
I don't know what the effects of burning our entire fossil fuel reserve tomorrow would be. I'll go for 'probably not good'.
TheExcession said:
I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.
As Jinx is demonstrating he holds a view on the relevant physics that is completely wrong. As in, not even slightly controversially wrong. The mechanisms of transport of IR in the atmosphere are known. There is good quality experimental data going back 70 or so years. Complex devices that simply wouldn't work if the theories were wrong are in routine use.There are posters that disagree with the most basic concepts. The idea that all of the 'sceptics' on here could be persuaded is nonsense.
hairykrishna said:
TheExcession said:
I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.
As Jinx is demonstrating he holds a view on the relevant physics that is completely wrong. As in, not even slightly controversially wrong. The mechanisms of transport of IR in the atmosphere are known. There is good quality experimental data going back 70 or so years. Complex devices that simply wouldn't work if the theories were wrong are in routine use.There are posters that disagree with the most basic concepts. The idea that all of the 'sceptics' on here could be persuaded is nonsense.
PRTVR said:
It's not nonsense, I was originally a believer but the whole AGW makes no sense, I do not question the science, the little of it that there is, I question its effects, a small addition to a trace gas in a H2O rich environment is irrelevant, totally swamped by the big players in the atmosphere, now if someone could explain how it works I would reconsider, but from many years of reading I have found nothing to change my mind, the best I can come up with is a precautionary position, we don't know so let's not take a chance, this really is not good enough.
+1 very similar to my views. hairykrishna said:
As Jinx is demonstrating he holds a view on the relevant physics that is completely wrong. As in, not even slightly controversially wrong. The mechanisms of transport of IR in the atmosphere are known. There is good quality experimental data going back 70 or so years. Complex devices that simply wouldn't work if the theories were wrong are in routine use.
There are posters that disagree with the most basic concepts. The idea that all of the 'sceptics' on here could be persuaded is nonsense.
No I hold the view that merely blocking 15 micron IR via increased atmospheric CO2 would have no measurable effect on the atmosphere of a planet of mainly liquid water. As yet I have seen no evidence that it does or that the entire calculations are based on a static earth with constant energy input and therefore are gross approximations that have no basis in reality. FFS HK this is a water fecking planet so by parameterising out water they in-fact parameterise out the earth!There are posters that disagree with the most basic concepts. The idea that all of the 'sceptics' on here could be persuaded is nonsense.
PRTVR said:
It's not nonsense, I was originally a believer but the whole AGW makes no sense, I do not question the science, the little of it that there is, I question its effects, a small addition to a trace gas in a H2O rich environment is irrelevant, totally swamped by the big players in the atmosphere, now if someone could explain how it works I would reconsider, but from many years of reading I have found nothing to change my mind, the best I can come up with is a precautionary position, we don't know so let's not take a chance, this really is not good enough.
The thing is that you say you don't question the science but then go on to make a statement that flat out contradicts well established science. CO2 is not irrelevant. The rise makes a significant difference to the IR characteristics of the atmosphere. If you think this is not the case then you are saying either we don't have accurate data for the IR absorption lines, the radiative transfer equations used for IR are incorrect or they're being solved incorrectly. Which is it?You may of course argue that changing the IR characteristics won't/hasn't changed the temperature. This is a different argument. Predicting how the temperature changes in response to different forcings requires a model. The best we have available tell us there'll be a temperature rise. Reassuringly simple models that you can check without a massive supercomputer, dating back to the 70's, tell us roughly the same thing.
That's the basis for expecting a rise. What's the basis for expecting no difference?
Jinx said:
No I hold the view that merely blocking 15 micron IR via increased atmospheric CO2 would have no measurable effect on the atmosphere of a planet of mainly liquid water. As yet I have seen no evidence that it does or that the entire calculations are based on a static earth with constant energy input and therefore are gross approximations that have no basis in reality. FFS HK this is a water fecking planet so by parameterising out water they in-fact parameterise out the earth!
I looked at something today which suggested that warming due to CO2 is small, however that then allows the atmosphere to hold more water which is the main contributor in the 5 to 8 micron range which becomes significant for radiating surface temperatures above 310K. I haven't had time to look into this in any depth yet so I am not saying this is the case, just something worth examining.This wikipedia page is interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window and suggests CO2 may not be what we should be worrying about or not all that we should at least. It does cite a number of papers, unfortunately only one is available to read online.
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
qualified and educated in the relevant fields,
Dammit I only did Chemistry, Physics and Maths at A-level and only Mathematics at degree level and have only worked in data for the last 16 years.... Obviously glorified geography (aka climate science) is well beyond my ken.
This means you know more than NASA about how the atmosphere works?
hairykrishna said:
PRTVR said:
It's not nonsense, I was originally a believer but the whole AGW makes no sense, I do not question the science, the little of it that there is, I question its effects, a small addition to a trace gas in a H2O rich environment is irrelevant, totally swamped by the big players in the atmosphere, now if someone could explain how it works I would reconsider, but from many years of reading I have found nothing to change my mind, the best I can come up with is a precautionary position, we don't know so let's not take a chance, this really is not good enough.
The thing is that you say you don't question the science but then go on to make a statement that flat out contradicts well established science. CO2 is not irrelevant. The rise makes a significant difference to the IR characteristics of the atmosphere. If you think this is not the case then you are saying either we don't have accurate data for the IR absorption lines, the radiative transfer equations used for IR are incorrect or they're being solved incorrectly. Which is it?You may of course argue that changing the IR characteristics won't/hasn't changed the temperature. This is a different argument. Predicting how the temperature changes in response to different forcings requires a model. The best we have available tell us there'll be a temperature rise. Reassuringly simple models that you can check without a massive supercomputer, dating back to the 70's, tell us roughly the same thing.
That's the basis for expecting a rise. What's the basis for expecting no difference?
That's two posts in a row claiming that because the climate is a chaotic system it's impossible to model. Is this a new 'sceptic' meme? Of course it's possible to model a chaotic system. Using that model and a large number of initial states you can produce a probability distribution of it's possible future states. It's not like it's some unexpected result that the GCM's show warming with increasing CO2. We know the radiative forcing changes for a change in CO2. Why would you expect no change?
hairykrishna said:
That's two posts in a row claiming that because the climate is a chaotic system it's impossible to model. Is this a new 'sceptic' meme? Of course it's possible to model a chaotic system. Using that model and a large number of initial states you can produce a probability distribution of it's possible future states. It's not like it's some unexpected result that the GCM's show warming with increasing CO2. We know the radiative forcing changes for a change in CO2. Why would you expect no change?
The problem is can we measure the change ? Given the number of variables in the atmosphere and beyond you might as well throw dice, do we understand what is happening in the atmosphere ? If so long term weather forecasting will be a doddle,if you are paid to look for a change there is a good chance you will find it, human nature being what it is, are the models opened up to scrutiny ? Last I heard was that the code was too important to release.Lubos motl's take on Scott Adams recent model post.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/selection-of-c...
Excerpt
"The scientific method addresses it because it does something that these "climate modelers" don't: It is actually formulating well-defined hypotheses or theories or laws and it is testing their predictions separately from other hypotheses. The formulation and verification of particular statements is really a key part of the scientific method – look at the first chart on the Wikipedia page."
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/selection-of-c...
Excerpt
"The scientific method addresses it because it does something that these "climate modelers" don't: It is actually formulating well-defined hypotheses or theories or laws and it is testing their predictions separately from other hypotheses. The formulation and verification of particular statements is really a key part of the scientific method – look at the first chart on the Wikipedia page."
Edited by XM5ER on Friday 10th March 21:17
Edited by XM5ER on Friday 10th March 21:17
hairykrishna said:
That's two posts in a row claiming that because the climate is a chaotic system it's impossible to model. Is this a new 'sceptic' meme? Of course it's possible to model a chaotic system. Using that model and a large number of initial states you can produce a probability distribution of it's possible future states. It's not like it's some unexpected result that the GCM's show warming with increasing CO2. We know the radiative forcing changes for a change in CO2. Why would you expect no change?
We can't even model the vehicle dynamics of a simple car.Atmospheric models are junk, built by arrogant scientists. Arrogant because they put too much faith in the results.
Also, build 100 models, 99 will be wrong, 1 will be right.
Kawasicki said:
hairykrishna said:
That's two posts in a row claiming that because the climate is a chaotic system it's impossible to model. Is this a new 'sceptic' meme? Of course it's possible to model a chaotic system. Using that model and a large number of initial states you can produce a probability distribution of it's possible future states. It's not like it's some unexpected result that the GCM's show warming with increasing CO2. We know the radiative forcing changes for a change in CO2. Why would you expect no change?
We can't even model the vehicle dynamics of a simple car.Atmospheric models are junk, built by arrogant scientists. Arrogant because they put too much faith in the results.
Also, build 100 models, 99 will be wrong, 1 will be right.
hairykrishna said:
Is this a new 'sceptic' meme?
Crumbs Hairy, are you still flogging this dead horse? Your AGW theory is junk-science and guesswork. The proof is basic maths.You have a grey body equation, like the Stefan-Boltzmann one. IPCC's AR4 was all about CO2 etc stopping radiation leaving the earth so the theory states that it will get hotter. About 0.58 C if you do the maths, which arguably we've already had, so AR4 is effectively predicting 'no further rise'.
Are you with me so far?
Apart from the obvious return to equilibrium dictated by the rise that AGW people say we've already had, there's a more basic, deeper flaw in the maths of AGW. That flaw is on the incoming energy side. The amount of power the earth receives from the sun must equal the amount it radiates into space at equilibrium - yes?
Still with me?
That incoming energy is entirely controlled by the earth's albedo. Two thirds of that albedo is due to clouds. So we know that cloud cover controls incoming heat energy from the sun. How much do we know about the clouds and albedo? AR4 contains a series of estimates for the current value that range from 0.30 to 0.33, an error of 10%. So we don't even know the current albedo very well. A 1% difference wipes out the AR4 'forcings' BTW. So how are predictions for cloud cover, affected as they are by everything from space weather to volcanos and their nonlinear chaotic motion, ENSO etc?
Because we can't predict the clouds at all, so this means one side of the equation remains unknown.
This unknown albedo and variation makes any conclusion from the radiative equations a complete guess. Do you understand?
AGW totally debunked with simple logic and basic maths. QED.
Globs said:
AGW totally debunked with simple logic and basic maths. QED.
More like wishful logic I think. Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.Good discussion article here:
http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_effect_of_clouds...
loafer123 said:
plunker said:
Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.
Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?plunker said:
could
Clouds 'could' rinse your car. 'Could' put out a fire. 'Could' fill up a lake.The point is that they are fundamental to the energy equation and you don't know either:
1) The current cloud albedo
2) Future cloud albedo variation
So your equation is invalid. Period.
Svenson claims to predict subtle variations due to space weather in 'The Cloud Theory'
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home....
he may or may not be correct, but unless you can predict them your climate prediction is stuffed.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff