Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Dear V,
I think you should offer the Apprentice exit here. You're oot.
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct. I know they're rubbish, you know they're rubbish. We both know CO2 is not a climate control knob but without the models' constructed outputs the whole alarmist cardhouse collapses,
regards,
Jet
I think you should offer the Apprentice exit here. You're oot.
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct. I know they're rubbish, you know they're rubbish. We both know CO2 is not a climate control knob but without the models' constructed outputs the whole alarmist cardhouse collapses,
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct.
Those are two different things. CO2 atmospheric physics is more or less perfectly understood. The significance is not known so perfectly. The problem is that a lot of people debating in general, and particularly on this thread, don't even understand enough to know what the actual debate is over. Despite their lack of grasp of the basics they are very sure that AGW isn't happening though (or happening for that matter - it does apply to both sides). It's why I'm increasing less bothered with the debate. What's the point of two groups of uninformed people arguing with each other, really?hairykrishna said:
The science uncertainty I was talking about was specifically that of radiation transport in gases. Not the effect of changing IR absorption on climate.
Regarding troposphere temperatures - is this a question that comes out from work in the current literature? Or are you asking about disagreements between models and satellite data from about 20 years ago?
Hairy, you saidRegarding troposphere temperatures - is this a question that comes out from work in the current literature? Or are you asking about disagreements between models and satellite data from about 20 years ago?
"It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
It is your claims about the measurements in the atmosphere that I object to, not the basic physics of the spectral absorption bands of CO2 in ideal gas conditions. The effects of water vapour and convection in the atmosphere would make your claim of extemely accurate atmospheric measurement dubious to say the least.
hairykrishna said:
jet_noise said:
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct.
Those are two different things. CO2 atmospheric physics is more or less perfectly understood. The significance is not known so perfectly. The problem is that a lot of people debating in general, and particularly on this thread, don't even understand enough to know what the actual debate is over. Despite their lack of grasp of the basics they are very sure that AGW isn't happening though (or happening for that matter - it does apply to both sides). It's why I'm increasing less bothered with the debate. What's the point of two groups of uninformed people arguing with each other, really?it seems that you, Jet and me are all saying the same thing - the basic IR absorption is known, how that affects the climate is a whole lot less certain.
Yet the AGW proponents seem to be the only ones* who claim the others "don't understand the basics" even when they state those basics in what should be absolutely clear terms (as jet did and I thought I had above).
- barring, of course, the loons on both sides who honestly believe that man didn't go to the moon, Kennedy was shot by the Loc Ness Monster, and my cheque from Big Oil is in the post. Sadly, you get them everywhere!
clyffepypard said:
Hairy, you said
"It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
That's because the hotspot would appear if the atmosphere acted like the lab or the very simple models that predict it. CO2 will behave in the atmosphere exactly like it does in a lab experiment - it will absorb IR energy and then it will emit it again just the same. "It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
But, in the meantime, the air - including those same CO2 molecules - will move up and down and sideways and water will vaourise and condense and plants will grow and die and animals will breathe in and out and the sun will rise and set and the snow will fall, the earth will quake, mountains will rise, rivers will flow, the Gods will get angry, etc etc etc.
All of those things, and more, will modify the effects of what CO2 does with IR radiation (including the formation of hotspots and the overall warming itself) in ways that leave the result far from what our simple predictions suggest.
Variomatic said:
plunker said:
Schoolroom physics?
A great deal more is known about the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than you're implying.
That's what HK is saying to you and that's what I was saying to you when I said you aren't informing PRTVR very well by going on about the inadequacies of basic lab experiments vs real world - that's a straw man because what's known about the effects of CO2 isn't based on basic lab experiments.
No, ir's not a strawman.A great deal more is known about the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than you're implying.
That's what HK is saying to you and that's what I was saying to you when I said you aren't informing PRTVR very well by going on about the inadequacies of basic lab experiments vs real world - that's a straw man because what's known about the effects of CO2 isn't based on basic lab experiments.
The physics of CO2 absorption of IR are very well established. Those are the same within the lab or within the atmosphere - because they're based on sound physics.
What is absolutely not known to any meaningful extent is how that basic physics translates to effects on the climate, given te myriad confounding factors in the real world.
In case you hadn't noticed, I was actually agreeing with both you and hairy (and the whole AGW movement) by correcting PVRT about is questioning of the "basic physics" of CO2 absorption.
If you feel a need to disagree with me about agreeing with you then I'm really not sure what your position is other than to automatically disagree with anyone who doesn't hold to your total belief system.
That's neither productive nor scientific and effectively ends any point in this discussion.
eg this:
Variomatic said:
The problem with the "experiments" you see in boxes isn't the concentrations used, it's that they're done in boxes! No convection and little conduction to the "outside" and no feedbacks whatsoever to modify the effects invalidate them completely as demonsrations of how things work in the climate.
That suggests you think the way CO2 works in the atmosphere hasn't been considered and it's all based on basic lab experiments which of course is not the case.jet_noise said:
Dear V,
I think you should offer the Apprentice exit here. You're oot.
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct. I know they're rubbish, you know they're rubbish. We both know CO2 is not a climate control knob but without the models' constructed outputs the whole alarmist cardhouse collapses,
regards,
Jet
People who 'know' don't need models - or anything else come to that.I think you should offer the Apprentice exit here. You're oot.
Any admission that CO2 atmospheric physics (or better I think its significance) is not understood would leave alarmists open to criticism that the models cannot be correct. I know they're rubbish, you know they're rubbish. We both know CO2 is not a climate control knob but without the models' constructed outputs the whole alarmist cardhouse collapses,
regards,
Jet
plunker said:
Maybe I am being picky I guess. Probably because I've been there before when the discussion turns to basic lab experiments and all the ways that shining an IR lamp at Co2 in a flask is not like Co2 in the atmosphere, and it appeared to me you were heading in that direction.
eg this:
Yeah, the looney tunes on both sides have done a lot of damage to the chance of any sober debate. One side saying that back radiation can't warm things and all the world's scientists are conspiring, the other screaming that the Statue of Liberty will drown in 100 years and everyone who disagrees is funded by Exxon really doesn't help anything - you're always aware the other guy might be about to reveal his new design of tinfoil headware!eg this:
Variomatic said:
The problem with the "experiments" you see in boxes isn't the concentrations used, it's that they're done in boxes! No convection and little conduction to the "outside" and no feedbacks whatsoever to modify the effects invalidate them completely as demonsrations of how things work in the climate.
That suggests you think the way CO2 works in the atmosphere hasn't been considered and it's all based on basic lab experiments which of course is not the case.Incidentally, just for the record, if Exxon were funding me I'd be typing this from a beach in Bermuda not from a BT IP in North Wales
Sorry for the impression given by the quoted part, it wasn't what I intended and I'd be heading for the tinfoil myself if I suggested it hasn't been considered and (genuine) attempts made to incorporate at least most of the (known) complications.
My basic position is that I'm far from convinced that those attempts have been anything like successful enough to place any credence in the results.
I did a small amount of computer modelling for my degree (mostly neural nets and I'm certainly not an expert) and that's made me all too aware how well an incorrect or incomplete model can be tuned to apparently match any given data. In fact, that was one of the biggest warnings given right at the start of th modelling modules.
The acid test is how well they perform outside the training data - how well they can predict - and, frankly, climate models are currently no better than tossing a coin when it comes to that. In fact, seeing as they virtually all run "high" so far there's a fair argument to say that they're worse than coin tossing because that should make 50% run high and 50% run low.
Their failure is nothing to do with their handling of CO2 absorption because that is straightforward physics. But it's starting to look as if they've got some of the other stuff very wrong indeed. And no amount of re-training with updated data will make a bad model good!
Edited by Variomatic on Friday 28th November 12:04
Variomatic said:
Yeah, the looney tunes on both sides have done a lot of damage to the chance of any sober debate. One side saying that back radiation can't warm things and all the world's scientists are conspiring, the other screaming that the Statue of Liberty will drown in 100 years and everyone who disagrees is funded by Exxon really doesn't help anything - you're always aware the other guy might be about to reveal his new design of tinfoil headware!
Incidentally, just for the record, if Exxon were funding me I'd be typing this from a beach in Bermuda not from a BT IP in North Wales
Sorry for the impression given by the quoted part, it wasn't what I intended and I'd be heading for the tinfoil myself if I suggested it hasn't been considered and (genuine) attempts made to incorporate at least most of the (known) complications.
My basic position is that I'm far from convinced that those attempts have been anything like successful enough to place any credence in the results.
I did a small amount of computer modelling for my degree (mostly neural nets and I'm certainly not an expert) and that's made me all too aware how well an incorrect or incomplete model can be tuned to apparently match any given data. In fact, that was one of the biggest warnings given right at the start of th modelling modules.
The acid test is how well they perform outside the training data - how well they can predict - and, frankly, climate models are currently no better than tossing a coin when it comes to that. In fact, seeing as they virtually all run "high" so far there's a fair argument to say that they're worse than coin tossing because that should make 50% run high and 50% run low.
Their failure is nothing to do with their handling of CO2 absorption because that is straightforward physics. But it's starting to look as if they've got some of the other stuff very wrong indeed. And no amount of re-training with updated data will make a bad model good!
That's fair enough! Incidentally, just for the record, if Exxon were funding me I'd be typing this from a beach in Bermuda not from a BT IP in North Wales
Sorry for the impression given by the quoted part, it wasn't what I intended and I'd be heading for the tinfoil myself if I suggested it hasn't been considered and (genuine) attempts made to incorporate at least most of the (known) complications.
My basic position is that I'm far from convinced that those attempts have been anything like successful enough to place any credence in the results.
I did a small amount of computer modelling for my degree (mostly neural nets and I'm certainly not an expert) and that's made me all too aware how well an incorrect or incomplete model can be tuned to apparently match any given data. In fact, that was one of the biggest warnings given right at the start of th modelling modules.
The acid test is how well they perform outside the training data - how well they can predict - and, frankly, climate models are currently no better than tossing a coin when it comes to that. In fact, seeing as they virtually all run "high" so far there's a fair argument to say that they're worse than coin tossing because that should make 50% run high and 50% run low.
Their failure is nothing to do with their handling of CO2 absorption because that is straightforward physics. But it's starting to look as if they've got some of the other stuff very wrong indeed. And no amount of re-training with updated data will make a bad model good!
Edited by Variomatic on Friday 28th November 12:04
Variomatic said:
Funny thing is:
it seems that you, Jet and me are all saying the same thing - the basic IR absorption is known, how that affects the climate is a whole lot less certain.
Yet the AGW proponents seem to be the only ones* who claim the others "don't understand the basics" even when they state those basics in what should be absolutely clear terms (as jet did and I thought I had above).
Looney would expect a small increase in net absorption in one small band of IR radiation would be able to effect surface temperatures at measurable levels....it seems that you, Jet and me are all saying the same thing - the basic IR absorption is known, how that affects the climate is a whole lot less certain.
Yet the AGW proponents seem to be the only ones* who claim the others "don't understand the basics" even when they state those basics in what should be absolutely clear terms (as jet did and I thought I had above).
- barring, of course, the loons on both sides who honestly believe that man didn't go to the moon, Kennedy was shot by the Loc Ness Monster, and my cheque from Big Oil is in the post. Sadly, you get them everywhere!
clyffepypard said:
Hairy, you said
"It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
It is your claims about the measurements in the atmosphere that I object to, not the basic physics of the spectral absorption bands of CO2 in ideal gas conditions. The effects of water vapour and convection in the atmosphere would make your claim of extemely accurate atmospheric measurement dubious to say the least.
More modern measurements seem to suggest the hotspot is probably there, as predicted. That's why I asked if you'd been keeping up with the literature. A troposphere hotspot is not a unique prediction of CO2 driven warming in models anyway. It's just a signature of a warming surface changing the lapse rate. You'd get one regardless of what caused it to warm. "It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
It is your claims about the measurements in the atmosphere that I object to, not the basic physics of the spectral absorption bands of CO2 in ideal gas conditions. The effects of water vapour and convection in the atmosphere would make your claim of extemely accurate atmospheric measurement dubious to say the least.
IR absorption by CO2 is well modeled, in the real atmosphere. You seem to be combining combining 'changes in atmospheric system' with 'absorption of IR'. The first one is dependent on the latter and a bunch of other factors, none of which are as well understood as the first.
hairykrishna said:
clyffepypard said:
Hairy, you said
"It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
It is your claims about the measurements in the atmosphere that I object to, not the basic physics of the spectral absorption bands of CO2 in ideal gas conditions. The effects of water vapour and convection in the atmosphere would make your claim of extemely accurate atmospheric measurement dubious to say the least.
More modern measurements seem to suggest the hotspot is probably there, as predicted. That's why I asked if you'd been keeping up with the literature. A troposphere hotspot is not a unique prediction of CO2 driven warming in models anyway. It's just a signature of a warming surface changing the lapse rate. You'd get one regardless of what caused it to warm. "It's also been measured extremely accurately for a massive range of conditions including directly in the ATMOSPHERE."
One of the main predictions arising from the the radiative properties of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the troposheric hotspot. So if these radiative properties have been so accurately measured in the atmosphere, why can they not find this predicted hotspot, whether now or 20 years ago!
It is your claims about the measurements in the atmosphere that I object to, not the basic physics of the spectral absorption bands of CO2 in ideal gas conditions. The effects of water vapour and convection in the atmosphere would make your claim of extemely accurate atmospheric measurement dubious to say the least.
IR absorption by CO2 is well modeled, in the real atmosphere. You seem to be combining combining 'changes in atmospheric system' with 'absorption of IR'. The first one is dependent on the latter and a bunch of other factors, none of which are as well understood as the first.
Regardless of whether radiative absorption by CO2 is accurately modelled or not, it is your claim that it's effects can be accurately measured in the atmosphere that I objected to, given all the other much larger variables present (i.e. water vapour at ~10,000ppm, cloud cover, convection etc) in the real world atmosphere compared to the ideal "gas in a jar" physics experiments.
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
I'll admit i'm not smart enough nor have the time & resources to produce research into the worlds climate to put up a robust argument to Governments that CAGW is bobbins.Anyone?
Though i am (just about) smart enough to understand this lecture that does robustly sink CAGW and i do try (some may say badly) to relay the Profs research in my own words with the occasional quote
You may also enjoy this lecture, though it does get a bit heavy but if you can spare an hour to watch the whole lecture, it's worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
kingofdbrits said:
I'll admit i'm not smart enough nor have the time & resources to produce research into the worlds climate to put up a robust argument to Governments that CAGW is bobbins.
Though i am (just about) smart enough to understand this lecture that does robustly sink CAGW and i do try (some may say badly) to relay the Profs research in my own words with the occasional quote
You may also enjoy this lecture, though it does get a bit heavy but if you can spare an hour to watch the whole lecture, it's worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
Very reliable source....Though i am (just about) smart enough to understand this lecture that does robustly sink CAGW and i do try (some may say badly) to relay the Profs research in my own words with the occasional quote
You may also enjoy this lecture, though it does get a bit heavy but if you can spare an hour to watch the whole lecture, it's worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s...
TooLateForAName said:
Very reliable source....
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s...
And you quote desmogblog of all places to discredit someone else's source? Sometimes the mind boggles!http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s...
Dear KK,
regards,
Jet
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
Sceptics don't tend to want to disprove AGW. What they want to see is proof that there is any that is going to result in thermageddon. Null hypothesis you see,Anyone?
regards,
Jet
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
What happens next, we tell you and you beetle off in a frenzied quest to establish a tenuous link with big oil?Anyone?
You'd make better use of your time investigating the Establishment Warmists. See if you can come up with corruption and incompetence on a grand scale. It's not hard.
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff