Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Jinx

11,343 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
And being ripped apart in the comments here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-ye...

The Wookie

13,909 posts

227 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
I wouldn't put myself in either camp with this but a 5-10% increase in CO2 gives a 0.25w/m2 increase in energy absorption?

What's the average insolation in Oklahoma, 200W/m2? A 0.125% increase?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
That's an impressive bit of measuring, but mostly I'm lovin' the reaction of the watties.

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
The Wookie said:
I wouldn't put myself in either camp with this but a 5-10% increase in CO2 gives a 0.25w/m2 increase in energy absorption?

What's the average insolation in Oklahoma, 200W/m2? A 0.125% increase?
Just for fun I did a fag-packet thingy:

Temperature of space = 2.7K

Temperature of earth due to 200W/m2 from sun = 288K

0.125% x 285.3K = 0.35C increase.

(That's about twice the IPCC projected warming rate per decade)


Edited by plunker on Thursday 26th February 13:47

Otispunkmeyer

12,553 posts

154 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
If anyone wants the paper, I can access it and send it.

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
mostly I'm lovin' the reaction of the watties.
From my quick skim read most of them appear to be angrily asking questions which are already answered in the paper.

Otispunkmeyer

12,553 posts

154 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
The Wookie said:
I wouldn't put myself in either camp with this but a 5-10% increase in CO2 gives a 0.25w/m2 increase in energy absorption?

What's the average insolation in Oklahoma, 200W/m2? A 0.125% increase?
Just for fun I did a fag-packet thingy:

Temperature of space = 2.7K

Temperature of earth due to 200W/m2 from sun = 288K

0.125% x 285.3K = 0.35C increase.
For reference they cite 0.25 W/m2 +/-0.06 per decade for one location, +/- 0.07 for the other (with seasonal range 0.1-0.2 W/m2 per decade). So at least that, on the face of it, looks reasonable... unlike the daft 0.2 deg C per decade +/- 1.2 degrees stuff some people push out. I mean that could equally be an up or down trend!

Besides, I don't thin anyone really disputed the role CO2 plays. But its nice to see they are trying to pin it down rather than plumbing in assumptions and black box numbers because something should be there or else the models don't work.



Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 26th February 13:55

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
Besides, I don't thin anyone really disputed the role CO2 plays.
Depends what you mean by 'anyone'.

Otispunkmeyer

12,553 posts

154 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
Besides, I don't thin anyone really disputed the role CO2 plays. ]
You'd think wrong. There are a number of people on this thread who dispute the fundamental physics.

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
He should probably read the section of the paper headed 'Thermodynamic trends'

Otispunkmeyer

12,553 posts

154 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Besides, I don't thin anyone really disputed the role CO2 plays.
Depends what you mean by 'anyone'.
Stupid people wouldn't dispute it because they just believe what a higher authority will tell them. People who are more scientifically literate wouldn't either because its been proven that CO2 has this effect with IR radiation in the lab already.

The question really is does it have as much say in proceedings as we are told? I don't think they've answered that. I don't think the whole system is understood enough in order for us to model it correctly...even then I don't think we have the computing power to do it justice.

Additionally, I would be very interested to read the paper (when I get chance) to see how they do the spectroscopy. Sometimes its not as straightforward as "this element lives in this band, this one in that band" etc. I tried to build a methane detector, problem is it also detected ethane, propane and butane because they all overlap at some point in the spectra. So would be interesting to read how they isolate and in particular isolate just the IR from CO2 coming back.

Jinx

11,343 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
You'd think wrong. There are a number of people on this thread who dispute the fundamental physics.
Tell me again HK how quantised energy from a cooler body may be absorbed by a warmer body continually emitting energy in a higher quantised state? And also explain how dipole moment changes are able to increase kinetic energy in free moving particles?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
plunker said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Besides, I don't thin anyone really disputed the role CO2 plays.
Depends what you mean by 'anyone'.
Stupid people wouldn't dispute it because they just believe what a higher authority will tell them. People who are more scientifically literate wouldn't either because its been proven that CO2 has this effect with IR radiation in the lab already.

The question really is does it have as much say in proceedings as we are told? I don't think they've answered that. I don't think the whole system is understood enough in order for us to model it correctly...even then I don't think we have the computing power to do it justice.

Additionally, I would be very interested to read the paper (when I get chance) to see how they do the spectroscopy. Sometimes its not as straightforward as "this element lives in this band, this one in that band" etc. I tried to build a methane detector, problem is it also detected ethane, propane and butane because they all overlap at some point in the spectra. So would be interesting to read how they isolate and in particular isolate just the IR from CO2 coming back.
Not talking about whole system stuff here. Like HK said, there are many who deny the fundamental radiative forcing from increasing CO2 that the obs in the paper show. I agree with what you say 'the question really is'.

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
Tell me again HK how quantised energy from a cooler body may be absorbed by a warmer body continually emitting energy in a higher quantised state? And also explain how dipole moment changes are able to increase kinetic energy in free moving particles?
I don't really understand what you want to know. The phrasing of the questions is a bit confusing, perhaps because you are trying to be clever? I think you may be conflating what happens to an isolated molecule with what happens to a large collection of molecules but it’s hard to tell.

Molecules can absorb photons. The energy of the photons can matter. The temperature of the emitter does not. In a large collection of molecules the absorbed energy is rapidly thermalised via collisions. A proportion of the molecules are at an energy level where they can emit photons.

AA999

5,180 posts

216 months

Monday 2nd March 2015
quotequote all
Simple question : Why is raw data adjusted before it is 'used' or for 'publication'?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Monday 2nd March 2015
quotequote all
Because weather stations weren't conceived to measure climate change and over time biases due to various factors like station moves, instrument changes, urban heat island, time of observation etc have occured which need to be accounted for if you want use the data for measuring trends.

Here's an article discussing adjustments and why they're needed with a focus on US data adjustments:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-ad...

Lotus 50

1,009 posts

164 months

Monday 2nd March 2015
quotequote all
It is a very common procedure to do pre-processing on any long-term dataset before it is used in any analysis. Basically the calibration of any long-term monitoring/measuring instrument can drift over time for a whole host of reasons. It's good practice to check that calibration repeatedly over time and where necessary incorporate an adjustment factor to compensate for any changes and ensure that the final data is consistent. Where an instrument is reaching the end of it's operational life a new one will often be put in place working in parallel with the old one to develop comparison data to join the time series of data from the old and new instruments this may be done, for example, using a simple regression equation developed from the parallel data to provide the adjustment factor. It can also be done by comparing the data with one site with another site where there is a strong correlation between the measured data. There's lots of papers published showing how this has been done and it's a perfectly valid scientific technique. Not the dark conspiracy that some would have you believe.

AA999

5,180 posts

216 months

Monday 2nd March 2015
quotequote all
I see.

There will be plenty cases though that temperatures are adjusted cooler as well as hotter?


rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Monday 2nd March 2015
quotequote all
AA999 said:
I see.

There will be plenty cases though that temperatures are adjusted cooler as well as hotter?
My guess is just about all the older records are adjusted down so the modern ones look hotter but then I'm a cynic.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED