Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Lost_BMW said:
Yankee Rose said:
no-one else thought my post interesting enough to engage with.
Ain't that the truth!Yankee Rose said:
1) Why did the IPCC scientists get this long-term prediction right? – if you truly believe climate modelling is fundamentally invalid, perhaps you think it’s just dumb luck that they got it right?
I don't think they do get the modelling right, Trenberth himself says that. Additionally none of the IPCC models allow for clouds or solar events, they are modelled in 2D not 3D and none get the mean temperature of 14deg either. Additionally the met. office here in the UK uses their models and always says without fail that the weather will be warmer than it actually is. The most famous attempts being the BBQ summer than never was and a 'mild winter wetter and warmer' that turned out to be the coldest for over 100 years (correctly predicted by Piers Corbyn BTW).
Yankee Rose said:
2) How many more years does this warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually know what they're doing? 10 more years of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never?
How many years? Lets say 100 years - is that long enough?Show me an accurate way to measure global temperatures to 0.1C (or any accuracy) in 1910. You can't, because frankly there wasn't one. Then we have December 2010 - in most places around the world colder than it was 100 years ago. Now we might say that was freak weather, but we have had 3 successive colder winters now - each colder than the preceding one.
In summary we see no measurable or discernable warming at all over the past 100 years - evidenced by a colder winter than ones 100years ago. According to AGW this is impossible.
Despite 100 years of exponentially increasing CO2 output there is no sign of any warming.
Additionally there is evidence that the arctic in 1922 was melting - so we may say there is also evidence of arctic cooling in that period, because it's all full of ice now.
I have questions for you though:
1) Why no warming in 100 years of exponentially rising CO2 emissions?
2) Why was the arctic melting in 1922?
3) What caused it to freeze again later?
4) Why are we in a period of cooling since 1998 (Jones)?
5) Why were the 1930s so warm?
6) Why did the climate cool after the 1930s?
7) If the science is settled why do none of the IPCC models work (they cannot even predict the correct mean temperature of 14C)?
8) Where is the evidence that man-made CO2 has made anything warmer?
9) What caused the rises of CO2 before man?
10) Why is Mars warming?
Yankee Rose said:
Blib said:
Now, when's that Yankee whojamaflip coming back?
I warned you I'm on the other side of the planet, didn't I? 
If you were so eagerly awaiting my return, perhaps you could have a go at answering my two questions?
The first question I'll leave for others.
I'll let Prof. Jones answer your second question.
Yankee Rose said:
2) How many more years does this warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually know what they're doing? 10 more years of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never?
Roger Harrabin asked Professor Phil Jones -you know Jones - this questionin a recent interview for the BBC.Harrabin article said:
Harrabin: B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones:Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
He can't get to "significance" even with his and his team's shall we say somewhat "creative" methods.Jones:Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
So, Yankee Rose, I ask you, How many more years does this lack of a warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually not know what they're doing? 10 more years of no significant sign of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never??
Over to you, cowboy.
Globs said:
The most famous attempts being the BBQ summer than never was and a 'mild winter wetter and warmer' that turned out to be the coldest for over 100 years (correctly predicted by Piers Corbyn BTW).
I lost count, but I thought it was 3 BBQ summers in a row they failed to get right (they didn't predict one last year, I guess they are fed up with looking stupid). As for this winter, as soon Slingo opened her mouth to inform us that the cold weather in Europe was just regional, as if on cue, it dumped all over Russia and North America (you couldn't make it up)! But apparently Corbyn is a moron because he got one month wrong 
.Didn't the IPCC say colder winters were much less likely in the future? You would think the last 3 'mild wet' winters we have not enjoyed would have been predicted in the computer models. Instead, we have the usual apostles scrabbling around making excuses, inventing theories to fit their entrenched view...
More holes than swiss cheese...
Blib said:
He (Phil Jones) can't get to "significance" even with his and his team's shall we say somewhat "creative" methods.
Indeed.And there is still no causality to humans whatever the trend may be.
This is the continued sleight of hand that such people and their followers always seem to project. Look at the value! The mostest since blah! Look at the trend! Unprecedented! Not remarkable, not unprecedented. And where's the causality to humans? Nowhere.
It's nearly as bad as pointing to carbon dioxide levels and expecting everybody else to be as hard of thinking and as propagandised as the pointer.
Guam said:
kerplunk said:
I'm guessing pishwish is trying to explain your erroneous accusation of a broken agreement and hasn't noticed you've since changed the nature of your complaint after it was found to be invalid. I see no +1hr in the clock times (just registered and posted to check) but I'm guessing he assumes something like that MUST have happened for you to make such a blunder - but you never actually checked the timings did you.
Well we have had DEbate by Proxy I guess Defence by Proxy is to be expected.Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 12th February 02:48
Made my point plain above, other than you (Quelle Surprise) There seems to be a lack of defence from the floor, other than you trying to fan the Flames (unsurprisingly). Has it been removed yet?
Sorry I am posting between Hospital visits at the moment (long story) so may not be able to respond much after the next hour until tommorrow).
There was mention some pages back of ocean heat content and at the time I started looking for a paper I remembered but couldn't find. Found it. It even has error bars!
R. S. Knox, David H. Douglass: Recent Energy Balance of Earth, International Journal of Geosciences, 1, 3 (2010)
Abstract (with my emphasis)
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
From the paper (with my emphasis)
Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) believe that missing energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010 the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2, which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF missing-energy problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modeling. In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”
Full paper here
Missing carbon dioxide sink, missing energy, agw seems to have a lot missing beyond a visible human signal in global temperature data.
R. S. Knox, David H. Douglass: Recent Energy Balance of Earth, International Journal of Geosciences, 1, 3 (2010)
Abstract (with my emphasis)
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
From the paper (with my emphasis)
Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) believe that missing energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010 the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2, which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF missing-energy problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modeling. In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”
Full paper here
Missing carbon dioxide sink, missing energy, agw seems to have a lot missing beyond a visible human signal in global temperature data.
Bacardi said:
Didn't the IPCC say colder winters were much less likely in the future? You would think the last 3 'mild wet' winters we have not enjoyed would have been predicted in the computer models. Instead, we have the usual apostles scrabbling around making excuses, inventing theories to fit their entrenched view...
More holes than swiss cheese...
I think that people did once before... More holes than swiss cheese...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/no-more-sno...
But then I believe it changed to something like "of course there will be more cold winters, that fits with AGW"...... Funny how something so fundamental can change dependant on what actually happens, isn't it? It's almost as if they make it up as they go along.....
What fascinates me is why the believers seem to think:
1. That calling me a skeptic is an insult (to me it's a compliment!)
2. That they simply have to try and change my mind about AGW
(I don't mean me per se of course, but generically)
Appreciating that there are two threads potentially on the go BUT those on this one might like to check out my latest post on the Climate Cat thread about this.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments...
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments...
turbobloke said:
Some light reading for any remaining model addicts. Included is the USNA random number 'success'. Clearly those supporting climate modellers as purveyors of reality will want to digest and respond in detail.
Hope that is OK?
Another argument against wind power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
'The scorecard:- oil killed 2.5 birds per peta-joule of energy produced, wind killed 1,114 per peta-joule'.
Courtesy of Notasheep. http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/02/wi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
'The scorecard:- oil killed 2.5 birds per peta-joule of energy produced, wind killed 1,114 per peta-joule'.
Courtesy of Notasheep. http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/02/wi...
VPower said:
turbobloke said:
Some light reading for any remaining model addicts. Included is the USNA random number 'success'. Clearly those supporting climate modellers as purveyors of reality will want to digest and respond in detail.
Hope that is OK?
mybrainhurts said:
VPower said:
TB I've just added these links to the Wiki I started
How does one access these wikifandangos...?http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Click 'Update...' to add something.
If anybody is looking for a little reading material over the weekend - this is some interesting info on radiative transfer. A thought experiment from WUWT which is interesting in itself, but when combined with the volume and quality of respenses, you start to grasp that there may be pretty big holes in our current understanding of the greenhouse effect.
If we don't understand how it works, how can it be modelled etc.
Appologies if this has been posted before - did a search but could not find anything 'Vonk' like..
A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
In the associated thread, there is a lot of debate about transfer of energy from CO2 molecule in its vibrational state to the 'other' surrounding molecules, and if this has any impact on the effect of CO2. This ranges from 'CO2 can have no effect', 'CO2 has limited warming effect' to one guy presents a case of 'CO2 as an agent for cooling'.
However, the underlying message (from the feedback) is that:
(1) CO2 absorbs strongly in 15 micron IR wavelenth (which we all know already on this site..)
(2) The IR emitted by the surface of the planet is fully absorbed by current levels of CO2.
(3) Full absorption occurs within 1-10 meters at sea level
(4) Increasing levels of CO2 would reduce the height above sea level that full absorption occurs yet further
(5) The impact this has on warming is disputed!
Just in case anybody is wondering I am no expert on this stuff - but can follow most of the logic behind the arguments.
Would hate somebody out there to think I was holding myself out to be something I am not!
Oh - looks like I had a (dis)honourable mention on 'that other site' following their invasion last week - have been finally elevated to 'clown' status after many years of trying!
If we don't understand how it works, how can it be modelled etc.
Appologies if this has been posted before - did a search but could not find anything 'Vonk' like..
A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
In the associated thread, there is a lot of debate about transfer of energy from CO2 molecule in its vibrational state to the 'other' surrounding molecules, and if this has any impact on the effect of CO2. This ranges from 'CO2 can have no effect', 'CO2 has limited warming effect' to one guy presents a case of 'CO2 as an agent for cooling'.
However, the underlying message (from the feedback) is that:
(1) CO2 absorbs strongly in 15 micron IR wavelenth (which we all know already on this site..)
(2) The IR emitted by the surface of the planet is fully absorbed by current levels of CO2.
(3) Full absorption occurs within 1-10 meters at sea level
(4) Increasing levels of CO2 would reduce the height above sea level that full absorption occurs yet further
(5) The impact this has on warming is disputed!
Just in case anybody is wondering I am no expert on this stuff - but can follow most of the logic behind the arguments.
Would hate somebody out there to think I was holding myself out to be something I am not!
Oh - looks like I had a (dis)honourable mention on 'that other site' following their invasion last week - have been finally elevated to 'clown' status after many years of trying!
Ali G said:
some interesting info on radiative transfer.
A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
Just in case anybody is wondering I am no expert on this stuff - but can follow most of the logic behind the arguments.
This relates back to the original article I linked - and gave a summary of at someone's request, GT I think before his metamorphosis into Prolapsed mode - and which was then slated. I seem to recall the debater, having asked for links, read through and then in gratitude slagged anything to do with LTE and quantum effects, even described Vonk as a moron!A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
Just in case anybody is wondering I am no expert on this stuff - but can follow most of the logic behind the arguments.
Interesting that you (background in physics iirc?) can follow the logic whereas the 'other' person clearly couldn't so dismissed it out of hand.
Lost_BMW said:
This relates back to the original article I linked - and gave a summary of at someone's request, GT I think before his metamorphosis into Prolapsed mode - and which was then slated. I seem to recall the debater, having asked for links, read through and then in gratitude slagged anything to do with LTE and quantum effects, even described Vonk as a moron!
Interesting that you (background in physics iirc?) can follow the logic whereas the 'other' person clearly couldn't so dismissed it out of hand.
I'll try not to open this up again then!Interesting that you (background in physics iirc?) can follow the logic whereas the 'other' person clearly couldn't so dismissed it out of hand.
But just in case anyone elses is interested...
The arguments put forward introduce the possibility of CO2 transferring some/all of the 15 micron vibrational energy to the surrounding 'sea' of molecules through collision and conversion into kinetic energy. This would have significant consequences, since the energy trapped in the CO2, and hence the atmosphere, due to its specific wavelength would instead form part of the energy in another molecule and quite possibly radiate at an entirely different wavelength and thus be more able to escape to space.
In effect this mechanism converts the 15 micron radiation which is trapped in the atmosphere leading to warming, to a different wavelength able to escape to space and hence having much lower or no warming effect.
Can it happen? Looks like the relaxation time of the CO2 quantum state is quite a lot longer than the average time taken to impact a surrounding molecule - so nothing in the relative timescales of radiation v KE transfer to prevent it.
Does it happen - don't know! Not sure anyone has/will get funding for studying something like this.
Judging from some of the clearly very considered and sophisticated responses the article generated, there were quite a number of contributors who had given this area a lot of thought (and knew their subject) - regardless of G Prolapse's opinion.
Yes - physics degree from way back. Does it show?
don4l said:
Ali G said:
(3) Full absorption occurs within 1-10 meters at sea level
Is there evidence that backs this up? If there is, then the whole CO2 thing would be blown sky high.Don
--
This is taken from a response to the WUWT article I linked to earlier.
Shows (evidently) that transmission of 15 micron radiation is effectively 0% after 1m at sea-level - I cannot verify any of the figs 'though!
http://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig9-13.pdf
Note that graph shows 'frequency' rather than 'wavelength'.
Unfortunately, this by itself would not rule out MMGW, since according to (my) current understanding, increasing levels of CO2 would not capture greater levels of 15 micron radiation (it should already be fully absorbed), but would reduce the height in the atmosphere at which it was fully absorbed. There is some theory as to how this could increase planetary warming (photons radiated by CO2 closer to surface would have greater likelihood of impacting surface of planet and hence reduce cooling).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff