Medieval Warm period due to NAO
Discussion
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Given that carbon dioxide is bugger all of total greenhouse gas, it follows that doubling it is still bugger all.Given that most of it occurs naturally, mankind produces bugger all of bugger all.
Please explain how this leads to catastrophic armageddon in simple terms, for a simple lad.....
So a doubling of C02 concentration would go from approx 2.8% bv of greenhouse gases to about 5.6% bv.
Some people think that because CO2 is only 380 parts per million of the atmosphere it can't have any significant greenhouse effect. However only 10,000 parts per million of the atmosphere are significant greenhouses gases.
Pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 2.8% of greenhouse gases. Now can you see the analogy with beer?
If you still are having difficulty, please let me know which bit you don't understand and I'll try again.
king pint (to continue the anology), you're saying that for a 3C rise in global temperature CO2 concentration has to double. fantastic reasoning. Of course, I'm sure this has happened before, I mean it's not as if the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has varied much in the past, so I'm pretty sure all the empirical data will support your argument by assertion.
The reason you analogy to beer doesn't work, if I can spell it out in simple terms for you, is that the alcohol (nasty CO2 boo hiss) which is known to make you drunk (increase temperature) is at such a low level, that any difference at the 0.035 level, even a doubling to export strength (0.070) will still be insufficient to get you more pissed. The dilution affect of the rest of the pint, the 999,965ppm of basically water will mean that a state of drunkeness will never be achieved. Ever. For the alcohol (CO2 still) to get you mullered (warm) you would have to take it in isolation, remove it from the context of the beer.
Gosh this is hard work. The beer analogy sucks.
Guam said:
By The way Nige you didnt show me anything I didnt already know ( i just chose not to get into it because of the Topex thing) 
Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
Sorry Tom but I really think that you're way off the mark with that. Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
For one thing the first IPCC report was published almost 20 years ago: of course it's not surprising that the predictions have changed, because new data has become available.
Do you really expect them to cling blindly to data, models and theories and not pay attention to the real world. It sounds like you've got a win win situation for yourself: either the IPCC changes projections to reflect new data, in which case you can accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, or they don't change their predictions and are accused of not taking new facts into account.
And where's this 3 m sea level rise you're talking about from?
If you're going to accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, I think that you had better post the predictions from the IPCC that you find so offensive.
And your claim that no one on the AGW "side" ever thought of natural forcings until the sceptics pointed them out is so way out. Take a look at some of the natural forcings, that you know of and Google who developed them and when. Some pre date AGW by decades if not centuries. The IPCC would have to be pretty stupid to think that nobody would notice natural forcings.
I admire your diligence in looking for the accuracy of the satellite sea level measurements, but only wish that you were so diligent in investigating the accusations that you make about the IPCC.
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Given that carbon dioxide is bugger all of total greenhouse gas, it follows that doubling it is still bugger all.Given that most of it occurs naturally, mankind produces bugger all of bugger all.
Please explain how this leads to catastrophic armageddon in simple terms, for a simple lad.....
So a doubling of C02 concentration would go from approx 2.8% bv of greenhouse gases to about 5.6% bv.
Some people think that because CO2 is only 380 parts per million of the atmosphere it can't have any significant greenhouse effect. However only 10,000 parts per million of the atmosphere are significant greenhouses gases.
Pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 2.8% of greenhouse gases. Now can you see the analogy with beer?
If you still are having difficulty, please let me know which bit you don't understand and I'll try again.
king pint (to continue the anology), you're saying that for a 3C rise in global temperature CO2 concentration has to double. fantastic reasoning. Of course, I'm sure this has happened before, I mean it's not as if the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has varied much in the past, so I'm pretty sure all the empirical data will support your argument by assertion.
The reason you analogy to beer doesn't work, if I can spell it out in simple terms for you, is that the alcohol (nasty CO2 boo hiss) which is known to make you drunk (increase temperature) is at such a low level, that any difference at the 0.035 level, even a doubling to export strength (0.070) will still be insufficient to get you more pissed. The dilution affect of the rest of the pint, the 999,965ppm of basically water will mean that a state of drunkeness will never be achieved. Ever. For the alcohol (CO2 still) to get you mullered (warm) you would have to take it in isolation, remove it from the context of the beer.
Gosh this is hard work. The beer analogy sucks.
Now look at what was said in the second imbedded post... about CO2 being bugger all of greenhouse gases. (My bold) Yes you can make the beer analogy invalid if you include the whole atmosphere. But that isn't the point that it addresses.
turbobloke said:
Get the actual numbers (temperature sources given, carbon dioxide as here or Mauna Loa) and apply the requisite formula for the last 10 years.
If your answer doesn't have a negative sign in front, try again.
Why use 10 years or 6 years(as per your chart) when there's 40 years worth of Mauna Loa data? If your answer doesn't have a negative sign in front, try again.
As I recall using the whole Mauna Loa data set gives you an R^2 of ~0.8 with Hadcrut.
Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 9th April 17:43
I'd like to have a go at explaining where the logarithm issue comes from and in doing so, combine some ideas about carbon dioxide forcing in the discussion up to this point,naturally it'll take a bit of space in terms of forum column-length so if it's of no interest to you, head over to The Lounge or wherever on PH takes your fancy - note, this is a long post advisory.
The atmosphere is said to warm the Earth by 33 deg C due to a natural total greenhouse effect. As suggested before, if anybody wishes to Google on this phrase or key words from it, the number of hits and their variety will show it's a reasonable statement to those not familiar with atmospheric science. Those familiar, well you should have heard that number before.
The Sun emits about 10% of its energy spectrum at wavelengths equal to or shorter than visible light, 50% visible light, and 40% near-IR. This is how I remember it, using appropriately accurate round numbers, but take a look here on page 2:
http://www.geog.unt.edu/~mcgregor/Earth_Science/En...
So there is to a good approximation zero incoming radiation at the correct (far infrared) wavelengths and frequencies for absorption by carbon dioxide.
Fine, as carbon dioxide with its global warming socks on absorbs radiation from the planet's surface.
There's a NASA diagram on the planet's energy budget buried in here worth a click:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts...
As carbon dioxide's four absorption bands in the far infrared are at 1.9 (weak), 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, we need to look at radiation leaving the ground as that is our target source - the far infrared radiation emitted back up towards space that is slowed down by greenhouse gases, producing the natural 33 deg C warming.
The NASA diagram gives 51% of incoming radiation absorbed at the surface. Also 15% is radiated via the atmosphere (i.e. the lower atmosphere itself becomes a source), 6% is radiated straight out into space. Take the 15% and 6% and divide by the 51% which gives a round figure of 40% as the fraction of energy leaving the earth's surface as radiation. Other routes such as conduction and latent heat transfer to the atmosphere and clouds are also present as part of the greenhouse effect but that's not related to carbon dioxide, and so not available to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Because carbon dioxide absorbs far infrared at only four wavelengths - and one of those is weak - only 8% of radiation from the surface of the Earth is at a correct wavelength for absorption by carbon dioxide while 92% sails on by. This figure was established before the global warming hype, isn't challenged, and represents the total available thermal radiation. No matter how much carbon dioxide there is, it only has this much radiation to absorb. The radiation absorbed is that which is re-emitted at longer (far infra-red) wavelengths by the ground, in an upward direction to where the lower atmosphere is (!).
The diagram below isn't meant to 'prove' the 8% figure, that really needs some physics and some maths (or an experiment, same result) but illustrates the reality of such a fraction - the two plots are at reasonably similar wavelength scales and the stylised version has the black body curve for mean Earth surface temperature taken as 288K (15 deg C) representing the total available radiation, while the 'real shape' absorption peaks at the (above) four micron wavelengths show where carbon dioxide operates. Both elements of the diagram can be checked out if you wish, as black body curves and carbon dioxide absorption spectra are both freely available. It also neatly illustrates the Arrhenius 'mistake' which wasn't really as such given that quantum theory and molecular spectroscopy understanding developed after Arrhenius published, again as mentioned in an earlier post.
So 33 deg C x 40% x 8% = 1.06 deg C
This is the maximum total temperature increase due to all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's said that carbon dioxide of itself can produce no more than about 1 deg C warming and this is the origin of that statement.
The atmospheric level of carbon dioxide has increased from about 280ppmv to about 380 ppmv since industrialisation. The as-yet not repealed logarithmic Beer Law gives a very good approximation to the behaviour of carbon dioxide as a radiative forcing under conditions of increasing atmospheric concentration. If we assume - on the strongest side of the IPCC paradigm - that ALL the warming since industrialisation (something not claimed but keep going) is from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, a rise claimed to be about 0.6 deg C, we can use this to work out a constant of proportionality for the increase in temperature, as follows:
log (380/290) = 0.6 k
so k = 0.2 as near as dammit with base ten logs
To assist with this process, take the initial atmospheric content of carbon dioxide to be 1 ppmv, not 0, for an easy life, then using k we can get the natural greenhouse contribution from carbon dioxide emitted naturally e.g. by volcanoes and solar heating of carbonate rocks etc:
log (290/1) = T x 0.2 so T = 12.3 deg C
With no other consideration, the pre-industrial natural contribution to the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is 12.3 deg C, while within this treatment post-industrialisation can at most be responsible for that 0.6 deg C
A theoretical doubling of carbon dioxide would cause a further warming according to this formula:
log(760/380) = T x 0.2 so T = 1.5 deg C
We now need to ask why this won't happen, as the observed data shows zero correlation between carbon dioxide level and temperature even now with highest ever human emission levels. A basic treatment also showed earlier that the maximum overall temperature rise from carbon dioxide was about 1 deg C and we're now well past that and into double figures, so something isn't matching up. The answer lies in several aspects of the real-world situation.
Firstly, the 0.6 deg C isn't all due to carbon dioxide, and as pointed out above, this isn't actually claimed by anyone except perhaps the most blinkered of greens. Some arises from other forcings, the IPCC include solar irradiance (but not eruptivity), also other anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and so on. This was used to calculate k, which is now seen to be sensitive to the REAL contribution of carbon dioxide to that 0.6 deg C post-industrial rise...we could carry out another calculation on this situation, but others have done so already and I'll quote their result, but for now we see that the 1.06 deg C (max) result shows us there is a problem to be tackled as even that is an over-estimate . . . not least due to some of the figures in the NASA diagram being dubious.
Another reason is the focus on radiative energy transfer alone, which is a form of sleight of hand.
Earlier it was mentioned that carbon dioxide absorbs thermal radiation re-emitted by the ground. Unlike simplistic treatments and associated wording used in the media, such thermal radiation isn't trapped. It gets re-radiated and eventually works its way up and out into space. This means that even if the carbon dioxide levels increase, the main effect would be to absorb radiation emitted by the ground at the surface but it would be absorbed at lower levels in the atmosphere than before meaning it would be delayed further in being re-radiated back into space - as each step (absorption, emission) in the process is happening over a shorter distance. This is the principle on which global warming predictions are based. However, absorption over a shorter distance does not result in the calculated higher temperature because of an oversight. Is this oversight unwitting or deliberate?
The situation now is that, as seen in the results of experiments published by Hug, 99.94% of a carbon dioxide peak absorption takes place in 10 metres at ground level. Doubling the carbon dioxide level would result in absorption in 5 metres. This, according to the delayed escape of thermal radiation idea above, is equivalent to some extra warming. However the focus on radiative transfer may stop you remembering that (heat) energy transfer operates through three mechanisms: conduction, convection and radiation. The ability of convection, through mixing of air over distances of a few metres near ground level, is totally ignored and overlooked, but this convective transfer over such short distances means that the delay in heat escape is almost wholly negated. The additional warming as a result of this (now non-)delay does not take place.
This is where we come to the desaturation myth I mentioned and explored earlier. Some claim that broadening of the carbon dioxide absorption lines at higher ambient pressures and temperatures provides an escape. In line broadening, the absorbption peak is only smeared out; the total amount of energy absorbed is not affected. Even so, let's ignore this and look to conditions where the overlapping broad peaks of e.g. carbon dioxide and water vapour thin and separate out (de-overlapping as I called it in an earlier post). Taking my previously explained desaturation myth example, at a height of 16 kilometers the atmospheric density is about one tenth that at sea level. The peak wavelengths should absorb completely in about 100 meters, since near the surface of the Earth it takes place in about 10 meters. Absorption band shoulders which are claimed to be up to 5% - 10% as effective (according to Hug, much less than 5%) would absorb completely in 10 to 20 times as much distance, i.e. 1 or 2 kilometers. When doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they would do the same in 0.5 km to 1 km. The shorter distance is not an increase in temperature, as ~ 17 km up in the lower stratosphere the jet stream should be a good mixer. This process cannot add heat to the lower atmosphere anyway, because the stratosphere does not mix efficiently with the lower atmosphere across the tropopause. Therefore this is not at all a convincing way to get any extra heating near-surface or in the troposphere.
If you were in a position to understand the princples of molecular spectroscopy the actual carbon dioxide radiative forcing calculated by IPCC type algorithms is seen to be far too high. Doubling of carbon dioxide results not in 1.5 deg C or anything like it, but about 0.015 deg C i.e. a hundredth as much. This magnitude of change is still too high in practice as indicated by aspects of the discussion above.
There are other inconvenient truths overlooked by wearing radiative forcing blinkers but that'll do for now.
The atmosphere is said to warm the Earth by 33 deg C due to a natural total greenhouse effect. As suggested before, if anybody wishes to Google on this phrase or key words from it, the number of hits and their variety will show it's a reasonable statement to those not familiar with atmospheric science. Those familiar, well you should have heard that number before.
The Sun emits about 10% of its energy spectrum at wavelengths equal to or shorter than visible light, 50% visible light, and 40% near-IR. This is how I remember it, using appropriately accurate round numbers, but take a look here on page 2:
http://www.geog.unt.edu/~mcgregor/Earth_Science/En...
So there is to a good approximation zero incoming radiation at the correct (far infrared) wavelengths and frequencies for absorption by carbon dioxide.
Fine, as carbon dioxide with its global warming socks on absorbs radiation from the planet's surface.
There's a NASA diagram on the planet's energy budget buried in here worth a click:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts...
As carbon dioxide's four absorption bands in the far infrared are at 1.9 (weak), 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, we need to look at radiation leaving the ground as that is our target source - the far infrared radiation emitted back up towards space that is slowed down by greenhouse gases, producing the natural 33 deg C warming.
The NASA diagram gives 51% of incoming radiation absorbed at the surface. Also 15% is radiated via the atmosphere (i.e. the lower atmosphere itself becomes a source), 6% is radiated straight out into space. Take the 15% and 6% and divide by the 51% which gives a round figure of 40% as the fraction of energy leaving the earth's surface as radiation. Other routes such as conduction and latent heat transfer to the atmosphere and clouds are also present as part of the greenhouse effect but that's not related to carbon dioxide, and so not available to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Because carbon dioxide absorbs far infrared at only four wavelengths - and one of those is weak - only 8% of radiation from the surface of the Earth is at a correct wavelength for absorption by carbon dioxide while 92% sails on by. This figure was established before the global warming hype, isn't challenged, and represents the total available thermal radiation. No matter how much carbon dioxide there is, it only has this much radiation to absorb. The radiation absorbed is that which is re-emitted at longer (far infra-red) wavelengths by the ground, in an upward direction to where the lower atmosphere is (!).
The diagram below isn't meant to 'prove' the 8% figure, that really needs some physics and some maths (or an experiment, same result) but illustrates the reality of such a fraction - the two plots are at reasonably similar wavelength scales and the stylised version has the black body curve for mean Earth surface temperature taken as 288K (15 deg C) representing the total available radiation, while the 'real shape' absorption peaks at the (above) four micron wavelengths show where carbon dioxide operates. Both elements of the diagram can be checked out if you wish, as black body curves and carbon dioxide absorption spectra are both freely available. It also neatly illustrates the Arrhenius 'mistake' which wasn't really as such given that quantum theory and molecular spectroscopy understanding developed after Arrhenius published, again as mentioned in an earlier post.
So 33 deg C x 40% x 8% = 1.06 deg C
This is the maximum total temperature increase due to all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's said that carbon dioxide of itself can produce no more than about 1 deg C warming and this is the origin of that statement.
The atmospheric level of carbon dioxide has increased from about 280ppmv to about 380 ppmv since industrialisation. The as-yet not repealed logarithmic Beer Law gives a very good approximation to the behaviour of carbon dioxide as a radiative forcing under conditions of increasing atmospheric concentration. If we assume - on the strongest side of the IPCC paradigm - that ALL the warming since industrialisation (something not claimed but keep going) is from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, a rise claimed to be about 0.6 deg C, we can use this to work out a constant of proportionality for the increase in temperature, as follows:
log (380/290) = 0.6 k
so k = 0.2 as near as dammit with base ten logs
To assist with this process, take the initial atmospheric content of carbon dioxide to be 1 ppmv, not 0, for an easy life, then using k we can get the natural greenhouse contribution from carbon dioxide emitted naturally e.g. by volcanoes and solar heating of carbonate rocks etc:
log (290/1) = T x 0.2 so T = 12.3 deg C
With no other consideration, the pre-industrial natural contribution to the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is 12.3 deg C, while within this treatment post-industrialisation can at most be responsible for that 0.6 deg C
A theoretical doubling of carbon dioxide would cause a further warming according to this formula:
log(760/380) = T x 0.2 so T = 1.5 deg C
We now need to ask why this won't happen, as the observed data shows zero correlation between carbon dioxide level and temperature even now with highest ever human emission levels. A basic treatment also showed earlier that the maximum overall temperature rise from carbon dioxide was about 1 deg C and we're now well past that and into double figures, so something isn't matching up. The answer lies in several aspects of the real-world situation.
Firstly, the 0.6 deg C isn't all due to carbon dioxide, and as pointed out above, this isn't actually claimed by anyone except perhaps the most blinkered of greens. Some arises from other forcings, the IPCC include solar irradiance (but not eruptivity), also other anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and so on. This was used to calculate k, which is now seen to be sensitive to the REAL contribution of carbon dioxide to that 0.6 deg C post-industrial rise...we could carry out another calculation on this situation, but others have done so already and I'll quote their result, but for now we see that the 1.06 deg C (max) result shows us there is a problem to be tackled as even that is an over-estimate . . . not least due to some of the figures in the NASA diagram being dubious.
Another reason is the focus on radiative energy transfer alone, which is a form of sleight of hand.
Earlier it was mentioned that carbon dioxide absorbs thermal radiation re-emitted by the ground. Unlike simplistic treatments and associated wording used in the media, such thermal radiation isn't trapped. It gets re-radiated and eventually works its way up and out into space. This means that even if the carbon dioxide levels increase, the main effect would be to absorb radiation emitted by the ground at the surface but it would be absorbed at lower levels in the atmosphere than before meaning it would be delayed further in being re-radiated back into space - as each step (absorption, emission) in the process is happening over a shorter distance. This is the principle on which global warming predictions are based. However, absorption over a shorter distance does not result in the calculated higher temperature because of an oversight. Is this oversight unwitting or deliberate?
The situation now is that, as seen in the results of experiments published by Hug, 99.94% of a carbon dioxide peak absorption takes place in 10 metres at ground level. Doubling the carbon dioxide level would result in absorption in 5 metres. This, according to the delayed escape of thermal radiation idea above, is equivalent to some extra warming. However the focus on radiative transfer may stop you remembering that (heat) energy transfer operates through three mechanisms: conduction, convection and radiation. The ability of convection, through mixing of air over distances of a few metres near ground level, is totally ignored and overlooked, but this convective transfer over such short distances means that the delay in heat escape is almost wholly negated. The additional warming as a result of this (now non-)delay does not take place.
This is where we come to the desaturation myth I mentioned and explored earlier. Some claim that broadening of the carbon dioxide absorption lines at higher ambient pressures and temperatures provides an escape. In line broadening, the absorbption peak is only smeared out; the total amount of energy absorbed is not affected. Even so, let's ignore this and look to conditions where the overlapping broad peaks of e.g. carbon dioxide and water vapour thin and separate out (de-overlapping as I called it in an earlier post). Taking my previously explained desaturation myth example, at a height of 16 kilometers the atmospheric density is about one tenth that at sea level. The peak wavelengths should absorb completely in about 100 meters, since near the surface of the Earth it takes place in about 10 meters. Absorption band shoulders which are claimed to be up to 5% - 10% as effective (according to Hug, much less than 5%) would absorb completely in 10 to 20 times as much distance, i.e. 1 or 2 kilometers. When doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they would do the same in 0.5 km to 1 km. The shorter distance is not an increase in temperature, as ~ 17 km up in the lower stratosphere the jet stream should be a good mixer. This process cannot add heat to the lower atmosphere anyway, because the stratosphere does not mix efficiently with the lower atmosphere across the tropopause. Therefore this is not at all a convincing way to get any extra heating near-surface or in the troposphere.
If you were in a position to understand the princples of molecular spectroscopy the actual carbon dioxide radiative forcing calculated by IPCC type algorithms is seen to be far too high. Doubling of carbon dioxide results not in 1.5 deg C or anything like it, but about 0.015 deg C i.e. a hundredth as much. This magnitude of change is still too high in practice as indicated by aspects of the discussion above.
There are other inconvenient truths overlooked by wearing radiative forcing blinkers but that'll do for now.
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Get the actual numbers (temperature sources given, carbon dioxide as here or Mauna Loa) and apply the requisite formula for the last 10 years.
If your answer doesn't have a negative sign in front, try again.
Why use 10 years or 6 years(as per your chart) when there's 40 years worth of Mauna Loa data? If your answer doesn't have a negative sign in front, try again.
As to HadCRUT, whatever the correlation (r^2) was according to your memory (already not doing so well regarding eruptivity, aa index, and temperature sources
) surface gridded data for the last 30 years alone exaggerates warming by ~100& so the rest cannot be accepted.However, for the purpose of discussion on PH:
Climate Correlations Discussed
N.B If in future there are any queries on data please direct to the primary sources almost always quoted - if nothing is given, find out as others have done, if you don't already know but should
Guam said:
liked the correlation link
Taking this further from my earlier post, we can use the logarithmic relationship in the Beer Law and the 1.06 deg C maximum total temperature rise due to carbon dioxide alone to estimate the real carbon dioxide contribution to warming since industrialisation, even assuming all the carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic.
There are two unknowns but two equations:
log (380/290) = T k where T is the temperature rise due to the carbon dioxide rise
log (380/1) = 1.06 k where 1.06 deg C is the maximum temperature gain from carbon dioxide (reasonable as at present the data says there is now no further increase in T, which is changing with no relation to carbon dioxide levels r^2 ~ 0 for the last 10 years).
In both of the above, k is the new, realistic constant of proportionality.
From the second equation we get k = 2.43 and feeding this into the first equation we get T = 0.05 deg C
This is where the largest of the range of realistic temperature changes I've quoted before in these threads derives from, that range being 0.05 deg C to 0.0002 deg C. It shows how there is no visible signal in global climate data linked to carbon dioxide. It's an over-estimate for various reasons, as those with maths and science backgrounds will already have noted - not least the device putting ppmv(t=0) = 1 and the fact that convection still exists.
Guam said:
nigelfr said:
Guam said:
By The way Nige you didnt show me anything I didnt already know ( i just chose not to get into it because of the Topex thing)
Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
Sorry Tom but I really think that you're way off the mark with that. Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
For one thing the first IPCC report was published almost 20 years ago: of course it's not surprising that the predictions have changed, because new data has become available.
Do you really expect them to cling blindly to data, models and theories and not pay attention to the real world. It sounds like you've got a win win situation for yourself: either the IPCC changes projections to reflect new data, in which case you can accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, or they don't change their predictions and are accused of not taking new facts into account.
And where's this 3 m sea level rise you're talking about from?
If you're going to accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, I think that you had better post the predictions from the IPCC that you find so offensive.
And your claim that no one on the AGW "side" ever thought of natural forcings until the sceptics pointed them out is so way out. Take a look at some of the natural forcings, that you know of and Google who developed them and when. Some pre date AGW by decades if not centuries. The IPCC would have to be pretty stupid to think that nobody would notice natural forcings.
I admire your diligence in looking for the accuracy of the satellite sea level measurements, but only wish that you were so diligent in investigating the accusations that you make about the IPCC.
I made similar contentions regarding the publicised threatened coming Ice age during the seventies and was roundly condemned for such nonsensical heresay untill a line of other people formed to show I was far from being wrong and it was as I have described.
You and your compatriots are very good at requesting others do the legwork (ludos cobblers about having the accuracy data to hand on the topex thing for example).
Whether the IPCC is now choosing to distance itself from the "lunatic fringe" all of a sudden and re-invent itself as a "sound scientific organisation" is almost a seperate thread in itself. The reality is such wild claims have been made, the FACT is we have been repeatedly warned that WE were killing the planet (encouraged and driven by the IPCC) I am not going on another Bunny hunt to save you the work this time.
You can Google as well as I can and if you want to have addittional fun use the internet wayback machine to find the internet information that some may have hoped would have vanished forever
Unless someone else wants to Nigels Legwork for him and take their turn at bat.
Cheers
Your '70's global cooling myth has been debunked comprehensively as it is mainly based on media reports. Just Googling "debunk global cooling myth" lead me to this: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
And what is the point you're trying to make with the global cooling myth? In Science, as new facts and data become available, theories are advanced to explain them. If it's wrong, Science rejects that hypothesis and moves on. It doesn't sit around pointing a finger saying, "Nah, nah loser, you were wrong before so you can't be right now."
nigelfr said:
And what is the point you're trying to make with the global cooling myth? In Science, as new facts and data become available, theories are advanced to explain them. If it's wrong, Science rejects that hypothesis and moves on. It doesn't sit around pointing a finger saying, "Nah, nah loser, you were wrong before so you can't be right now."
Perhaps I am being somewhat trite. But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth? Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
turbobloke said:
I'd like to have a go at explaining where the logarithm issue comes from and in doing so, combine some ideas about carbon dioxide forcing in the discussion up to this point,naturally it'll take a bit of space in terms of forum column-length so if it's of no interest to you, head over to The Lounge or wherever on PH takes your fancy - note, this is a long post advisory. ...
TB then out lines the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect from the early to mid part of the 1900's.Note that he said this "only 8% of radiation from the surface of the Earth is at a correct wavelength for absorption by carbon dioxide while 92% sails on by." This seems to show that he is using the surface up approach that treats the atmosphere as one layer.
Modern understanding uses the top down approach which looks at how energy travels from (different) layers.
I'll let someone more qualified than I am bring us up to date...
"What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.
While that may sound fairly simple once it is explained, the process is not obvious if you have started by thinking of the atmosphere from below as a single slab. ...
Modern data show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth’s surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.
Through the first half of the 20th century, however, hardly any of the few scientists who took an interest in the topic thought in this fashion. They were convinced by the subtly flawed viewpoint that looked at the atmosphere as a single slab."
See here for more, written so that almost anyone can understand it: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_01...
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Jasandjules said:
nigelfr said:
And what is the point you're trying to make with the global cooling myth? In Science, as new facts and data become available, theories are advanced to explain them. If it's wrong, Science rejects that hypothesis and moves on. It doesn't sit around pointing a finger saying, "Nah, nah loser, you were wrong before so you can't be right now."
Perhaps I am being somewhat trite. But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth? Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Interesting that you bring up the tax myth: think on this: if there wasn't global warming, would the Governments want less tax revenue or would they just raise other taxes to keep their income the same? If anyone thinks that by making AGW disappear they'll pay less tax, they really are naive.
Of course there is the possibility that global warming is a myth, and there are plenty of researchers who are trying to prove it so. Unfortunately, they haven't found any evidence yet. (Please avoid the temptation to present me with some cherrypicked data to prove me wrong. Whatever you think you've found as proof, do us all a favour: put the word debunk in front of it and google it. If you don't find anything already debunking it, then feel free to post it.)
Skeptic Arguments
This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online
1 It's the sun
2 Climate's changed before
3 There is no consensus
4 It's cooling
5 Models are unreliable
6 Surface temp is unreliable
7 Ice age predicted in the 70s
8 It hasn't warmed since 1998 3.
9 We're heading into an ice age
10 Al Gore got it wrong
11 CO2 lags temperature
12 Global warming is good
13 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
14 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
15 It's freaking cold!
16 Mars is warming
17 1934 - hottest year on record
18 It's cosmic rays
19 Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming
20 Greenland was green
21 Other planets are warming
22 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
23 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
24 Hockey stick was debunked
25 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
26 We're coming out of an ice age
27 It cooled mid-century 1
28 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
29 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
30 Glaciers are growing
31 Oceans are cooling
32 There's no empirical evidence 1
33 Climate sensitivity is low
34 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
35 If scientists can't predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?
36 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice
37 Neptune is warming 0
38 Jupiter is warming
39 It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
40 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof)
41 It's the ocean
42 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
43 CO2 measurements are suspect
44 It's aerosols
45 Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
46 It's methane
47 It's Solar Cycle Length
48 Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
49 Water levels correlate with sunspots
50 Solar cycles cause global warming
51 The sun is getting hotter
52 It's the ozone layer
53 It's satellite microwave transmissions
Taken from here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Feel free to make up your own argument if you like.
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Edited by nigelfr on Friday 10th April 13:18
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Specsavers Calling - new song title
turbobloke said:
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Specsavers Calling - new song title
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Specsavers Calling - new song title
nigelfr said:
Silly me
nigelfr said:
I thought the rules were that you post stuff that you think makes a point. If it wasn't to make a point, would you mind explaining why you posted it, please?
Sure.The media consensus of global cooling and the scare over a possibly imminent ice age in the 1970s, as discussed in this thread, inspired lyrics by The Clash in a song called London Calling.
Musicians with a top ten hit will pay lots of tax on their income, taxation funding of manmade warming rumour control aka IPCC being a point raised by JasandJules.
HTH
turbobloke said:
I'd like to have a go at explaining where the logarithm issue comes from and in doing so, combine some ideas about carbon dioxide forcing in the discussion up to this point,naturally it'll take a bit of space in terms of forum column-length so if it's of no interest to you, head over to The Lounge or wherever on PH takes your fancy - note, this is a long post advisory.
<some misleading stuff about CO2>
You don't actually believe this do you turbobloke? Don't you have a physics degree? Why are you posting stuff that you know is wrong?<some misleading stuff about CO2>
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff