Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

Are you saying the laws of thermo have changed over time?

To answer the question. CO2 and temperature don't seem to follow each other, do they?

That's a question not an answer, only partly true, and not a challenge to what I said about the thermodynamics of CO2 in the atmosphere - the warming effect caused by the radiative properties of CO2 exists for as long as it remains in the atmosphere.

Ok, I'll make a statement then. CO2 and temperature don't follow each other, do they?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

Are you saying the laws of thermo have changed over time?

To answer the question. CO2 and temperature don't seem to follow each other, do they?

That's a question not an answer, only partly true, and not a challenge to what I said about the thermodynamics of CO2 in the atmosphere - the warming effect caused by the radiative properties of CO2 exists for as long as it remains in the atmosphere.

Ok, I'll make a statement then. CO2 and temperature don't follow each other, do they?

Even worse. Temperature changes come first in the real world. This means that CO2 shifts not only don't correlate with temperature over an appropriate timescale, CO2 changes cannot be the cause of temperature changes as the order of events is the wrong way round for causality, and this is seen over geological timescales (Monnin et al, Petit et al Jouzel et al and at least two more) down to decadal timescales from Humlum. et al.

One paper has been offered by agw support central in response, which is claimed to suggest otherwise. It used 4 - why 4 and why those 4 - data points for analysis. In two, the temperature change occurred first, beyond the extent of experimental error, ruling out caulsaity. In the other two, carbon dioxide levels were claimed to change first, apparently muddying the waters, but not so. In those two instances, the extent of experimental error (i.e. error bars) put the result within the scope of the temperature change occurring first. This means that all four data points are consistent with temperature changing first, not with carbon dioxide level changing first. The same cannot be said for the order needed for causality.

Which takes me back to the Royal Sorcery. After reading yesterday's comedy gold and some of the comments, there wasn't time to plough through all the comments and as such I didn't see if the following points of detail were raised. Obviously the gross mismatching in the balloon model were indicated, but I don't recall seeing the following.

Sure enough the planet's atmosphere isn't contained within a balloon - so, the lower troposphere can cool by extensive convection even as the sun shines, this is not the case with the heater inside a closed sphere model. Continuous heat loss by convection needs to be possible for model validity. On the surface of the earth as it heats up, the radiation losses increase to the 4th power of the temperature increase, an effective cooling mechanism. Thanks, Stefan.

The black body radiation emitted from the heating element at 50 deg C or 323 K can only match emission from the surface of the earth at locations with a surface temperature of 50 deg C, which are few and far between as a proportion of total surface area, making the model invalid.



The internal heat source was thermal so a range of IR frequencies would be emitted just like the surface of the earth as per above, but due to quantisation of energy levels within the carbon dioxide molecule it can only absorb a narrow range of the wavelengths passing through it, between 2 and 3microns between 4 and 5microns and at 15microns while the rest of the thermal radiation i.e. most of it passes through. In the case of the balloon model, the balloon skin will reflect infrared back into the gas, rather than letting it escape, and absorb some wavelengths and heat up, warming the carbon dioxide gas by conduction as gas molecules collide with the rubber polymer molecules. This makes the model invalid.

There was no liquid water in the balloon, and for obvious reasons given the limitations of a balloon with an internal heat source, but it's a major shortcoming as latent heat from vaporisation of water (seas rivers oceans) isn't involved in the heat transfers i.e. heat loss, so the model is invalid.

Overall, atrocious.

[ChevronB19]

Diderot said:

Eemian man should be along any minute to confirm.

Edited by Diderot on Thursday 6th April 23:12

Thank you for the honorific.

Once again, climate in the past (including the Eemian lol) didn’t affect *our* climate. It affected biota that existed in the past.

However, we can (are are) learn/learning lessons from it (sea levels etc).

We are now part of that biota, and climate change will (and is) affecting us.

Edited by ChevronB19 on Friday 7th April 13:01

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

Diderot said:

Eemian man should be along any minute to confirm.

Edited by Diderot on Thursday 6th April 23:12

Thank you for the honorific.

Once again, climate in the past (including the Eemian lol) didn’t affect *our* climate. It affected biota that existed in the past.

However, we can (are are) learn/learning lessons from it (sea levels etc).

We are now part of that biota, and climate change will (and is) affecting us.

Climate, and changes, always have and always will affect us; the issue is, are we making it dangerously worse, or in fact better by not affecting climate at all significantly while greening the earth via aerial fertilisation, as per NASA headline on the greening aspect.

Not sure if you missed, or are interested, in this - refutation of the key 1999 attribution paper from which the claimed link between emissions and climate (weather) has been milked/exaggerated ever since. Here's content from the abstract of McKitrick 2021.

Abstract said:

Allen and Tett (1999, herein AT99) introduced a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression methodology for decomposing patterns of climate change for attribution purposes and proposed the “Residual Consistency Test” (RCT) to check the GLS specification. Their methodology has been widely used and highly influential ever since, in part because subsequent authors have relied upon their claim that their GLS model satisfies the conditions of the Gauss-Markov (GM) Theorem, thereby yielding unbiased and efficient estimators. But AT99 stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test. The continuing influence of AT99 two decades later means these issues should be corrected.

Quite a catalogue of errors in a highly influential paper with media and political ramifications unworthy of the unquestioning parroting involved, to this day.

A pre-print was sent to the 1999 authors, no reply, with nothing by way of response in the peer-reviewed literature. A web article by McKitrick put it in the following way - when the stats errors are addressed via standard correction, the claimed greenhouse signal is no longer detectable. This and the models v data failures lead me to conclude that we are not causing dangerous permanent climate change including the non-increase in so-called extreme weather (see Pielke).

IPCC Attribution Methodology Fundamentally Flawed
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attri...

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 7th April 13:20

[robinessex]

ChevronB19 said:

climate change will (and is) affecting us.

How do you prove that?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

climate change will (and is) affecting us.

How do you prove that?

Fair question, see 13.18 post below yours.

[ChevronB19]

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

[Biker 1]

ChevronB19 said:

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

So for the sake of a few island inhabitants we will have to dump all the trappings of modern life & become cavemen? Surely it would be substantially cheaper to resettle these people?

[dickymint]

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

From your link............

“The key thing to understand is that these islands aren’t static. They don’t sit passively as if they were in a bathtub and slowly drowning,” said Murray Ford, a geologist at the University of Auckland. “They are constantly being reshaped by oceanographic and sedimentary processes.”

These natural processes may offer only limited protection to highly developed islands, partly because the construction of sea walls can disrupt the movement of sediment and human activity often degrades the health of coral reefs. “Once an island is on an engineered pathway, it can’t easily get off it. Islands that are being built on reclaimed land must factor in sea level rise and build higher off the ground,” said Murray. “For islands that are unpopulated, or sparsely populated, care should be taken to not interfere with the natural ability of islands to adjust to changes in sea level.”

So "natural processes" which coming from NASA is quite a shock

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

Which still doesn't touch causality, not even a gentle brush, surely you appreciate that?'

Also are you familiar with the work of Prof Masselink e.g. in Science Advances (2020 iirc)? That's a team which recently replicated research known for years, probably in Geomorphology 101 and certainly not new news. There's a reason that island atolls in the pacific and elsewhere aren't going to sink even if seas are rising beyond the adjustments being made in a near-zero context. This is because when part or all of an island is overtopped e.g. due to a storm, deposition occurs, with sediment from corals and beaches taken inland. This was around years ago, alongside research which shows that the Maldives formed when sea levels were even higher than they are today.

Where an island is on a subduction zone it's a different story but you know that for sure.

Prof Masselink said:

It is important to realise that these coral reef islands have developed over hundreds to thousands of years as a result of energetic wave conditions removing material from the reef structure and depositing the material towards the back of reef platforms, thereby creating islands. The height of their surface is actually determined by the most energetic wave conditions, therefore overtopping, flooding and island inundation are necessary, albeit inconvenient and sometime hazardous, processes required for island maintenance.

Not determined by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

See also 'Tuvalu not experiencing increased sea level rise' Energy & Environment, 15, 3 (2004)

Coffee table reading which nevertheless cites research evidence to 2018:
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2022/2/7/n...

Naturally island atoll politicians will accept money if they can get it.

ETA found the Maldives paper: Geophys Res Lett (2018): Coral Reef Island Initiation and Development Under Higher Than Present Sea Levels,
East et al.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 7th April 14:51

[dickymint]

^^^ In a nutshell the Maldives want a slice of the "Green Pie" can't blame them really

[Diderot]

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

Chevron, at what level did you study the Eemian? Undergrad dissertation?, MSc? PhD? Post Doc?

[Diderot]

dickymint said:

^^^ In a nutshell the Maldives want a slice of the "Green Pie" can't blame them really

Maybe if they were so worried about ‘drowning’ they could stop all tourism overnight. Cake and eat it methinks.

[ChevronB19]

Diderot said:

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

Chevron, at what level did you study the Eemian? Undergrad dissertation?, MSc? PhD? Post Doc?

PhD and 2x postdocs, finishing in 2003, why?

[robinessex]

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

I started to read that, got as far as the second paragraph, and found an "expected", a "could", an " anticipates", a "could " and an "if". Seems as if that counts as proof these days.

[hairykrishna]

Diderot said:

Ludo - blimey that brings back memories of Monte Carlo and casino stats.

Oh yes. In much the same way that turboblokes memory of the thermodynamics discussion is...selective I think I probably remember this differently to you. Because what I remember is people who didn't know the first thing about maths or physics finding the concept of a standard modelling technique hilarious. While someone who was a professional statistician patiently tried to explain it to them.

[turbobloke]

hairykrishna said:

Diderot said:

Ludo - blimey that brings back memories of Monte Carlo and casino stats.

Oh yes. In much the same way that turboblokes memory of the thermodynamics discussion is...selective I think I probably remember this differently to you. Because what I remember is people who didn't know the first thing about maths or physics finding the concept of a standard modelling technique hilarious. While someone who was a professional statistician patiently tried to explain it to them.

I remember the thermos dynamics and tractor kinetics moments, both ludocrous to quote a term of the day. It was exactly not as you claim. Do you remember your own tribulations with the solar wind? Parp.

Electric cars being written off after minor bumps
The Daily Telegraph, 3 April 2023

How about some psychology as a fix, if they had a Ford Climate Model eV it could break down, be taken to pieces, take people down the wrong road or go nowhere and still be a political winner.

[Diderot]

ChevronB19 said:

Diderot said:

ChevronB19 said:

robinessex said:

How do you prove that?

At its absolute simplest, sea level rise in the Maldives, with government offering incentives to move to what higher ground there is.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/pr...

Chevron, at what level did you study the Eemian? Undergrad dissertation?, MSc? PhD? Post Doc?

PhD and 2x postdocs, finishing in 2003, why?

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

Are you saying the laws of thermo have changed over time?

To answer the question. CO2 and temperature don't seem to follow each other, do they?

That's a question not an answer, only partly true, and not a challenge to what I said about the thermodynamics of CO2 in the atmosphere - the warming effect caused by the radiative properties of CO2 exists for as long as it remains in the atmosphere.

Ok, I'll make a statement then. CO2 and temperature don't follow each other, do they?

Even worse. Temperature changes come first in the real world. This means that CO2 shifts not only don't correlate with temperature over an appropriate timescale, CO2 changes cannot be the cause of temperature changes as the order of events is the wrong way round for causality, and this is seen over geological timescales (Monnin et al, Petit et al Jouzel et al and at least two more) down to decadal timescales from Humlum. et al.

Yeah right, pull the other one.

All you have there is CO2 didn't initiate the temperature change. Full stop.

[hairykrishna]

turbobloke said:

I remember the thermos dynamics and tractor kinetics moments, both ludocrous to quote a term of the day. It was exactly not as you claim. Do you remember your own tribulations with the solar wind? Parp.

I don't remember a solar wind discussion - although I know a great deal less about that than I do about Monte Carlo modelling. Some googling just brings up a thread from about 15 years ago where you're being wrong about CFC's but I doubt it's that.