Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
TransverseTight said:
The answer is you can do this with science. Reading the abstracts of a few papers there are 2 main methods. Field based sampling and lab based experiments. I particularly like the lab as you can control temperature, pressure, salinity acidity CO2 and see what the absorption rates are & therefore rate of pH change.
Interestingly they also do this to see the effects on the ecosystem. Block off part of a lagoon and artificially raise the temperature or acidity and see if species can cope. Some can, some cant.
I'm now quite happy I could win a pub debate (not a scientific one) on whether the scientific method of establishing the pH of oceans is done via sound methods.
Have I missed sonething?
So much. But never mind.Interestingly they also do this to see the effects on the ecosystem. Block off part of a lagoon and artificially raise the temperature or acidity and see if species can cope. Some can, some cant.
I'm now quite happy I could win a pub debate (not a scientific one) on whether the scientific method of establishing the pH of oceans is done via sound methods.
Have I missed sonething?
Willy Nilly said:
Quick question,
when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
SSsshhh! If the AGW lot add the actual heat to their calculations we will all end up burnt to a crisp even sooner! when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
TransverseTight said:
I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time reading old forum posts as its a bit like reading old newspapers. My time is limited and the debate has probably moved on.
You'd like to think so, but no, it just goes round and round in endless circles. The early discussions do still cover some of the current ground. You will end up perpetuating the circle for the most part.Willy Nilly said:
Quick question,
when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
Most energy 'used' ends up as waste heat. The amount is trivial in the grand scheme of things though. Total human energy usage in a year is roughly equivalent to the amount delivered to the earth by the sun in an hour. when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
jshell said:
TransverseTight said:
I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time reading old forum posts as its a bit like reading old newspapers. My time is limited and the debate has probably moved on.
You'd like to think so, but no, it just goes round and round in endless circles. The early discussions do still cover some of the current ground. You will end up perpetuating the circle for the most part.Early on it was established that in the presence of water vapour CO2 wasn't really going to do anything. Physics supported by the Vostok ice core evidence.
Then there was the insistence that the earth was a black body with constant albedo, when the clouds change that every hour. The IPCC don't do clouds.
Then there's water itself, covering 71% of the globe, that simply doesn't absorb heat from the IR that the IPCC claim is doing the heating. It gets stopped in the first few microns and causes local evaporation into more - yes, you've guessed it - water vapour, which then acts as yet another additional shield against IR.
Then there is the tropospheric hotspot that _must_ exist for the CO2/warming hypothesis to hold any water, but doesn't.
And the piece-de-resistance a-la IPCC, the need for water vapour to increase to 'amplify' the fictional effect, but as common sense and NASA satellite measurements show, has been decreasing in mid/high altitudes over the past few years.
And finally, to cap it all off, if you look at the min and max temperatures, instead of the mean temperatures, you see that the min temperatures grow with population but the max temperatures stay the same. So mean temperatures actually just gives you a proxy population metric, not one of climate. Looking at the max temperature charts we can see that no temperature rise has occurred for at least 80 years.
Then there is the current bane of the IPCC: The Climate. It never got the memo, and as it cools (naturally, as always) the liars and cheats with their modified data and grant wrenching conclusions are on the run. Which is fabulous.
ETA temperature refs: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-...
hairykrishna said:
Willy Nilly said:
Quick question,
when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
Most energy 'used' ends up as waste heat. The amount is trivial in the grand scheme of things though. Total human energy usage in a year is roughly equivalent to the amount delivered to the earth by the sun in an hour. when energy is used some heat is normally give off. so how much as all this heat we have generated warmed the atmosphere compared to the CO2 emmissions?
Globs said:
Yes, nothing new really.
Early on it was established that in the presence of water vapour CO2 wasn't really going to do anything. Physics supported by the Vostok ice core evidence.
Then there was the insistence that the earth was a black body with constant albedo, when the clouds change that every hour. The IPCC don't do clouds.
Then there's water itself, covering 71% of the globe, that simply doesn't absorb heat from the IR that the IPCC claim is doing the heating. It gets stopped in the first few microns and causes local evaporation into more - yes, you've guessed it - water vapour, which then acts as yet another additional shield against IR.
Then there is the tropospheric hotspot that _must_ exist for the CO2/warming hypothesis to hold any water, but doesn't.
And the piece-de-resistance a-la IPCC, the need for water vapour to increase to 'amplify' the fictional effect, but as common sense and NASA satellite measurements show, has been decreasing in mid/high altitudes over the past few years.
And finally, to cap it all off, if you look at the min and max temperatures, instead of the mean temperatures, you see that the min temperatures grow with population but the max temperatures stay the same. So mean temperatures actually just gives you a proxy population metric, not one of climate. Looking at the max temperature charts we can see that no temperature rise has occurred for at least 80 years.
Then there is the current bane of the IPCC: The Climate. It never got the memo, and as it cools (naturally, as always) the liars and cheats with their modified data and grant wrenching conclusions are on the run. Which is fabulous.
ETA temperature refs: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-...
Some good questions for me.to go away and read up on there. Thanks. I shall decline to comment on flippant throw away comments by other people.Early on it was established that in the presence of water vapour CO2 wasn't really going to do anything. Physics supported by the Vostok ice core evidence.
Then there was the insistence that the earth was a black body with constant albedo, when the clouds change that every hour. The IPCC don't do clouds.
Then there's water itself, covering 71% of the globe, that simply doesn't absorb heat from the IR that the IPCC claim is doing the heating. It gets stopped in the first few microns and causes local evaporation into more - yes, you've guessed it - water vapour, which then acts as yet another additional shield against IR.
Then there is the tropospheric hotspot that _must_ exist for the CO2/warming hypothesis to hold any water, but doesn't.
And the piece-de-resistance a-la IPCC, the need for water vapour to increase to 'amplify' the fictional effect, but as common sense and NASA satellite measurements show, has been decreasing in mid/high altitudes over the past few years.
And finally, to cap it all off, if you look at the min and max temperatures, instead of the mean temperatures, you see that the min temperatures grow with population but the max temperatures stay the same. So mean temperatures actually just gives you a proxy population metric, not one of climate. Looking at the max temperature charts we can see that no temperature rise has occurred for at least 80 years.
Then there is the current bane of the IPCC: The Climate. It never got the memo, and as it cools (naturally, as always) the liars and cheats with their modified data and grant wrenching conclusions are on the run. Which is fabulous.
ETA temperature refs: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-...
One first thing though... this about IR not getting past the first few microns. This isn't scientific bit personal experience. If you swim in water and swim under the shade of a tree you'll notice an instant cooling. Its not the UV or visible light that makes you feel warm, but the IR. So it definetely can penetrate the water at least a few inches. I've also been lucky enough to go scuba diving in the tropics and have experienced warm / cold pockets even 5-10m below the surface. After that i seems to settle down. What that tells me is heat is getting into the water and mixing.
Whether it evaporation vaporised some molecules and reflected some heat back I don't know, but will have a dig around so I get to understand the theories.
FWIW I started reading the tread from the start but there's so much of the usual bickering and cheap comments it doesn't help. I gave up at page 12 and decided to come back and ask questions of people who are still interested.
For anyone interested, this is quite a good summary of the current "climate skeptic" position:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/2...
Also has lots of links to other websites where you can find good information.
Or try the Royal Society, NewScientist or Scientific American websites.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/2...
Also has lots of links to other websites where you can find good information.
Or try the Royal Society, NewScientist or Scientific American websites.
grumbledoak said:
So, the cold water is warmer than the warm water it is replacing? How does that work?
No just a bit warmer. For example, say last time it left the tropics it was 25 degrees. It hits the cold artic water which is 4 degrees and starts to head back south at lets say 10 degrees. Now if we assume some heat gets added at the arctic end, and the water is now 10.1 degrees it still colder than the water arriving so sinks. Its also cold enough to head back south and cool the tropics.
Those aren't real figures. Just used to illustrate how the heat exchange works and how its therefore possible at this end for a lot of additional heat to be picked up as the convection process still works.
PRTVR said:
OK that makes sense, now why did it start at the "paused" period, and was it not happening before ?
It didnt start then, it always did this. i think what you are referring to is why theyve had to look at why some of the models didnt predict the current period where things arent hotting up as fast as they predicted. The answer appears to be something to do with a multidecadal cycle in the pacific. In the cooler part of the cycle which we are in now it will take down more heat but also slow the rate of heating in the atmosphere. The thing that get me, is this seems to be irrelevant as to whether the warming has stopped. Becuase last time we came out of a cool period the wrming carried on. So when cycnics say the warming has stopped, thats becuase they are choosig to exclude the previous hundred years data and start counting at 1998. Using the same assertion you could assume Ive always been 6ft tall as Ive not grown since 1998.
Terminator X said:
TT - what makes you think CO2 has a big effect on climate? It is dwarfed by water vapour which has a larger effect.
TX.
Im not certain. And I agree water vapour has a bigger effect , and is also the most difficult to try and model. But Im very interested in getting myself to a level of certtainty before I change the direction of my business, I see lots of opportunities to invest in new products and services, something I'm not willing to do currently as In the publics mind and in politics theres less conviction than I have. However if you look at investment returns from companies that are "ahead on the green curve" they tend to outperform the market. My interest picked up in 2007 when I watched Al Gore's film and though blimey, and then 2 weeks later channel 4 showed the documentary the great global warming swindle. And I thought blimey for the opposite reason. I spent about 2000 hours reading everything I could after that.TX.
The reason Im on here asking questions is becuase I can see theres a skeptic consensus which is fine. I accept theres lots of info out there which can lead people to skeptical conclusions. However my experience has taught me that for every skeptical argument, if you can be bothered to go looking, or even do some of your own thinking, theres a further explanation. If people are willing to keep posting skeptic arguments I can go and do further research and learn, on balance what I think is correct. I might even see something which gets me to reconsider. But primarily getting this kind of knowledge in a way that it can relate to the public is kind of fundamental to the business idea I have. Its not essential, but makes selling easier if you can demonstrate in depth knowledge of the subject area.
I do get concerned that a lot of people seem to form an opinion and look for a "evidence" to support their argument. But they dont go on to see if theres something to counter this. However this is just normal human behaviour according to a book Im reading. Nothing specific to climate science. Are porsches better than ferraris? What data shall we choose? 0-60, ring time, number of GT wins, average length of ownership, service costs. With such a simple question that has only a yes no answer and a limited number of variable, you can see why its a lot hard to answer the question "how much affect does CO2 have on a warming climate and then when you think you have an answer to then try and convince people. LOL. Glad thats nt my job.
My background is actually in IT working on "Big Data" which is much easier than climate science, as all the data is actual not proxy.. How much tax some one has paid, how much stuff got sold somewhere etc. The clever bit is looking for patterns in the data so for example you can ask "what is a good indicator that someone is fiddling their tax return". and get the answer "a 40% change in the expense claims since last year".
TransverseTight said:
PRTVR said:
OK that makes sense, now why did it start at the "paused" period, and was it not happening before ?
It didnt start then, it always did this. i think what you are referring to is why theyve had to look at why some of the models didnt predict the current period where things arent hotting up as fast as they predicted. The answer appears to be something to do with a multidecadal cycle in the pacific. In the cooler part of the cycle which we are in now it will take down more heat but also slow the rate of heating in the atmosphere. The thing that get me, is this seems to be irrelevant as to whether the warming has stopped. Becuase last time we came out of a cool period the wrming carried on. So when cycnics say the warming has stopped, thats becuase they are choosig to exclude the previous hundred years data and start counting at 1998. Using the same assertion you could assume Ive always been 6ft tall as Ive not grown since 1998.
also interesting is that they fail to conceive that the whole warming cooling could be natural and not linked to a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere (of which humans add only a small amount) but are quite happy to put the pause down to one.
About your height, if you were predicted to be 7 ft and you remained at 6ft would you question the prediction?
The main thrust of MMGW has been CO2 increases Temperature increases , should we not question the prediction if it fails to follow real world experiences.
grumbledoak said:
TransverseTight said:
Those aren't real figures. Just used to illustrate how the heat exchange works and how its therefore possible at this end for a lot of additional heat to be picked up as the convection process still works.
Can I just check, did you pass your GCSE Physics?Having just reread some stuff I havent read for years I can see some of the skeptic argument is that CO2 is saturated, so wont make any difference adding more, but also arguing that CO2 is such a tiny trace gas it cant make any difference. Both of which cant be true. To me saturation means you cant get any more in the atmposhere and so that is incorrect. Even if you try and say its the effect of CO2 thats saturated this still isnt true. Addig more CO2 means you have more molecules to absorb heat and reradiate some downwards. To say its a trace gas with no effect is simply ignroing basic physics thats been arond since the late 1800s. If we took away all the CO2 its expected the world would be a lot cooler.
PRTVR said:
I find it interesting that now we are talking about multidecadal cycle in the pacific effectively stopping global warming, I would be interested in any scientific papers over the last 20 years that predicted it, it appears to be a new theory that has sprung up to answer the question of the pause,
also interesting is that they fail to conceive that the whole warming cooling could be natural and not linked to a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere (of which humans add only a small amount) but are quite happy to put the pause down to one.
About your height, if you were predicted to be 7 ft and you remained at 6ft would you question the prediction?
The main thrust of MMGW has been CO2 increases Temperature increases , should we not question the prediction if it fails to follow real world experiences.
Did anyone claim modellers knew everything 10 years ago that they didnt know now. Models are approximations that may have flaws. If you find unexpected results you have to go back and work out what your model is missing. It doesnt mean the model is totally wrong, especially if you can input starting conditions from decades ago and get it to follow closely what actually happened up to now. That means youve got a lot of stuff right so can let it run to the future ans see what happens. what is cant take into account is "things" you dont know about or have tought to be irrelevant so didnt include them in the algorith to save computing time... especially if a model run is going to take several thousand hours of comuting time to run. also interesting is that they fail to conceive that the whole warming cooling could be natural and not linked to a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere (of which humans add only a small amount) but are quite happy to put the pause down to one.
About your height, if you were predicted to be 7 ft and you remained at 6ft would you question the prediction?
The main thrust of MMGW has been CO2 increases Temperature increases , should we not question the prediction if it fails to follow real world experiences.
Regarding my height... if I was predicted to stay at 6ft and then next year I grew to 6ft 1 surely that would be much more worthy of investigating
TransverseTight said:
PRTVR said:
I find it interesting that now we are talking about multidecadal cycle in the pacific effectively stopping global warming, I would be interested in any scientific papers over the last 20 years that predicted it, it appears to be a new theory that has sprung up to answer the question of the pause,
also interesting is that they fail to conceive that the whole warming cooling could be natural and not linked to a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere (of which humans add only a small amount) but are quite happy to put the pause down to one.
About your height, if you were predicted to be 7 ft and you remained at 6ft would you question the prediction?
The main thrust of MMGW has been CO2 increases Temperature increases , should we not question the prediction if it fails to follow real world experiences.
Did anyone claim modellers knew everything 10 years ago that they didnt know now. Models are approximations that may have flaws. If you find unexpected results you have to go back and work out what your model is missing. It doesnt mean the model is totally wrong, especially if you can input starting conditions from decades ago and get it to follow closely what actually happened up to now. That means youve got a lot of stuff right so can let it run to the future ans see what happens. what is cant take into account is "things" you dont know about or have tought to be irrelevant so didnt include them in the algorith to save computing time... especially if a model run is going to take several thousand hours of comuting time to run. also interesting is that they fail to conceive that the whole warming cooling could be natural and not linked to a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere (of which humans add only a small amount) but are quite happy to put the pause down to one.
About your height, if you were predicted to be 7 ft and you remained at 6ft would you question the prediction?
The main thrust of MMGW has been CO2 increases Temperature increases , should we not question the prediction if it fails to follow real world experiences.
Regarding my height... if I was predicted to stay at 6ft and then next year I grew to 6ft 1 surely that would be much more worthy of investigating
My point about CO2 was as a trace gas it would need special properties to effect the system, when you look at its K factor it is .7 air is 1.0 now argon is 1.4, its ability to insulate is rubbish, I really do not think removing it from the atmosphere would cause cooling, the only thing that would happen is all plants would die out, because that is all it is plant food.
edit due to stupid speel checker changing wot I rote
Edited by PRTVR on Sunday 29th September 12:44
TransverseTight said:
If people are willing to keep posting skeptic arguments I can go and do further research and learn, on balance what I think is correct.
This thread is a waste of your time. People just regurgitate the same misunderstandings of the basics, have been doing for years and will continue to do so. Witness the "CO2 is an insignificant trace gas", "CO2 makes no difference because of water vapour" etc. Comments that are just flat out wrong and haven't been contentious since we understood the basic physics. It'd be more efficient just to go to a site which has a list of the most common 'skeptic' arguments and read the list.
hairykrishna said:
TransverseTight said:
If people are willing to keep posting skeptic arguments I can go and do further research and learn, on balance what I think is correct.
This thread is a waste of your time. People just regurgitate the same misunderstandings of the basics, have been doing for years and will continue to do so. Witness the "CO2 is an insignificant trace gas", "CO2 makes no difference because of water vapour" etc. Comments that are just flat out wrong and haven't been contentious since we understood the basic physics. It'd be more efficient just to go to a site which has a list of the most common 'skeptic' arguments and read the list.
PRTVR said:
I am here to learn , explain to me the property of CO2 that makes it special.
I've done the CO2 absorption explanation at least 3 times. Last time I got accused of being "worse than a drink driver" for having a view on climate science different from the thread majority, I'm not inclined to play physics teacher again.Science of doom does it here, if you're genuinely interested; http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insigni...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff