Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

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...

Interesting that the first comment was from a physicst and he was saying it was wrong

[Globs]

TransverseTight said:

Did anyone claim modellers knew everything 10 years ago

Yes, the IPCC did. They were wrong.

hairykrishna said:

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.

Are you still cling onto the majestic power of CO2 Hairy? FFS.

You've been shown the Lambert Beer laws disproving that.
Additionally you should know that 71% of the surface won't absorb your IR anyway.

Then there is the evidence: 17+ years (80 if you look at non-homogenised data) or zero warming.

Your CO2 hasn't done anything except make plants grow better,

[Globs]

PRTVR said:

Interesting that the first comment was from a physicst and he was saying it was wrong

He's not the only one.
Many real physicists have resigned over this scam

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics,
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-pr...

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From the American Physical Society; Global Warming, “Is the Greatest and Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud I Have Seen in My Long Life as a Physicist”
October 11th, 2010

etc.

As for that consensus:
"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists."

People like hairy show that belief systems are stronger than training and evidence, it is so sad to see that.
Part of their belief is the unwavering faith in a constant albedo on earth, something that changes by the minute as water vapour - the bane of AGW - moves aruond and thwarts their warming nirvana at every turn. It's funny as even NASA measures of water vapour are falling, when the whole point of the IPCC is to convince people that water vapour must increase to 'amplify' their dead hypothesis.

The AGW scam has failed the scientific method so many times that no activist/believer can be called a scientist, the best they can achieve is 'deluded technician' status.

[Globs]

ash73 said:

Popped in to see what was being said about the new IPCC report and you guys are still arguing about the physics of CO2? Nothing changes.

The physics of CO2 is CENTRAL to the IPCCs case. Because that is broken it means that CO2 doesn't matter. A cause for great celebration.

ash73 said:

Where's the predicted cooling Globs, I thought the sun had gone to sleep?

It's all over the globe and has been manifesting in colder winters for the past half decade.

How's that arctic melting going?

[hairykrishna]

PRTVR said:

Interesting that the first comment was from a physicst and he was saying it was wrong

I'm a physicist. It's not wrong.

That first comment doesn't provide any argument against anything on that page.

[Globs]

hairykrishna said:

I'm a physicist.

Then you should be ashamed for being sucked in by this scam.
Do you disdain the Scientific Method so much?
Do you always agree with people manipulating the data in their favour.

Oh - and what makes you think the earth's albedo is constant? Do the clouds in your world never change?

ETA: Freeman Dyson explaining why Hairy is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
(Hairy: Freeman is a REAL scientists and physicist of a calibre you can only dream of). Watch and learn.

Edited by Globs on Sunday 29th September 18:57

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

Interesting that the first comment was from a physicst and he was saying it was wrong

I'm a physicist. It's not wrong.

That first comment doesn't provide any argument against anything on that page.

but it sure as hell doesn't support it, what chance have do we mere mortals have if you physicst cannot agree, and why do you think you are right and he is wrong ?

[Gandahar]

Globs said:

How's that arctic melting going?

YEAR MINIMUM ICE EXTENT DATE

2007 4.17 1.61 September 18
2008 4.59 1.77 September 20
2009 5.13 1.98 September 13
2010 4.63 1.79 September 21
2011 4.33 1.67 September 11
2012 3.41 1.32 September 16
2013 5.10 1.97 September 13
1979 to 2000 average 6.70 2.59 September 13
1981 to 2010 average 6.22 2.40 September 15

There was an exceptional year in 2007 and then the extent went up for 2 years.

There was an exceptional year in 2013 and then the extent has gone up for 1 year.

The extent in 2007 was due to unusually warm winds blowing up from Siberia, plus lots of sunny days and also the wind compressing the ice.

The extent in 2013 was due to an unusual summer storm that broke the ice up and encouraged melting.

Considering what has happened in the two years after 2007. ie from then more downward trend, it is not a good idea to get fixated on the summer extent this year and say it means a shift.

Now that Cryosat2 is producing good results it may be more important how much volume we have in the Arctic rather than extent.

We shall see

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 29th September 19:08

[PRTVR]

Gandahar said:

YEAR MINIMUM ICE EXTENT DATE

2007 4.17 1.61 September 18
2008 4.59 1.77 September 20
2009 5.13 1.98 September 13
2010 4.63 1.79 September 21
2011 4.33 1.67 September 11
2012 3.41 1.32 September 16
2013 5.10 1.97 September 13
1979 to 2000 average 6.70 2.59 September 13
1981 to 2010 average 6.22 2.40 September 15

There was an exceptional year in 2007 and then the extent went up for 2 years.

There was an exceptional year in 2013 and then the extent went up for 1 year.

The extent in 2007 was due to unusually warm winds blowing up from Siberia, plus lots of sunny days and also the wind compressing the ice.

The extent in 2013 was due to an unusual summer storm that broke the ice up and encouraged melting.

Considering what has happened in the two years after 2007. ie from then more downward trend, it is not a good idea to get fixated on the summer extent this year and say it means a shift.

Now that Cryosat2 is producing good results it may be more important how much volume we have in the Arctic rather than extent.

We shall see

I agree we shouldn't get fixated on ice at the polar regions , its disappeared before it will again no matter what man does.

[hairykrishna]

PRTVR said:

but it sure as hell doesn't support it, what chance have do we mere mortals have if you physicst cannot agree, and why do you think you are right and he is wrong ?

The contents of that article are a basic radiation transport explanation. If he's a physicist I'm fairly sure he will "support" it.

[Gandahar]

PRTVR said:

I agree we shouldn't get fixated on ice at the polar regions , its disappeared before it will again no matter what man does.

Then why is it such a big deal this year on all the non scientific AGW blogs? Like it was in 2008.

And I am talking for and against AGW blogs here. Both are equally to blame here, people want instant gratification to "prove their point" rather than having to wait a few years to get a better understanding.

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 29th September 19:31

[hairykrishna]

Globs said:

ETA: Freeman Dyson explaining why Hairy is wrong.

Freeman Dyson accepts the greenhouse effect, accepts that CO2 is a significant contributor to it, accepts that humans are responsible for the observed CO2 rise. The idea that he in any way supports your position is laughable.

He is actually a scientific sceptic, someone who has an informed position rather than arguing from ignorance. EDIT, although having read some other articles he's not that informed about some things after all.

Edited by hairykrishna on Sunday 29th September 19:51

[PRTVR]

Gandahar said:

PRTVR said:

I agree we shouldn't get fixated on ice at the polar regions , its disappeared before it will again no matter what man does.

Then why is it such a big deal this year on all the non scientific AGW blogs? Like it was in 2008.

And I am talking for and against AGW blogs here. Both are equally to blame here, people want instant gratification to "prove their point" rather than having to wait a few years to get a better understanding.

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 29th September 19:31

Because for the last few years we have been deluged with warnings that due to GW the ice caps are melting and this is proof of GW, what do you expect when the ice expands?
As you say each side is using data to back up its claim,instead of saying we need to understand this better.

[Globs]

Gandahar said:

Globs said:

How's that arctic melting going?

YEAR MINIMUM ICE EXTENT DATE

2007 4.17 1.61 September 18
2008 4.59 1.77 September 20
2009 5.13 1.98 September 13
2010 4.63 1.79 September 21
2011 4.33 1.67 September 11
2012 3.41 1.32 September 16
2013 5.10 1.97 September 13
1979 to 2000 average 6.70 2.59 September 13
1981 to 2010 average 6.22 2.40 September 15

There was an exceptional year in 2007 and then the extent went up for 2 years.

There was an exceptional year in 2013 and then the extent has gone up for 1 year.

The extent in 2007 was due to unusually warm winds blowing up from Siberia, plus lots of sunny days and also the wind compressing the ice.

The extent in 2013 was due to an unusual summer storm that broke the ice up and encouraged melting.

Considering what has happened in the two years after 2007. ie from then more downward trend, it is not a good idea to get fixated on the summer extent this year and say it means a shift.

Now that Cryosat2 is producing good results it may be more important how much volume we have in the Arctic rather than extent.

We shall see

A graph is often easier to read:


Minimum ice extent greater than 2009 at 5.10 millions km^2 compared to 5.13 in 2009.
So much for the disappearing ice cap - did the IPCC forget to send it the memo?

It must be worse than they thought.

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

but it sure as hell doesn't support it, what chance have do we mere mortals have if you physicst cannot agree, and why do you think you are right and he is wrong ?

The contents of that article are a basic radiation transport explanation. If he's a physicist I'm fairly sure he will "support" it.

what bit of what he posted do you have problems with?
The part were he wrote CO2 does not drive global warming, that doesn't agree with your view of things, so I think I would be safe in saying he doesn't support it.

[Globs]

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

but it sure as hell doesn't support it, what chance have do we mere mortals have if you physicst cannot agree, and why do you think you are right and he is wrong ?

The contents of that article are a basic radiation transport explanation. If he's a physicist I'm fairly sure he will "support" it.

what bit of what he posted do you have problems with?
The part were he wrote CO2 does not drive global warming, that doesn't agree with your view of things, so I think I would be safe in saying he doesn't support it.

Basic radiation transport is not applicable to earth as it has a variable albedo. Therefore no decent physicist would ever consider applying it.

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

I'm a physicist. It's not wrong.

That first comment doesn't provide any argument against anything on that page.

Really? Well there goes my faith in the education system

HK - water vapor is the dominant GHG - estimates in the 97% region (gotta love that number). This is an undeniable fact. CO2 (all of it) is somewhere in that leftover 3% with an anthropogenic contribution of 3% of this. Given as water vapor in the atmosphere has not increased with AGW theory the theoretical maximum warming increase of doubling the total CO2 in the atmosphere is 1K. One Kelvin. A recent paper has come to light showing that if we magically converted all of our oil, gas, coal reserves (and those predicted) the CO2 would only get to 519 ppm. Not even double what we have now.
So HK still afraid of CAGW?

[Gandahar]

Globs said:

Gandahar said:

Globs said:

How's that arctic melting going?

YEAR MINIMUM ICE EXTENT DATE

2007 4.17 1.61 September 18
2008 4.59 1.77 September 20
2009 5.13 1.98 September 13
2010 4.63 1.79 September 21
2011 4.33 1.67 September 11
2012 3.41 1.32 September 16
2013 5.10 1.97 September 13
1979 to 2000 average 6.70 2.59 September 13
1981 to 2010 average 6.22 2.40 September 15

There was an exceptional year in 2007 and then the extent went up for 2 years.

There was an exceptional year in 2013 and then the extent has gone up for 1 year.

The extent in 2007 was due to unusually warm winds blowing up from Siberia, plus lots of sunny days and also the wind compressing the ice.

The extent in 2013 was due to an unusual summer storm that broke the ice up and encouraged melting.

Considering what has happened in the two years after 2007. ie from then more downward trend, it is not a good idea to get fixated on the summer extent this year and say it means a shift.

Now that Cryosat2 is producing good results it may be more important how much volume we have in the Arctic rather than extent.

We shall see

A graph is often easier to read:


Minimum ice extent greater than 2009 at 5.10 millions km^2 compared to 5.13 in 2009.
So much for the disappearing ice cap - did the IPCC forget to send it the memo?

It must be worse than they thought.

5.10 is NOT greater than 5.13. What are you trying to say? Have you got confused?

Did you read my earlier post about exceptional years and then a succession of years walking back to the longer term downward trend? Please read it again.

[Globs]

Gandahar said:

5.10 is NOT greater than 5.13. What are you trying to say? Have you got confused?
Did you read my earlier post about exceptional years and then a succession of years walking back to the longer term downward trend? Please read it again.

5.13 is the 2009 minima
5.10 is the 2013 minima

I.e. The arctic has the greatest minima ice extent since 2009.

HTH.

Can you explain that in the context of runaway global warming?

[raftom]

Mann said:

The IPCC reports a likely range of 1.5C to 4.5C (roughly 3F to 8F) for this quantity, the lower end having been dropped from 2.0C in the fourth IPCC assessment.

Half-degree by half-degree until total unfalsifiability.