Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

Probably meant El Nino's cooler sister (La Nina). The last El Nino ended mid-2016 and flipped to La Nina conditions in the last half of the year - neutral territory since then.

ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 2nd November 09:00

From the average solar gain figure of 6kWh/sqm/day, divided by 24 and shift from energy to power units.

Ok I assume that's correct!

So that 250W is what would raise the earth's temperature by about 255K without an atmosphere.

0.36% x 255K = 0.918K

Notwithstanding some schoolboy error (entirely possible!) that appears remarkably consistant with the observed temperature increase.

I used an average surface temp with atmosphere around 290K to check it

Useful to work through a first level approximation, thanks. The main problem I have with CC is the way scientific results are turned into sensationalist news reports and the way that it is used to push political agendas. There are only so many times ones bullst detector can be triggered by what seems to be increasingly pseudo-religious language before you stop bothering to pay much attention.

[kerplunk]

doh...

Toltec said:

The increase is 0.9w in 250W so 0.36% then

This is just the increase since 1990 isn't it so the fit with the obs isn't so good after all (although the climate won't have reached equilibrium with the increased forcing yet which will close the gap).

[kerplunk]

Toltec said:

I used an average surface temp with atmosphere around 290K to check it

Useful to work through a first level approximation, thanks. The main problem I have with CC is the way scientific results are turned into sensationalist news reports and the way that it is used to push political agendas. There are only so many times ones bullst detector can be triggered by what seems to be increasingly pseudo-religious language before you stop bothering to pay much attention.

Ok you've made that point three times now. I agree the bbc's reporting of the facts fell short of the mark in this instance (i wouldn't even give it the credit of being 'factually correct' like you did), the WMO's own press release falls short in places as well. I'm not sure I would put that down to sensationalism or incompetance, details getting lost in the edits from the GHG Bulletin > press release > news report, probably accounts for a lot.

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Ok you've made that point three times now. I agree the bbc's reporting of the facts fell short of the mark in this instance (i wouldn't even give it the credit of being 'factually correct' like you did), the WMO's own press release falls short in places as well. I'm not sure I would put that down to sensationalism or incompetance, details getting lost in the edits from the GHG Bulletin > press release > news report, probably accounts for a lot.

I allowed it as factually correct as it was, in the sense of a statement by a politician or lawyer carefully worded so make readers come to a conclusion that isn't true without being technically a lie. This misapprehension is then passed on as fact and serves its purpose without being technically guilty of bending the truth. Sir Humphrey would be proud.

It is so easy to read or watch news articles and detect that bovine odour, dig a layer back to find the sleight of hand and just consign it to the normal CC woo compost heap.

I suppose it is all a matter of the selected audience, it does not matter if a minority disagree providing you can get the majority to go along and call anyone else a heretic.

Digging through the surface there is some good science lurking underneath, it is just taking a lot of time and effort to establish a level of trust that means I can take results/conclusions at a higher level in new work without having to spend the time cross checking the entire work. Even then, if I come to accept most of the science I very much doubt I will agree with the solutions being offered, but then they have little to do with science.

[kerplunk]

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

Ok you've made that point three times now. I agree the bbc's reporting of the facts fell short of the mark in this instance (i wouldn't even give it the credit of being 'factually correct' like you did), the WMO's own press release falls short in places as well. I'm not sure I would put that down to sensationalism or incompetance, details getting lost in the edits from the GHG Bulletin > press release > news report, probably accounts for a lot.

I allowed it as factually correct as it was, in the sense of a statement by a politician or lawyer carefully worded so make readers come to a conclusion that isn't true without being technically a lie. This misapprehension is then passed on as fact and serves its purpose without being technically guilty of bending the truth. Sir Humphrey would be proud.

It is so easy to read or watch news articles and detect that bovine odour, dig a layer back to find the sleight of hand and just consign it to the normal CC woo compost heap.

I suppose it is all a matter of the selected audience, it does not matter if a minority disagree providing you can get the majority to go along and call anyone else a heretic.

Digging through the surface there is some good science lurking underneath, it is just taking a lot of time and effort to establish a level of trust that means I can take results/conclusions at a higher level in new work without having to spend the time cross checking the entire work. Even then, if I come to accept most of the science I very much doubt I will agree with the solutions being offered, but then they have little to do with science.

Ok you want to carry on making the same point over and over. I'll add that I think you're being oversensitive with the 40% thing, I don't see anything wrong with that. You say it's 'it's like the cancer stats' thing. I say your way is like citing sea level rise as a percentage of the entire volume of the ocean. Seeking to minimize is surely as bad as seeking to maximise.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 2nd November 13:50

[Atomic12C]

I dip in and out of this thread to pick up progression on the debate, but not having the time to read through all the posts and relevant scientific papers can someone give a couple of lines where the empirical science currently is on MMGW please?

Thanks.


Is there the empirical evidence yet that the human contribution to global CO2 is the proven causal driver of global warming over the past century?
Or are we still at a stage whereby the interpretation of empirical data is being read one way or another to support a causality (cherry picking, computer modelling etc), whether that cause be man or whether that be natural cycles (earth&sun)?

[kerplunk]

Atomic12C said:

I dip in and out of this thread to pick up progression on the debate, but not having the time to read through all the posts and relevant scientific papers can someone give a couple of lines where the empirical science currently is on MMGW please?

Thanks.


Is there the empirical evidence yet that the human contribution to global CO2 is the proven causal driver of global warming over the past century?
Or are we still at a stage whereby the interpretation of empirical data is being read one way or another to support a causality (cherry picking, computer modelling etc), whether that cause be man or whether that be natural cycles (earth&sun)?

CO2's up - https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/w...

Temps are up - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monr...

Solar irradiance is doooown - https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ebde79df885aa2a50cd...

QED

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

CO2's up - https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/w...

Temps are up - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monr... Back to normal

Solar irradiance is doooown - https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ebde79df885aa2a50cd...

QED

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

CO2's up - https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/w...

Temps are up - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monr... Back to normal

Solar irradiance is doooown - https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ebde79df885aa2a50cd...

QED

Ah you've spotted the Hadcrut4 september value fell to 0.56 - well done. Temps have remained stubbornly warm since the El Nino ended last year. Even the La Nina conditions at the end of the year didn't put much of a dent in it. Maybe this is the start of the longed for post El Nino dramatic drop.

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Atomic12C said:

I dip in and out of this thread to pick up progression on the debate, but not having the time to read through all the posts and relevant scientific papers can someone give a couple of lines where the empirical science currently is on MMGW please?

Thanks.


Is there the empirical evidence yet that the human contribution to global CO2 is the proven causal driver of global warming over the past century?
Or are we still at a stage whereby the interpretation of empirical data is being read one way or another to support a causality (cherry picking, computer modelling etc), whether that cause be man or whether that be natural cycles (earth&sun)?

CO2's up - https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/w...

Temps are up - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monr...

Solar irradiance is doooown - https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ebde79df885aa2a50cd...

QED

In a pragmatic sense it does not really matter if you believe in MMGW or not, if you accept that CO2 has risen, global temperatures have risen and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then there are some simple conclusions.

The climate appears to be changing unusually rapidly, we should prepare for the consequences of this. An argument could be made that this is an aliasing issue due to historic sample rates, so timescales to react vs likelyhood of further research confirming this are a debating point.

Adding more CO2 is not going to help so developing technologies to reduce human output is probably a good idea. Though if this turns out to be wrong it will be trivially easy to generate more if we need to. Plenty of debate over the best way to do this, nuclear vs solar/wind etc. ignoring CO2 power sources do produce pollution so controlling this makes sense.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Ah you've spotted the Hadcrut4 september value fell to 0.56 - well done. Temps have remained stubbornly warm since the El Nino ended last year. Even the La Nina conditions at the end of the year didn't put much of a dent in it. Maybe this is the start of the longed for post El Nino dramatic drop.

Almost as if the oceans control the temperature....... Now tell me again how IR can warm the oceans (oh it can't).......

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Ah you've spotted the Hadcrut4 september value fell to 0.56 - well done. Temps have remained stubbornly warm since the El Nino ended last year. Even the La Nina conditions at the end of the year didn't put much of a dent in it. Maybe this is the start of the longed for post El Nino dramatic drop.

Almost as if the oceans control the temperature....... Now tell me again how IR can warm the oceans (oh it can't).......

I expect it warms the ocean in the same way as it warms the land - by slowing cooling. You'll no doubt have a sophisticated paradigm-busting take down of the precise mechanism that proves how impossible it is. I can see you gagging to lead the conversation that way. Go ahead - you'll get no argument from me.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

I expect it warms the ocean in the same way as it warms the land - by slowing cooling. You'll no doubt have a sophisticated paradigm-busting take down of the precise mechanism that proves how impossible it is. I can see you gagging to lead the conversation that way. Go ahead - you'll get no argument from me.

KP I am a promoter of the H2O hypothesis - wonderful molecule whose phase changes are ignored and parameterised out of the GCM models (only focus on radiative properties of H2O). Given you note the importance of the oceans in buffering temperature changes why is it so hard to believe H2O acts as the governor in the atmosphere except during the Milankovitch cycles where there is not enough energy to keep enough H2O in the atmosphere to prevent a snow ball earth?
All the data is there and the earth has been able to maintain a fairly constant temperature (check on a proper scale not a -1 to 1 degree scale) irrespective of solar and volcanic variation.

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

KP I am a promoter of the H2O hypothesis - wonderful molecule whose phase changes are ignored and parameterised out of the GCM models (only focus on radiative properties of H2O). Given you note the importance of the oceans in buffering temperature changes why is it so hard to believe H2O acts as the governor in the atmosphere except during the Milankovitch cycles where there is not enough energy to keep enough H2O in the atmosphere to prevent a snow ball earth?
All the data is there and the earth has been able to maintain a fairly constant temperature (check on a proper scale not a -1 to 1 degree scale) irrespective of solar and volcanic variation.

How can they model the climate without allowing for the energy involved in phase changes? The Pierre Humbert book does specifically exclude convection in its basic modelling, however I would expect any proper models to build in the solid/liquid/vapour/liquid/solid transitions that occur as H2O moves between the surface and higher atmosphere and back. Without this you are ignoring a significant energy transfer between surface and upper atmosphere where it can be radiated into space. Are you really saying something so obvious is not in climate models?

[PRTVR]

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

KP I am a promoter of the H2O hypothesis - wonderful molecule whose phase changes are ignored and parameterised out of the GCM models (only focus on radiative properties of H2O). Given you note the importance of the oceans in buffering temperature changes why is it so hard to believe H2O acts as the governor in the atmosphere except during the Milankovitch cycles where there is not enough energy to keep enough H2O in the atmosphere to prevent a snow ball earth?
All the data is there and the earth has been able to maintain a fairly constant temperature (check on a proper scale not a -1 to 1 degree scale) irrespective of solar and volcanic variation.

How can they model the climate without allowing for the energy involved in phase changes? The Pierre Humbert book does specifically exclude convection in its basic modelling, however I would expect any proper models to build in the solid/liquid/vapour/liquid/solid transitions that occur as H2O moves between the surface and higher atmosphere and back. Without this you are ignoring a significant energy transfer between surface and upper atmosphere where it can be radiated into space. Are you really saying something so obvious is not in climate models?

From what I understand the basic problem is that the subject is complicated and little understood in terms of energy, it was ignored in early programs then a fiddle factor was entered to give the impression it was accounted for, this is proper science, just ignore things that are too difficult.

[Toltec]

PRTVR said:

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

KP I am a promoter of the H2O hypothesis - wonderful molecule whose phase changes are ignored and parameterised out of the GCM models (only focus on radiative properties of H2O). Given you note the importance of the oceans in buffering temperature changes why is it so hard to believe H2O acts as the governor in the atmosphere except during the Milankovitch cycles where there is not enough energy to keep enough H2O in the atmosphere to prevent a snow ball earth?
All the data is there and the earth has been able to maintain a fairly constant temperature (check on a proper scale not a -1 to 1 degree scale) irrespective of solar and volcanic variation.

How can they model the climate without allowing for the energy involved in phase changes? The Pierre Humbert book does specifically exclude convection in its basic modelling, however I would expect any proper models to build in the solid/liquid/vapour/liquid/solid transitions that occur as H2O moves between the surface and higher atmosphere and back. Without this you are ignoring a significant energy transfer between surface and upper atmosphere where it can be radiated into space. Are you really saying something so obvious is not in climate models?

From what I understand the basic problem is that the subject is complicated and little understood in terms of energy, it was ignored in early programs then a fiddle factor was entered to give the impression it was accounted for, this is proper science, just ignore things that are too difficult.

Next you'll tell me the models are based on surface temperatures rather than energy contained in the various elements of the system!

It is possible that there could be a simple feedback variable or expression based on mean atmospheric H2O content, it depends how non-linear the heat transfer function is, treating the H2O distribution as stratified, but homogeneous at a given altitude may be adequate. It is something I have been intending to look for once I've worked through the static models. It is a bit like starting with special and then working up to general relativity.

[Cold]

On a related note, the hole in the ozone layer is at its smallest since 1988 which can only be good news for those with fair skin. NASA report

[XM5ER]

Toltec said:

Next you'll tell me the models are based on surface temperatures rather than energy contained in the various elements of the system!

It is possible that there could be a simple feedback variable or expression based on mean atmospheric H2O content, it depends how non-linear the heat transfer function is, treating the H2O distribution as stratified, but homogeneous at a given altitude may be adequate. It is something I have been intending to look for once I've worked through the static models. It is a bit like starting with special and then working up to general relativity.

No they are based on air temperature 4 feet above the ground and on water intake temperature at a variable depth below the sea surface, or at a fixed depth below the surface of some Argo buoys or previously water temp in a bucket pulled in over the side of the boat. Black-body radiation my arse.

[mondeoman]

I understood they make no allowance for changes in atmospheric humidity levels, just a generic global "average" and assume that that is good enough.

[mondeoman]

Also, from another source, oceanictemperatures 100m to 300m depth have been stable for a long time (05 - 17), except the North Pacific, which has dropped by 0.5c in the last 3 years. ARGO data

To put that into perspective, that’s 0.5c drop over some 77m km2. Equates to 64.5 BILLION Tw.

By comparison, annual global primary energy consumption is a paltry 170,000 Tw.

Now, if global temps have flatlined, as shown by satellite temp record, then that’s a cack load of energy that has left the system....

Can’t see us having to worry about rising temps any time soon.