Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
PRTVR said:
No problems with that, but first accept that we are not at the stage political decisions should be based on inaccurate predictions.
Can you define specifically what you mean by "inaccurate", because they don't look inaccurate to me at all. I think they're remarkably accurate for modelling something so complex.How "accurate" should they be before policy should be enacted? Do you propose we wait another 50 or 100 years before starting to act?
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
No problems with that, but first accept that we are not at the stage political decisions should be based on inaccurate predictions.
Can you define specifically what you mean by "inaccurate", because they don't look inaccurate to me at all. I think they're remarkably accurate for modelling something so complex.How "accurate" should they be before policy should be enacted? Do you propose we wait another 50 or 100 years before starting to act?
We keep discovering new inputs.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/Phys...
Heat in the deep ocean, was that in the code for the models ? Obviously not.
Personally my thoughts are the only way to determine the effect of a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere would be to have another earth, as that is not possible everything else is just noise.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
No problems with that, but first accept that we are not at the stage political decisions should be based on inaccurate predictions.
Can you define specifically what you mean by "inaccurate", because they don't look inaccurate to me at all. I think they're remarkably accurate for modelling something so complex.How "accurate" should they be before policy should be enacted? Do you propose we wait another 50 or 100 years before starting to act?
)Especially when the action being undertaken is hugely expensive with the poor being most affected.
Warmer is better - more people die of cold than heat.
More CO2 is better - plants grow more abundantly and/or need less water.
Drive a V8, feed a tree
Atomic12C said:
durbster -
So I guess it is not an exact science by any means, and more opinion rather than 'fact' ?
This explains why the debate will likely continue endlessly.
With that in mind I would like politicians to stop calling it "settled science", because it would seem it is anything but.
Err no, you're mixing everything up. The models are not evidence for whether AGW is happening or not. The scientific basis for AGW does not depend on modelling or projections at all (that's just another invention of the anti-AGW propaganda to try to undermine the science).So I guess it is not an exact science by any means, and more opinion rather than 'fact' ?
This explains why the debate will likely continue endlessly.
With that in mind I would like politicians to stop calling it "settled science", because it would seem it is anything but.
That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted. Once you accept that, it clearly makes sense that the next step is to figure out how fast things are likely to change and what is likely to be affected. That way, we can work out the if/when/what to do. Of course that's never going to be an exact science - just like every other policy that uses projections - but what's the alternative? Hope? Prayer?
durbster said:
Err no, you're mixing everything up. The models are not evidence for whether AGW is happening or not. The scientific basis for AGW does not depend on modelling or projections at all (that's just another invention of the anti-AGW propaganda to try to undermine the science).
That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted. Once you accept that, it clearly makes sense that the next step is to figure out how fast things are likely to change and what is likely to be affected. That way, we can work out the if/when/what to do. Of course that's never going to be an exact science - just like every other policy that uses projections - but what's the alternative? Hope? Prayer?
I thought that records show CO2 rises when temperature rises? That makes sense due to releases from rising ocean temperatures and permafrost thaws.That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted. Once you accept that, it clearly makes sense that the next step is to figure out how fast things are likely to change and what is likely to be affected. That way, we can work out the if/when/what to do. Of course that's never going to be an exact science - just like every other policy that uses projections - but what's the alternative? Hope? Prayer?
durbster said:
.
That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted. Once you accept that, it clearly makes sense that the next step is to figure out how fast things are likely to change and what is likely to be affected. That way, we can work out the if/when/what to do. Of course that's never going to be an exact science - just like every other policy that uses projections - but what's the alternative? Hope? Prayer?
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted. Once you accept that, it clearly makes sense that the next step is to figure out how fast things are likely to change and what is likely to be affected. That way, we can work out the if/when/what to do. Of course that's never going to be an exact science - just like every other policy that uses projections - but what's the alternative? Hope? Prayer?
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
PRTVR said:
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?
Think about what you've written here.PRTVR said:
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
If you want to disprove a 200 year old scientific theory that is not in dispute, go ahead; do your experiments and disprove it. If you can disprove the greenhouse effect, that would probably be the biggest shift in our understanding of physics there's ever been. The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
But until you do, I'll go with what the science says.
Nobody disputes the 200 year old Greenhouse Theory (well, except PRTVR 
). That establishes a logarithmic scale linking CO2 levels to temperature anomalies.
What is not 200 years old, or as clearly accepted in the enhanced greenhouse effect which includes suggested positive feedbacks.. These are necessary if you are blaming global temperature rises on greenhouse effect, and by association, anthropogenic CO2 emissions
). That establishes a logarithmic scale linking CO2 levels to temperature anomalies.What is not 200 years old, or as clearly accepted in the enhanced greenhouse effect which includes suggested positive feedbacks.. These are necessary if you are blaming global temperature rises on greenhouse effect, and by association, anthropogenic CO2 emissions
hairykrishna said:
I didn't post the article to directly contradict any points you had made. My comment was that, until you understand the physics to at least the base level of that article, there's no point spending time debating with you about IR transport. The reason being that you will keep making arguments that are physically incorrect.
You haven't understood the point about effective emission heights and the role of water vapour vs CO2.
You seem to be 'eyeballing' a graph of the earths TOA radiance, i.e. watts per steradian per square metre, picking a number for a single wavelength and comparing this number to Hansens calculated total average flux imbalance. 'Not even wrong' is the phrase that comes to mind.
Graphs are for eyeballing - it's what they are for You haven't understood the point about effective emission heights and the role of water vapour vs CO2.
You seem to be 'eyeballing' a graph of the earths TOA radiance, i.e. watts per steradian per square metre, picking a number for a single wavelength and comparing this number to Hansens calculated total average flux imbalance. 'Not even wrong' is the phrase that comes to mind.
When the imbalance is out by magnitudes compared with the total energy available at the wave length being discussed as the "cause" - does this not give pause for thought?
The science (models and a bit of measurement - though only a partial view) shows there is a dip - and also shows you would expect a dip at that wavelength in the presence of CO2 (we've known this since the spectrometer was invented) . What it hasn't shown is that dip correlates with surface temperatures, that dip hasn't always been there and that dip has an baring other than CO2 is present. It's as convincing as the Ozone hole science.....
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?
Think about what you've written here.PRTVR said:
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
If you want to disprove a 200 year old scientific theory that is not in dispute, go ahead; do your experiments and disprove it. If you can disprove the greenhouse effect, that would probably be the biggest shift in our understanding of physics there's ever been. The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
But until you do, I'll go with what the science says.
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?
Think about what you've written here.PRTVR said:
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
If you want to disprove a 200 year old scientific theory that is not in dispute, go ahead; do your experiments and disprove it. If you can disprove the greenhouse effect, that would probably be the biggest shift in our understanding of physics there's ever been. The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
But until you do, I'll go with what the science says.
Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
Flibble said:
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?
Think about what you've written here.PRTVR said:
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
If you want to disprove a 200 year old scientific theory that is not in dispute, go ahead; do your experiments and disprove it. If you can disprove the greenhouse effect, that would probably be the biggest shift in our understanding of physics there's ever been. The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
But until you do, I'll go with what the science says.
Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
When I use the term insignificant it is used directly related to greenhouse gases, it is an import gas for life on earth as part of the photosynthesis process, this should not be forgotten.
PRTVR said:
As part of the total atmospheric make up it's less than 0.5% it is still a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere
You keep saying it's an "insignificant trace gas" yet that's not a view held by anyone as far as I can see. What are you basing that claim on? Can you reference the paper(s)?PRTVR said:
Flibble said:
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
But it's accepted that temperature doesn't rise with CO2 increases, else why have the scientists been looking for the missing heat ?
Think about what you've written here.PRTVR said:
This is the major problem, the total acceptance that the theory is correct without thought that it could be wrong, this is not science now, this is dogma.
The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
If you want to disprove a 200 year old scientific theory that is not in dispute, go ahead; do your experiments and disprove it. If you can disprove the greenhouse effect, that would probably be the biggest shift in our understanding of physics there's ever been. The alternative is to do nothing, until the time a full understanding of the systems,
to do something based on flawed science is very costly and irresponsible.
But until you do, I'll go with what the science says.
Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
When I use the term insignificant it is used directly related to greenhouse gases, it is an import gas for life on earth as part of the photosynthesis process, this should not be forgotten.
Flibble said:
Why does it being a trace gas matter? That effect the gas will have depends on its opacity not on its concentration.
Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
340 parts per million to 410 parts per million - 340/1,000,000 to 410/1,000,000 an increase of 70/1,000,000 or 7/100,000Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
So if I randomly fire my photon gun at a crowd where an extra 7 out of 100,000 are now targets how much have my odds improved compared with 310/1,000,000?
What are my odds of accidentally hitting an H2O target when they are at around 25,000/1,000,000 instead?
Jinx said:
Flibble said:
Why does it being a trace gas matter? That effect the gas will have depends on its opacity not on its concentration.
Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
340 parts per million to 410 parts per million - 340/1,000,000 to 410/1,000,000 an increase of 70/1,000,000 or 7/100,000Also I'm not sure I'd call a 45% increase a "small addition." Even if you look at just the past 40 years, it's over 20% (roughly 340 ppm in 1980, vs 410ppm now).
So if I randomly fire my photon gun at a crowd where an extra 7 out of 100,000 are now targets how much have my odds improved compared with 310/1,000,000?
What are my odds of accidentally hitting an H2O target when they are at around 25,000/1,000,000 instead?
Scale height of CO2 vs H20.
Google these and you'll probably find the part of the thread where we explained this to you before.
PRTVR said:
As part of the total atmospheric make up it's less than 0.5% it is still a insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere, it's ability for heat retention is in direct proportion to it's quantity, unless different feedback theory's are put forward, it's ability is swamped by H2O which we all can witness.
This isn't true. CO2 is responsible for somewhere between 15 and 20% of the IR absorption.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff