Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
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.do we see hot spots where CO2 is in higher concentrations?
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?
Photo gun question, your odds have improved about 20% as I said.
Jinx said:
Flibble said:
Pretty bad odds of hitting H2O if the bullets you are using only affect CO2.
Photo gun question, your odds have improved about 20% as I said.
Not many of those around....especially at earth normal temperatures. Photo gun question, your odds have improved about 20% as I said.
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
The IPCC says things such as-
"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
I have a big problem with that because if that were the case why did the planet not go into full runaway warming in previous high temperature and CO2 climates? There must clearly be feedback systems that cause cooling, now that isn't to say changes couldn't make the climate difficult and likely for many thousands of years, however the above sounds more alarmist than strictly factual.
I suppose it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming so I suppose looking at it with an anthropomorphic bias and timescale is to be expected.
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
Of course though a peak wavelength of 15 microns = around -79.8 degrees Celcius?
Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 11th September 13:23
Jinx said:
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
Of course though a peak wavelength of 15 microns = around -79.8 degrees Celcius?
Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 11th September 13:23
Don't forget though that there will be more 15 µm emission from anything warmer than -79.8 degrees Celcius
Jinx said:
Toltec said:
Don't forget though that there will be more 15 µm emission from anything warmer than -79.8 degrees Celcius
It is also important to bear in mind that there is a difference between molecular/atomic absorbtion and emission spectra at a quantum level and black body emissions.
Jinx said:
Ok name 2 more
Of course though a peak wavelength of 15 microns = around -79.8 degrees Celcius?
There's one just over 4 µm and one at around 1 µm. They're not as relevant though, so they are for higher temperature emission.Of course though a peak wavelength of 15 microns = around -79.8 degrees Celcius?
Temperature for peak wavelength using Wein's displacement law? Yes it gives that temperature, but it's not that useful.
At 280K (a fairly typical Earth temperature) black body emissions are quite broad spectrum. Emission at 15 µm is 75% of the maximum emission for the peak wavelength.
I don't think we can discount it just yet, especially given how broad the CO2 absorption band is around 15 µm.
If you really want to prove it doesn't matter, integrate the area covered by the CO2 band and compare it with the total area under the emission curve. That would give a more useful metric.
Edited by Flibble on Tuesday 11th September 14:37
Toltec said:
Exactly
It is also important to bear in mind that there is a difference between molecular/atomic absorbtion and emission spectra at a quantum level and black body emissions.
A black body is an idealised theoretical construct. We have to work with non-idealised objects normally It is also important to bear in mind that there is a difference between molecular/atomic absorbtion and emission spectra at a quantum level and black body emissions.
Flibble said:
I don't think we can discount it just yet, especially given how broad the CO2 absorption band is around 15 µm.
H2O starts a continuous absorption band from 10 µm up. And has some significant bands elsewhere. In percentage terms my money is on H2O (it is the miracle molecule).
Having a planet at a spot where liquid/solid/gaseous H2O can exist simultaneously and having oceans of the stuff covering 2/3rds of the planets surface as a buffer to major changes, with a water cycle able to reduce incoming solar radiation... Pretty damn cool.
CO2 on the other hand - whilst it makes damn fine plant food is a bit meh by comparison.
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 probably am mixing things up, the area of study is extremely complex and involves so many inputs and output variables that even after following the discussion for years I am still on the fence with it all struggling to figure out the science vs the rhetoric vs the pro or anti advocating for vested interests.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 am leaning more towards the fact that the earth is more than capable to 'cater' for human CO2 levels (to avoid any form of "run-away" effect), and that the observed rise since the industrial revolution is mainly due to the warming trend from the last cool period.
And then the effects of a warming globe - I don't envisage mass catastrophe from a few fractions of a degree over the course of the next century to be anything outside the adaptive nature of humans and our every growing ability to solve issues via technology.
As you mention, what is the alternative?
Well, I'm not sure taxing people to the nth degree is a solution. And I'm not sure that terming it "settled science" is in the benefit of climatology nor science as a whole.
The main thing is to continue the debate in order every question resolves to a scientific answer - keep data 'open' and 'un-adjusted' so that peer review can properly take place. Then let this branch of science continue without political pressure to have to arrive at a pre-defined conclusion.
As an aside, I've always wondered what temperature value the globe should be?
Is it now not allowed to change? If it is to be a pre-defined value, who should decide what that is to be?
When technology in the future allows control over atmospheric CO2 content - does this involve World War 3 so that the victorious nation then becomes controller of global temps? (going to extremes of course - but trying to convey a question)
Atomic12C said:
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 probably am mixing things up, the area of study is extremely complex and involves so many inputs and output variables that even after following the discussion for years I am still on the fence with it all struggling to figure out the science vs the rhetoric vs the pro or anti advocating for vested interests.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 am leaning more towards the fact that the earth is more than capable to 'cater' for human CO2 levels (to avoid any form of "run-away" effect, and that the observed rise since the industrial revolution is mainly due to the warming trend from the last cool period.
And then the effects of a warming globe - I don't envisage mass catastrophe from a few fractions of a degree over the course of the next century to be anything outside the adaptive nature of humans and our every growing ability to solve issues via technology.
As you mention, what is the alternative?
Well, I'm not sure taxing people to the nth degree is a solution. And I'm not sure that terming it "settled science" is in the benefit of climatology nor science as a whole.
The main thing is to continue the debate in order every question resolves to a scientific answer - keep data 'open' and 'un-adjusted' so that peer review can properly take place. Then let this branch of science continue without political pressure to have to arrive at a pre-defined conclusion.
As an aside, I've always wondered what temperature value the globe should be?
Is it now not allowed to change? If it is to be a pre-defined value, who should decide what that is to be?
When technology in the future allows control over atmospheric CO2 content - does this involve World War 3 so that the victorious nation then becomes controller of global temps? (going to extremes of course - but trying to convey a question)
ks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-
The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
robinessex said:
The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
That was 'natural' CO2 though - not the nasty man made stuff.Atomic12C said:
I probably am mixing things up, the area of study is extremely complex and involves so many inputs and output variables that even after following the discussion for years I am still on the fence with it all struggling to figure out the science vs the rhetoric vs the pro or anti advocating for vested interests.
I am leaning more towards the fact that the earth is more than capable to 'cater' for human CO2 levels (to avoid any form of "run-away" effect), and that the observed rise since the industrial revolution is mainly due to the warming trend from the last cool period.
And then the effects of a warming globe - I don't envisage mass catastrophe from a few fractions of a degree over the course of the next century to be anything outside the adaptive nature of humans and our every growing ability to solve issues via technology.
As you mention, what is the alternative?
Well, I'm not sure taxing people to the nth degree is a solution. And I'm not sure that terming it "settled science" is in the benefit of climatology nor science as a whole.
The main thing is to continue the debate in order every question resolves to a scientific answer - keep data 'open' and 'un-adjusted' so that peer review can properly take place. Then let this branch of science continue without political pressure to have to arrive at a pre-defined conclusion.
As an aside, I've always wondered what temperature value the globe should be?
Is it now not allowed to change? If it is to be a pre-defined value, who should decide what that is to be?
When technology in the future allows control over atmospheric CO2 content - does this involve World War 3 so that the victorious nation then becomes controller of global temps? (going to extremes of course - but trying to convey a question)
Matches most of my thoughts on the subject too, anyone using the oxymoron "settled science" is not to be trusted.I am leaning more towards the fact that the earth is more than capable to 'cater' for human CO2 levels (to avoid any form of "run-away" effect), and that the observed rise since the industrial revolution is mainly due to the warming trend from the last cool period.
And then the effects of a warming globe - I don't envisage mass catastrophe from a few fractions of a degree over the course of the next century to be anything outside the adaptive nature of humans and our every growing ability to solve issues via technology.
As you mention, what is the alternative?
Well, I'm not sure taxing people to the nth degree is a solution. And I'm not sure that terming it "settled science" is in the benefit of climatology nor science as a whole.
The main thing is to continue the debate in order every question resolves to a scientific answer - keep data 'open' and 'un-adjusted' so that peer review can properly take place. Then let this branch of science continue without political pressure to have to arrive at a pre-defined conclusion.
As an aside, I've always wondered what temperature value the globe should be?
Is it now not allowed to change? If it is to be a pre-defined value, who should decide what that is to be?
When technology in the future allows control over atmospheric CO2 content - does this involve World War 3 so that the victorious nation then becomes controller of global temps? (going to extremes of course - but trying to convey a question)
Similarly with the idea of halting change that is part of natural cycles, this is normally for some perceived human benefit and past experience tells us that this can cause unintended effects, small examples are coastal erosion defences and river flood controls. I am supportive of the controlling the waste and environmental damage seven billions humans produce and the possible effects this may cause, however ideas that we can control planetary level environments are foolish.
robinessex said:
Please don't ask awkward questions like that!! I've repeatedly asked in the other CC room, and answer have been none from the believers. As for Durbsters “That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted” is complete bks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-
The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
Not sure I follow, you're saying CO2 was 5x higher in the cretaceous period, therefore it's fine now as well? As your graphic shows, the average temperature was 10c hotter than now!ks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
budgie smuggler said:
robinessex said:
Please don't ask awkward questions like that!! I've repeatedly asked in the other CC room, and answer have been none from the believers. As for Durbsters “That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted” is complete bks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-
The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
Not sure I follow, you're saying CO2 was 5x higher in the cretaceous period, therefore it's fine now as well? As your graphic shows, the average temperature was 10c hotter than now!ks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff