Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[kerplunk]

TheHeretic said:

Go you're saying that the graph posted is wrong? Too localised?

This one has the 1890 steep rise, (far steeper than the 1980's rise)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:...

This one has the rise from 1910 to 1940. Man made? If not, then the post 70's rise is not abnormal, is it not?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1...

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 18:44

correction - what I thought said 1888 on the x-axis is actually 1880 so I was decade out. A rise is discernable on both indices from ~1890 to 1900ish

That big cold dip around 1892-93 looks volcanic to me but I haven't checked.

edit - Krakatoa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 2nd March 19:09

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

It's not a case of heating. A colder body cannot and will not heat an already warmer object. That's what the Second Law says i.e. says cannot happen - without an external source of power - and there is no reason to doubt the Second Law on the basis of either third rate climate science or any particular name of any particular rate of climate scientist.

Given the number of times we've been around this loop already, I had thought you would know my position by now.

Who was doubting the 2nd law? It's you that apparently doesn't understand that the earth has an "external power source" called the Sun.

Snipping at that point has neatly removed the extraneous information pollution so I'll take it from there. Even so, the post above still reveals a lack of understanding but that's your doing not mine.

The Second Law stands - a cooler body cannot heat a warmer one. A cooler atmospheric layer at altitude cannot and does not heat an already warmer layer near the ground. In the discussions entered into on the Second Law, the Sun isn't involved directly.

In Spencer's Yes Virginia scenario the heat shield introduced to mimic atmospheric gases at altitude wasn't under power but the electrically heated element was, this is making the Earth equivalent to the Sun and is but one part of the many weaknesses in that false analogy.

Insolation from the Sun warms the Earth's surface, which cools including by emitting thermal radiation. Essentially all of the radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is at wavelengths above 4 microns. Essentially all of the radiation reaching planet Earth from the Sun is at wavelengths below 2 microns.

With the Sun emitting at wavelengths shorter than 2 microns and the thermal radiation exchange between surface and atmospheric gases involving radiation of wavelength longer than 4 microns what heat pump mechanism do you envisage to allow the cooler upper atmospheric layer to heat the warmer lower layer in a manner dependent on carbon dioxide concentration rather than solar irradiance? A very clear response on this would doubtless be appreciated by others as well as myself.

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Firstly the addition of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at this stage causes total or, if this will get past your obsession with denying effective saturation, near-total absorption of thermal radiation from the surface, at the relevant wavelengths, over a shorter distance. Doubling carbon dioxide will halve the distance. Of itself a shorter distance is not equivalent to an automatic permanent bulk troposphere temperature increase.

In terms of back radiation, this isn't a cooler atmosphere layer at altitude heating an already warmer layer near the ground. As part of the overall energy exchange over time, it will prolong cooling, causing an insignificant and non-permanent delay in cooling as heat escapes to space in a real-world context with more degrees of freedom than modellers and their junkscience gigo programming allow for.

Here you try to creep back across the line by saying GHG's cause a 'delay in cooling' which amounts to the same bloody thing as warming due to the greenhouse effect!

Sophistry!

Not at all, the difference is material and clear, or at least it should be.

For object A to have warmed object B, the temperature of object B must have risen as a result of something causal linked to A. In the context of our discussion, the temperature of the surface does not rise as a result of any radiation emitted by upper atmnosphere layers. Cooling of the surface is slowed down, insignificantly and temporarily. There is no temperature rise. The near-surface atmospheric layers are not warmed by the cooler layers at altitude.

Localised emission of a photon and localised absorption of a photon are not heating and cooling, as these heating and cooling relate to average particle energies changing as a bulk property over time. It's just emission and absorption of a photon and such paired events can't tell us anything about the overall direction in which temperature is moving without reference to all the other particles, and what happens overall over time.

Since even you will realise that the Sun sets each evening, outside the deepest circumpolar regions and even then only for part of the time, you must also realise that your argument is at best one which consolidates the role of the Sun in terms of solar irradiance, while disenfranchising carbon dioxide.

Edited to sort a warmer<-->cooler swap.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 2nd March 20:13

[TheHeretic]

kerplunk said:

correction - what I thought said 1888 on the x-axis is actually 1880 so I was decade out. A rise is discernable on both indices from ~1890 to 1900ish

That big cold dip around 1892-93 looks volcanic to me but I haven't checked.

edit - Krakatoa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 2nd March 19:09

So it took a decade for any discernible temperature effect to take hold? So a natural cause for the rise then? Also, does the haze cooling effect not cancel most of the warming? Have other eruptions since then affected the weather in such a way? Would you then argue that Pinatubo not account for the temp rise a decade later, as you suggest Krakatoa has done?

What of the rise from 1910 to 1940? What about that rise? Basically, what I would like to know is why is the rise from the 80's blamed on mankind, when other, far more serious rises have occurred naturally even in the last few centuries?

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 19:23

[kerplunk]

TheHeretic said:

So it took a decade for any discernible temperature effect to take hold? So a natural cause for the rise then?

A sharp rebound from the sudden but temporary cooling caused by the krakatoa eruption.

TheHeretic said:

What of the rise from 1910 to 1940? What about that rise? Basically, what I would like to know is why is the rise from the 80's blamed on mankind, when other, far more serious rises have occurred naturally even in the last few decades?

because of this obviously:

[TheHeretic]

kerplunk said:

because of this obviously:

I hate to spout the obvious, but why is there no increase for Pinutobo, following your Krakatoa statement, and the blindingly obvious question, why the drop in temperature for 30 years after the 40's, despite the emissions rising? If the rise from 1910 to 1940 is to blame by those emissions, then despite the emission rising sharply, the temperature falls. How come?

PS, you 'sharp increase after cooling' doesn't make sense, because the cooling trend was there before the eruption.

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 20:08

[turbobloke]

TheHeretic said:

Basically, what I would like to know is why is the rise from the 80's blamed on mankind...

The question wasn't aimed at me, and I'm not answering for kerplunk, just to be clear.

That said, I can provide the 'answer' as there is only one available...and it's not acceptable. The rise is blamed on mankind because the climate models say so. Even though the precise magnitude of the rise isn't known, and even though the models merely reproduce ever-so-faithfully the erroneous assumptions of the modellers, and are so hopelessly inadequate, they are unfit for purpose. And the purpose according to IPCC was not about predictions but about storylines. Fairytales would be more apt.

It cannot possibly be anything else as there is no visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide including 1980-2012.

[TheHeretic]

I'm with you, TB, I simply want a normal answer from KP, as the reasoning does not even make sense to me, as a layman.

[kerplunk]

TheHeretic said:

Have other eruptions since then affected the weather in such a way? Would you then argue that Pinatubo not account for the temp rise a decade later, as you suggest Krakatoa has done?

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 19:23

Not really no - Krakatoa caused a dip and then a rebound but the global temps either side look about the same once it had rebounded. Pinatubo interrupted a warming trend and there's substantial difference in the years before and after.

[turbobloke]

TheHeretic said:

I'm with you, TB, I simply want a normal answer from KP, as the reasoning does not even make sense to me, as a layman.

Understood.

The entire situation is farcical. Warmistry has retreated to the last couple of decades or so, yet the 'explanations' for what was actually solar forcing resulting in periods of cooling in the interval 1900-2000 are still in print and in pixels as being due to the mostly not-understood effects of aerosols.

If there was no significant manmadeup warming before the 1980s what was causing the warming and why was aerosol cooling needed to explain the lack of carbon dioxide warming if nowadays only recent decades are tainted by evil humans? The moves are as slick as a snake oil salesman covered in snake oil and no less barefaced.

It's as silly as the "no more snow uk as due to agw it's a thing of the past" ooops "lots more snow uk is caused by less arctic ice".

Hilarious. There's no causality to humans in ice mass changes either.

A total farce, unravelling before the eyes of the faithful as well as climate realists.

[TheHeretic]

kerplunk said:

Not really no - Krakatoa caused a dip and then a rebound but the global temps either side look about the same once it had rebounded. Pinatubo interrupted a warming trend and there's substantial difference in the years before and after.

So



You ignore the cooling prior to the eruption. You bypass the cooling post 1940, despite the emission being a nice steady increase. The eruptions in the 80's or the 90's made no impact. The rate of increase prior to 1940 is the same as the rate afterwards, pretty much. I just don't see any way the increase in emissions graph has any bearing on the temperature. In fact, of you can, can you superimpose the emissions one onto the original graph?

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

Apache said:

As far as I know, the only accurate data is from satellites and these began giving data in the mid seventies, anything previous is open to question. That data shows a modest rise of 1 deg roughly which is impossible to quantify as the scale is nonsensical in relation to the life of the planet

My 'unease' with the satellite data is non-technical - it's the relying on a single sensor as opposed to the multitudes of ground measurements. If that makes any sense - maybe not! Anway they agree pretty well so I think they're both a good approximation of what's happening, but probably best not to 'pixel peep' too much (as photographers say) and look at the big picture.

Well, whilst local temperature measurement 'may' be subject to controlled and fully documented measurements that can be backwards a nd forwards calibrated to an acceptable (to some) degree of accuracy, I very much doubt that the same can be claimed for the the historic record of 'global' measurements.

The thing about looking at the big picture though is that it may be distorted.

For example: when I was a lad it was popular to not that, statistically, the typical woman, all vital statistic measurements averaged, was pear shaped. Now, they used to be shorter (on average) then than they are now but are they still, on average, pear shaped?

Indeed does anyone measure what used to be called 'vital statistics' any more or is it deemed to be sexist and so verboten?

[TheHeretic]

It's also interesting, on that wood for trees site, is to compare the different data sets to each other, over the same time period. The variation found there is frankly daft.

[turbobloke]

Maybe after this kerplunk will dig out something I disagree with Dr Sallie Baliunas on, but for now here's a point or two of agreement and related to recent posts.

Dr Sallie Baliunas said:

Without computer models, there would be no evidence of global warming, no predictions of disaster, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra-fast computers, scholars try to find out how it will react to each new stimulus - like a doubling of CO2. An ideal computer model, however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere, and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air, water, ice and vegetation. According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million trillion degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility even on the most advanced supercomputer.

And on top of that if the models continue to fail to address solar eruptivity forcing via both Svensmark and Bucha mechanisms they will remain totally unfit for purpose. When the Svensmark and Bucha mechanisms and more besides are included, there'll be no room left for any effect due to carbon dioxide.

From which we can understand why believers are so reluctant to consider solar eruptivity forcings and hammer on and on about solar irradiance as though it's the only solar forcing and if they don't look at eruptivity nobody else will.

Look the other way and keep the rentapapers flowing...meanwhile the climate doesn't read IPCC garbage and is doing what comes naturally.

[kerplunk]

TheHeretic said:

I hate to spout the obvious, but why is there no increase for Pinutobo, following your Krakatoa statement, and the blindingly obvious question, why the drop in temperature for 30 years after the 40's, despite the emissions rising? If the rise from 1910 to 1940 is to blame by those emissions, then despite the emission rising sharply, the temperature falls. How come?

PS, you 'sharp increase after cooling' doesn't make sense, because the cooling trend was there before the eruption.

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 20:08

No increase for Pinatubo as the graph is an inventory of man-made emissions - tyhe place to look for a Pinatubo spike if it exists is in the obs of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Can't answer the rest of your questions because I'm unsure which data you're referring to (plus it's time for a jar or two!)

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 2nd March 22:27

[kerplunk]

TheHeretic said:

So



You ignore the cooling prior to the eruption. You bypass the cooling post 1940, despite the emission being a nice steady increase. The eruptions in the 80's or the 90's made no impact. The rate of increase prior to 1940 is the same as the rate afterwards, pretty much. I just don't see any way the increase in emissions graph has any bearing on the temperature. In fact, of you can, can you superimpose the emissions one onto the original graph?

Yes the krakatoa narrative doesn't hold up quite so well for CET as for global - I noticed that too.

[thinfourth2]

turbobloke said:

thinfourth2 said:

So we can clearly see the industrial age started in about 1990

And ended in about 2002.

Ah ha

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/nissan/micra-...

Global warming according to kerplunks graph has a sharp increase between the early 90s and to about 2002

The K11 micra was built from 1992 to 2003

It fits perfectly

So now where can i get my founding cheque?

[TheHeretic]

kerplunk said:

No increase for Pinatubo as the graph is an inventory of man-made emissions - tyhe place to look for a Pinatubo spike if it exists is in the obs of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Can't answer the rest of your questions because I'm unsure which data you're referring to (plus it's time for a jar or two!)

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 2nd March 22:27

Huh? I'm talking about the graph that was posted, the one that I put a circle on, NOT the one you posted about mans emission's. You argued that there was a clloing drop, then a warming back to previous levels, and yet none of the other volcanoes showed any similar signs, (Pinnutuba, and the other one in the 80's, I forget its name). I was wondering if you think the rise is due to mans emissions, could you overlay the mans emissions graph with the temp one, what would we see. Would it follow? I think not.

[turbobloke]

More experimental support for the important Svensmark CRF LLC albedo mechanism of solar eruptivity forcing.

Nigel Calder said:

From experiments in Copenhagen reported in 2006 and reconfirmed in 2011 in Aarhus and Geneva (CERN, CLOUD), cosmic rays coming from old supernovas can indeed make molecular clusters a few millionths of a millimetre wide, floating in the air. But can these aerosols really grow nearly a million times in mass to be large enough to become “cloud condensation nuclei” on which water droplets can form – as required by Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic theory of climate change?

Opponents pointed out that theoretical models said No, the growth of additional aerosols would be blocked by a resulting shortage of condensable gases like sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.

Not for the first time, an unexpected trick that Mother Nature had up her sleeve is revealed by experiment. The discovery is elegantly explained by a new way in which sulphuric acid forms in the atmosphere, as announced in a paper by Svensmark and two of his colleagues in Denmark’s National Space Institute in Copenhagen, Martin Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen.

A pre-print pdf of the Phys Rev Lett paper as submitted on 23 Feb is here

Abstract
"In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide, and water vapour, the number of additional small particles produced by ionization by gamma sources all grow up to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response of larger particles due to an insufficiency of condensable gases (which leads to slower growth) and to larger losses by coagulation between the particles. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulphuric acid in small clusters."

Conclusion (snip)
"in conclusion it has been shown that an increase in ion-induced nucleation survives as the clusters grow into CCN sizes in direct contrast to the present neutral experiment and current theoretical expectations"

Just when you think there's no space for another nail in the mmugw coffin. When somebody picks up on the solar eruptivity Bucha auroral oval mechanism and takes it further forward there will be really interesting times. It's clearly something beyond solar irradiance and also linked to solar activity in terms of magnetosphere and solar wind effects but is a totally separate mechanism to Svensmark.

[BliarOut]

What is your point KP? What do you wish to achieve?

If you've an ounce of savvy you'll know none of us buy your waffle so why are you wasting so much of your time here?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Who was doubting the 2nd law? It's you that apparently doesn't understand that the earth has an "external power source" called the Sun.

The Second Law stands - a cooler body cannot heat a warmer one. A cooler atmospheric layer at altitude cannot and does not heat an already warmer layer near the ground. In the discussions entered into on the Second Law, the Sun isn't involved directly.

How can you discuss the 2nd Law in relation to the greenhouse effect without a power source?

turbobloke said:

In Spencer's Yes Virginia scenario the heat shield introduced to mimic atmospheric gases at altitude wasn't under power but the electrically heated element was, this is making the Earth equivalent to the Sun and is but one part of the many weaknesses in that false analogy.

You've completely not 'got' Spencer's analogy. The second unheated plate represents GHG's and the heated plate represents the earth. It matters not a jot that heated plate is heated by an electic element - that's an 'external power source' just like the sun is for the earth. Can't believe you don't get this.

turbobloke said:

Insolation from the Sun warms the Earth's surface, which cools including by emitting thermal radiation. Essentially all of the radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is at wavelengths above 4 microns. Essentially all of the radiation reaching planet Earth from the Sun is at wavelengths below 2 microns.

Agreed - the earths' atmosphere is transparent to sun's 'white hot' frequecies so travels straight through the atmosphere and warms the earths surface which radiates at lower freqencies to which the atmosphere is opaque - the greenhouse effect.

turbobloke said:

With the Sun emitting at wavelengths shorter than 2 microns and the thermal radiation exchange between surface and atmospheric gases involving radiation of wavelength longer than 4 microns what heat pump mechanism do you envisage to allow the cooler upper atmospheric layer to heat the warmer lower layer in a manner dependent on carbon dioxide concentration rather than solar irradiance? A very clear response on this would doubtless be appreciated by others as well as myself.

No problem. The surface temperature of a body with a heat source depends on how easily it can dissipate the energy it's receiving. It will be higher if it's receiving radiation from other objects. Because the atmosphere is opaque to the radiation from the earth's surface some of it is absorbed and re-radiated back down to the earth's surface. This 'backradiation' will slow the ability of the surface to dissipate energy and the temperature must rise to attain equilibrium. Just like putting on a thick jumper there's no pump required for it to work. If you don't think backradiation from the colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of the surface I'd say you've got a conservation of energy problem to deal with.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 3rd March 13:42