Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion


Paul

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

Pardon me if I've got you wrong, but are you saying that you're using the albedo of the Moon's surface in calculations of the effects of solar heating on the Earth? Novel, given that over two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Devonian,No I do not use an atmospheric albedo. The albedo is that of the moon. It's the same rock.Devonian, feel free to question any step. It's a sensibly arrived at calculationWe can derive the lapse from kinetic theory if you choose.

The post I replied to never mentions the moon...As to the rest, take it to the people I mentioned, I'm not a atmos physicist, but they are the ones you need to 'correct' - let us know how it goes...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

That's about right; you don't. What about trees, grass, crops, streams, oceans. All of those have an effect. You cannot use the albedo of the Moon as a proxy for that of the Earth, except for before the stromatolites started their work several billion years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devonian,

The physics of the tropospheric lapse is 'exactly' the same as throwing a stone into the air. All potential energy at zenith, returned to kinetic at the lower altitude. For a gas 1/2mv^2 = 1/2kT per degree of freedom. The sum of kinetic states is the heat capacity. The atmosphere is gravitationally contained. Nothing, and that is nothing goes up or down without releasing gravitational potential or doing work, which comes from the kinetic states, normalised through equipartition into the kinetic distribution we call temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crepuscular Ray,

I calculated a temperature for a planet's surface at this distance from the Sun without an atmosphere.

The reason was to 'gauge the magnitude' of the surface enhancement of having 10^18 kg of matter thermally driven off the surface and suspended in near hydrostatic equilibrium above the surface.

It's less than popularly believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Crepuscular Ray,I calculated a temperature for a planet's surface at this distance from the Sun without an atmosphere.The reason was to 'gauge the magnitude' of the surface enhancement of having 10^18 kg of matter thermally driven off the surface and suspended in near hydrostatic equilibrium above the surface.It's less than popularly believed.

Well, again, go to the universities, the climate scientists, the authors of atmosphere science books and put them right.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

Fine, but I still don't see how that models the effects of changes in the amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, etc on what's around at the moment and therefore the implications for local or global temperature changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devonian,

I ask you this from compete humility. How willing are you to accept that throwing a stone into the air, which is a reversible isentropic process and you know to be true, is true for the particles that make up the air? It seems that you are interested but not convinced. What would it take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crepuscular Ray.

There is currently a long standing lack of global temperature changes. Most (publicly available) data sets are showing no statistically significant warming for the past 10 years plus. For some like the MET OFFICE hadcrut data it's nearly 18 years. How long with GHG's rising but no correlation with temperature before the public catch on?

Meanwhile, nature isn't waiting for man's consensus if opinion of what drives global temperature. The zero Celsius calibration for freezing is driving global sea ice into a sustained positive anomaly. So I irrespective of GCMs' algorithm's inability to average a non linear function like temperature, I'll go with sea ice and the position of the polar front (indicated by mean jet stream position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

Stew why do you pick 1998 to start your trend from? Why, for example, not 1994 (20 years)?Well lets extend the football analogy. A football club has the following finishing position in the league:18, 17, 18, 16, 16, 15, 16, 14, 8, 15, 15, 14, 12, 11, 12, 10, 8. Using the same logic as your comment above wrt 1998, we could say they handn't improved for 8 years but that would clearly be to focus on the one exceptional year rather than the longterm trend towards a better league finish...

 

If you think there is man made global warming surely we want to see the Earth warm. If we see no warming in the next 30yrs cf 1998 at least you would acknowledge our understanding of how CO2 interacts needs a revision. Maybe 0.3c per century rather then 2-6c as some forecasts. 

 

The analogy is better 17,18,18,18,18 etc and people are saying we will win the league in 40 years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Where does 2014 rank in the hottest years on record so far?

 

While we're closing in on September, several of the global temperature datasets are still stuck on June and haven't released the July data yet.  Just for fun, let's compare how the first six months of 2014 stack up to previous years.  To answer that question, I have averaged the first six months of each year in the Cowtan-Way global temperature dataset.

 

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/where-does-2014-rank-in-hottest-years.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Questioning basic science. Salby again!

Those that say the increase in CO2 is not our doing are, it seems to me, of a few types. 1, the utterly thick, 2, the intelligent who don't want to know, 3, those who seek to deceive types 1 & 2.It's really not hard (as I know you know!).Natural emissions of CO2 are indeed massive but (the bit that AM somehow can't see (he's a hopefully a 2 perhaps a 3)) natural sinks of CO2 are also massive. Now, you need to be a 1 not to see that if natural sources of CO2 are massive and sinks not CO2 would have rapidly built up in the atmosphere and we'd have asphyxiated long ago..So, natural sinks of CO2 are also massive. In fact, natural sinks and sources are pretty much in balance.We come along, our actions emit a lot of CO2 and the sinks can't keep up. Atmospheric CO2 increases. What's so hard about that?Perhaps it's that the word sources is easy to understand but sinks not? I really don't know but I do know there are a lot of people out there who don't get this - they need help...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I seem to recall a 'bath tub', Dev with the amount of water flowing out equal to the amount of water flowing in? (The visualisation is sound even if the discussions around the leak bath tub got a tad heated?). All you need do is add an extra input (of different coloured water even?) to see what happens next? Simples?

 

EDIT: I'll dump this in here too;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28852980

 

This is not nice reading esp. as it is another event that has occurred during the fabled 'slow down' of temp rises. Everyone agrees on 'natural cycles' and their ability to add into, or detract from, the rate of warming. everyone agrees we are in a period dominated by natural , and man made, cooling forcings so what becomes of the doubling once we are back to 'full steam ahead!' on the warming front???

 

As Knocks link above shows the first 6 months of this year were warmer than the 'super nino' year of 98'..... even the cherry picked start point has now become 'background' so where do we expect global temps to end up once we see Nino flip the naturals back to positive ( I'm not saying that this is what Nino's do but the next one looks like it will be the first domino to fall as the negative swing back positive)? how much has changed since the Naturals flipped to slow AGW atmospheric temps rises? Do we have the same albedo across northern regions over the summer months ( i.e. does the same amount of energy get bounced back into space or do we now keep hold of it in the climate system?)? So on top of our greenhouse forcing Nature has also added in a major energy gain for the climate system. Do we see the new industrial Nations adding as much pollution into the atmosphere ( esp. the particulates and sulphates)? Well currently 'yes' but they are moving rapidly to clean up their own cities air quality and so that means their own 'clean air acts' and we know what that did to atmospheric temp measures post the 1980's when 'the west' cleaned up its act and reduced 'global dimming'.

 

Again I give a wry smile when I look at how much the deniers rely upon global atmospheric temps and Antarctic sea ice. These two 'tools' can prove very dangerous to the folk who overly rely upon them...... he who lives by the bradawl will die by the bradawl.........

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

I seem to recall a 'bath tub', Dev with the amount of water flowing out equal to the amount of water flowing in? (The visualisation is sound even if the discussions around the leak bath tub got a tad heated?). All you need do is add an extra input (of different coloured water even?) to see what happens next? Simples?

Yup, but plenty still don't (more likely wont) get it...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Regarding whether increases in CO2 are our doing remember this article from ten years ago. No I didn't either. Another lapse? :)

 

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? -
 
Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Pardon me if I've got you wrong, but are you saying that you're using the albedo of the Moon's surface in calculations of the effects of solar heating on the Earth? Novel, given that over two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water.

There's an elementary course available online. But, as with most such courses, it pays to stay until the end...The lunar surface is hardly relevant to the consideration of GHGs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

That's the greenhouse effect as applied in general, but how does it disprove accelerated anthropogenic global warming?

 

Bored now.

Put simply: it doesn't!

This assumes earth is a greenhouse which it is not. Most experiments demonstrating CO2's so called green house effect are carried out within glass jar's with air or concentrated CO2 show me an experiment that has air with a concentration of say 300ppm and then one with a concentration with say 400ppm and show me that we have the predicted temperature increase.

Gore and the like use a jar full of CO2 and a Jar full of air hardly a true comparrision because if our atmosphere was CO2 we wouldn't be here. Equally it has more to do with the density of CO2 compared to air ( you could use argon and get the same if not slightly higher results than CO2) a Greenhouse/glass jar prevents natural mixing which our atmosphere allows so I'm sorry but I do not get CO2 being a green house gas. We don't live in a greenhouse we live on planet earth.

Oh dear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: SW London
  • Weather Preferences: Extreme
  • Location: SW London

Is it possible to have a purely evidence based discussion on a science where a consensus has never successfully predicted an effect from its cause? It suggests that either causality in the field is not well understood, or that more onus should be placed on the consensus of evidence than individual studies. But the latter approach would contradict the scientific process. I thought the idea was that you make a prediction based on a theory, test it as well as possible, and if said prediction comes to fruition wait for someone to disprove the theory.It's only science if you can use the theory to predict observations. I haven't read any verified predictions of any use when it comes to climate science, and so I don't see how you can have a purely "evidence based" discussion on man made climate change. Give it 200 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Is it possible to have a purely evidence based discussion on a science where a consensus has never successfully predicted an effect from its cause? It suggests that either causality in the field is not well understood, or that more onus should be placed on the consensus of evidence than individual studies. But the latter approach would contradict the scientific process. I thought the idea was that you make a prediction based on a theory, test it as well as possible, and if said prediction comes to fruition wait for someone to disprove the theory.It's only science if you can use the theory to predict observations. I haven't read any verified predictions of any use when it comes to climate science, and so I don't see how you can have a purely "evidence based" discussion on man made climate change. Give it 200 years.

 

Stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days, global accumulation of heat, alteration of incoming and outgoing energy leading to an energy imbalance, sea level rise, etc, etc. All predicted, all occurring.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York

The missing heat is now in the deep altantic and southern oceans and as a result could lead to at least another 10 years of global warming hiatus!!

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

 

A natural cycle controling earth's temprature who would have thought it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...