Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[stewfox]

Even the Wikipedia article is turning against you

"Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex:"

Oops!

 

Geoff  you have made about a dozen posts recently and for those of us  that have got to go Christmas shopping shortly, whats your specific point ? 

[DAVID SNOW]

Geoff  you have made about a dozen posts recently and for those of us  that have got to go Christmas shopping shortly, whats your specific point ? 

 

I think another 70 years or so would probably answer some of the 'questions' but that's a long time for any thread........

[stewfox]

I think another 70 years or so would probably answer some of the 'questions' but that's a long time for any thread........

 

I can tend to follow the gist of most posts and if i don't understand something I always have google, but most have a point even if I don't agree with it.

 

Anyway moving on , one thing that is never discussed re man made global warming is would it be better for  the planet

 

Certainly a 2c rise would increase bio diversity and unlock some the frozen tundra

 

Of course 'man' may have to leave some low lying areas but the planet would benefit.

Edited September 30, 2014 by stewfox

[DAVID SNOW]

I can tend to follow the gist of most posts and if i don't understand something I always have google, but most have a point even if I don't agree with it.

 

Anyway moving on , one thing that is never discussed re man made global warming is would it be better for  the planet

 

Certainly a 2c rise would increase bio diversity and unlock some the frozen tundra

 

Of course 'man' may have to leave some low lying areas but the planet would benefit.

 

 

 Yep great point: climate has always changed and people have always moved , 

[Devonian]

I can tend to follow the gist of most posts and if i don't understand something I always have google, but most have a point even if I don't agree with it.

 

Anyway moving on , one thing that is never discussed re man made global warming is would it be better for  the planet

 

Certainly a 2c rise would increase bio diversity and unlock some the frozen tundra

 

Of course 'man' may have to leave some low lying areas but the planet would benefit.

'Certainly'? Are you certain?

The sceptics usual trick in such circumstances is to ask for proof. So where is your proof?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

I can tend to follow the gist of most posts and if i don't understand something I always have google, but most have a point even if I don't agree with it.

 

Anyway moving on , one thing that is never discussed re man made global warming is would it be better for  the planet

 

Certainly a 2c rise would increase bio diversity and unlock some the frozen tundra

 

Of course 'man' may have to leave some low lying areas but the planet would benefit.

 

I wouldn't say it hasn't been discussed as it's been part of the skeptic dogma for a number of years.

[knocker]

 Yep great point: climate has always changed and people have always moved , 

 

Of course the climate has always changed but not drastically when there have been 6 billion to move. California has had droughts in the past but it wasn't then the 8th biggest economy in the world.

Edited September 30, 2014 by knocker

[stewfox]

'Certainly'? Are you certain?

The sceptics usual trick in such circumstances is to ask for proof. So where is your proof?

14c move up to 16c yep

 

Proof look at the bio diversity at the tropics v the tundra

Edited September 30, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

I thought this quite interesting.

 

Gambling on the Gulf Stream

http://mallemaroking.org/gambling-on-the-gulf-stream/

[Nights King]

I can tend to follow the gist of most posts and if i don't understand something I always have google, but most have a point even if I don't agree with it.

 

Anyway moving on , one thing that is never discussed re man made global warming is would it be better for  the planet

 

Certainly a 2c rise would increase bio diversity and unlock some the frozen tundra

 

Of course 'man' may have to leave some low lying areas but the planet would benefit.

 

Another interesting question could be asked which is, regardless of which side of the debate is correct can anyone ever see man within the next 100 years dropping co2 contributions enough to make a blind bit of difference? 

 

I would tend to agree though that warmer is better for the world as a whole.

Edited September 30, 2014 by mullender83

[knocker]

Another interesting question could be asked which is, regardless of which side of the debate is correct can anyone ever see man within the next 100 years dropping co2 contributions enough to make a blind bit of difference? 

 

I would tend to agree though that warmer is better for the world as a whole.

 

I'm intrigued. Could you say why?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another interesting question could be asked which is, regardless of which side of the debate is correct can anyone ever see man within the next 100 years dropping co2 contributions enough to make a blind bit of difference? 

 

I would tend to agree though that warmer is better for the world as a whole.

 

It's the rate of change that's the issue. When temperatures have risen quickly and oceans acidified quickly in the past, they've often been tied in with mass extinction events.

Although I'm sure there are plenty that would consider a mass extinction event a positive thing!

[Gray-Wolf]

My understanding is that 'man' reducing his GHG emissions in the short term is a daft hope, I do not believe we are 'hard wired' to react to 'notional' threats? Once 'change' is so great as to pose a 'present' threat ( with more problems to come an easy projection to make for the man in the street ) then we will act and with haste.

 

Sadly by that time we will also know that nature is 'in on the act' and stews 'melting tundra' ( amongst others) will replace any cuts in GHG emissions we make.

 

To me it appears plain that we have wilfully squandered, over the past 20yrs, our last, best opportunity to improve our future 'lot' without it costing us radical change ( both naturally enforced and human driven) to achieve.

 

Many , on this thread, have done their level best to bring the 'science' to our readers that highlights the issues to come but , from my perspective, those efforts were both wasted and pointless with folk better placed to listen to the 'clap happy' " nothing to worry about..... carry on as you were...." message than to indulge in the knowledge of the potential harm such indulgences allow to make flesh.

 

It appears it is not 'Big Oil/Fossil fuels/Multinationals' that are the problem, the problem is the folk who turn away and do not challenge their actions. How can we complain about a future that we, by our apathy/inaction have allowed to be?

 

The worst is folk bandy around 2c as if it were a 'mild change'?

 

How high have temps spiked across the Arctic under a 1c forcing? Could that region face another, similar sized, hike in temps without it having major impact further south?

 

EDIT: Whilst some folk whitter about Antarctic sea ice lets see what Antarctic  land ice loss is causing?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930195428.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

 

odd that eh?

Edited October 1, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

14c move up to 16c yep

 

Proof look at the bio diversity at the tropics v the tundra

You imply climate zones will move? Indeed they will but don't think that won't effect the tropics too. Don't also just assume climate zones can move in a century and life, soil, trees, plants, keep up.

Your proof? Just assumption and assertion. I'm sceptical.

[knocker]

New and Improved Ice Loss Estimates for Polar Ice Sheets

 

In a previous post, several years ago, I discussed the various ways that we measure changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Today, scientists still use these main methods for identifying ice changes but recent technological and data processing advances have improved the accuracy of these estimates. An example of this is the CryoSAT-2 satellite system which was launched 4 years ago by the European Space Agency and is now giving early results on the state of the two polar ice sheets. Before discussing the results of this study it is worthwhile to understand what CryoSAT-2 measures.

Edited October 1, 2014 by knocker

[stewfox]

You imply climate zones will move? Indeed they will but don't think that won't effect the tropics too. Don't also just assume climate zones can move in a century and life, soil, trees, plants, keep up.

Your proof? Just assumption and assertion. I'm sceptical.

 

Obviously short term (100 years) global increase in temps by 2c will have a detrimental impact not just for man but many species that would find it hard to adapt but long term the Earth has always had greater diversity when its warmer.

 

Re the attached

---------------------

 

A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished.

 

http://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

[Devonian]

Obviously short term (100 years) global increase in temps by 2c will have a detrimental impact not just for man but many species that would find it hard to adapt but long term the Earth has always had greater diversity when its warmer.

 

Re the attached

---------------------

 

A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished.

 

http://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

 

If that happens I'd expect rainfall to be more sporadic, perhaps heavier and heavier overall but with longer dry spells. Not sure that would be of great benefit to the biosphere.

 

But it's possible. I don't think possible is proof. Because other outcomes are also possible.

 

You can't provide proof.

 

[DAVID SNOW]

Of course the climate has always changed but not drastically when there have been 6 billion to move. California has had droughts in the past but it wasn't then the 8th biggest economy in the world.

 

Here lies the crux of the conundrum: if Global Warming, Climate Change was 'fixed'  tomorrow what  would that mean? Would it mean all is ok with the world? And 6 billion now can happily become 60 billion a hundred years from now?  Climate Change is not the problem , over population very much is.

[knocker]

By pure chance I came across this paper this morning. In view of, shall we say recent 'conversations' on the subject, this makes very interesting reading. IMO it says it all and is a must read. Ive put a link in the papers thread as well.

 

Infrared radiation and planetary Temperature

 

 

Infrared radiative transfer theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century, has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the

connection between global warming and greenhouse gases.

 

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

[Geoffwood]

By pure chance I came across this paper this morning. In view of, shall we say recent 'conversations' on the subject, this makes very interesting reading. IMO it says it all and is a must read. Ive put a link in the papers thread as well.

 

Infrared radiation and planetary Temperature

 

 

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Some interesting snippets from Mr Pierrehumbert, here talking about Kirchhoff's law;

"It can be derived as a conse- quence of the second law of thermodynamics by requiring, as Kirchhoff did, that radiative transfer act to relax matter in a closed system toward an isothermal state. If Kirchhoff’s law were violated, isolated isothermal matter could spontaneously generate temperature inhomogeneities through interaction with the internal radiation field."

So internal radiation alone DOES NOT, ie CANNOT PRODUCE A THERMAL GRADIENT. (So something else produces the tropospheric thermal gradient).

He then adds;

"For atmospheres heated partly from below—either as a consequence of solar absorption at the ground as in the case of Earth, Mars, and Venus, or due to internal absorption and escaping interior heat as with Jupiter and Saturn—the lower layers of the atmosphere are stirred by convection and other fluid motions, and the constant lifting and adiabatic cooling establish a region whose temperature decline with height approximates that of an adiabat."

(We can derive the adiabatic lapse from first principles if you like, it has no radiative components. And to contradict him, on Venus, only ~1Wm-2 of solar energy on average reaches the surface due to the dense atmosphere. So how is that atmosphere heated from below by sunlight?)

ie the troposphere on Earth DOES NOT SHOW the forcing of radiative heat transfer to "relax the matter into an isothermal state" that he spoke of.

Then he contradicts the first statement I have quoted from him by saying;

"Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature."

So having started out by saying radiative heat transfer cannot spontaneously produce a thermal gradient as the exchange is driven (by entropy) to isothermal equilibrium he then concludes that the effect of adding more (GHG's) is to increase the thermal gradient that it could never produce (in fact works against) in the first place!!!!

The other gem hidden in there which you overlooked, knocker is this beauty;

"The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from"

Why would he say "low emissivity windows"? Low emissivity windows do work. But in the thermal IR band low emissivity means low absorption (otherwise the material would be permanently at a different temperature to its surroundings! We're back to Kirchhoff's law). So low emissivity is high IR transmission (as it doesn't absorb well). So low emissivity windows let the IR out! Why did he not choose glass or something else that was opaque to IR and "trapped it"? Because he knows that as of Robert Woods 1909 experiment "trapping radiation" optically doesn't affect the "greenhouse" equilibrium temperature. Adding GHG's INCREASES the atmospheric emissivity (read as "losses to space"). In order to increase the equilibrium temperature we require to REDUCE the system emissivity forcing the temperature up to compensate. This is an elementary flaw in "GHG Theory".

It is easy to be taken in by papers like this one that come across as being founded in reliable science.

Regards.

[Geoffwood]

Interesting in terms of modeling

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

stewfox, thanks for the link.

I find myself more than a little bemused by Peter Morecombe's lunar model and as you might guess I disagree with his analysis. Here is the reasoning.

The albedo and emissivity of an object rotating about a symmetrical axis are fixed as neither are changed by the rotation. A sphere cutting a circle out of a parallel flux absorbs a portion of the flux according to it's physical properties whether it rotates or not.

At equilibrium the object will radiate to space in the long wave the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised. And that is full stop!

The effective mean grey body temperature satisfies this basic necessity.

If we use, for sake of argument the documented albedo of 0.12 and an emissivity of 0.95 then the grey body temperature that returns the equivalent flux required is 273K averaged over the lunar surface.

If rotation doesn't affect the shortwave thermalised (1-a) it cannot effect the temperature requirement forced by equilibrium.

All Peter's model is doing is highlighting the non-linearity of flux to temperature, F proportional to T^4. He arrives at a different arithmetic mean every time he changes the spin rate, but most of the emission (and therefore the above average weighting) is done by the 'hot bits'. Without rotation nearly all is emitted by the sunlit side. Under fast rotation all the moon answers in a much more even manner, but the requirement is the same. It has to produce the required flux at eqm.

There is another 'check' of this. About 1m into the regolith of the equatorial lunar surface is a 'fixed' temperature of 293K, or 20deg C. Comfortable for a moon base without requiring heating or cooling. The regolith there is serving as a natural integrator of monthly variations and summing gains and losses to a single physical temperature. This must be in long term equilibrium with the 'real' physical average of the exposed surface around the equator.

Sorry but the 'model' disregards Holder's inequality.

Regards.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Geoffwood

[Devonian]

Some interesting snippets from Mr Pierrehumbert, here talking about Kirchhoff's law;

....

Regards.

 

Write to him.

 

Seriously, write to him. Put him right. He is a world expert in these matters. Write to him!

 

Indeed, why do you bother with us here? Why are you trying to convince us? If you're right it's people like Pierrehumbert you need to talk to.

[jonboy]

Write to him.

 

Seriously, write to him. Put him right. He is a world expert in these matters. Write to him!

 

Indeed, why do you bother with us here? Why are you trying to convince us? If you're right it's people like Pierrehumbert you need to talk to.

Just because you believe he is world expert doesn't mean he's right there are many examples in science of experts being proven wrong by those perceived to be less knowledgable

Perhaps Dev rather than trying to undermine GW you could explain why you think he's wrong

[Devonian]

Just because you believe he is world expert doesn't mean he's right there are many examples in science of experts being proven wrong by those perceived to be less knowledgable

Perhaps Dev rather than trying to undermine GW you could explain why you think he's wrong

 

I'm not an expert but Pierrehumbert is. Why would Geoff want to waste his time trying to convince me, or you, that a whole science is wrong? What influence do we have?

 

If Geoff is right it's a bit like a test cricketer playing village cricket. The question is why do that?

 

And I'm NOT trying to undermine him! I just don't see why he wont (and I think wont is the right word) try and convince the experts.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Devonian

[jonboy]

I'm not an expert but Pierrehumbert is. Why would Geoff want to waste his time trying to convince me, or you, that a whole science is wrong? What influence do we have?

 

If Geoff is right it's a bit like a test cricketer playing village cricket. The question is why do that?

And I'm NOT trying to undermine him! I just don't see why he wont (and I think wont is the right word) try and convince the experts.

I'm sure Geoff can speak for himself but perhaps he's not trying to convince you of anything but pointing out that there is an alternative opinion / theory

If you weren't trying to undermine why put parts of your post in bold just doesn't stack up me