• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

It should be noted that despite this being in it's infancy, the studies are predicated on global warming being the cause from the very beginning. When research with the conclusion already made then it shouldn't be a surprise when they end up with the results they wanted to begin with.

You got it.
Also, it should be noted that many "new" studies are built on the same data as the "old" studies.
GIGO
 
Well, yes the scientific literature does point to Arctic warming, the melting of the sea ice and the effects on the jet stream in producing atmospheric blocking patterns and deep, persistent incursions of cold air to the south and warm air to the north. On the first page of this threat an example study is linked to.
And if soot were no longer dropped on the arctic ice, the ice would reflect more radiant energy and melt slower.
 
A federal judge apparently disagrees with you. And if there has been an attack on science it has been led by AGW advocates.

Yes, it is the AGW advocates attacking the real science. They hold on to the science they like, and discard the science they don't like.
 
A federal judge apparently disagrees with you. And if there has been an attack on science it has been led by AGW advocates.

The judge is ignorant, lacking an understanding of where the information comes from. It's not White House information. It's found in peer-reviewed research papers. John Holdren is aware enough of that literature to mention in summation what it says.

AGW is a science. A science, the basic tenets and physical basis for which is as well accepted by the vast majority of scientists in related fields as any other well supported science. Science does not attack itself, those opposed to the science for political and ideological reasons do.
 
The judge is ignorant, lacking an understanding of where the information comes from. It's not White House information. It's found in peer-reviewed research papers. John Holdren is aware enough of that literature to mention in summation what it says.

AGW is a science. A science, the basic tenets and physical basis for which is as well accepted by the vast majority of scientists in related fields as any other well supported science. Science does not attack itself, those opposed to the science for political and ideological reasons do.

Of course it's not White House information, but it's White House manipulation. AGW is more like a religion than a science. Otherwise fine men like Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and Richard Lindzen (to name only three) would not be regarded as apostates.
 
Hey what do you know, you got something right!

LOL...

That is something I've been saying for years, and most AWG followers say I'm wrong. They say it's all from greenhouse gasses.
 
AGW is a science. A science, the basic tenets and physical basis for which is as well accepted by the vast majority of scientists in related fields as any other well supported science. Science does not attack itself, those opposed to the science for political and ideological reasons do.
Portions of AGW are science, the portion that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it's atmospheric level
will cause some warming. The high level of predicted amplified feedback, is speculation, without much empirical support.
The actual mechanism of the warming from the additional CO2, while accepted,is poorly understood,
and contains unknowns which do not fit the century old concept.
 
Portions of AGW are science, the portion that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it's atmospheric level
will cause some warming. The high level of predicted amplified feedback, is speculation, without much empirical support.
The actual mechanism of the warming from the additional CO2, while accepted,is poorly understood,
and contains unknowns which do not fit the century old concept.

And it fails as a science in that they completely ignore doing in depth studies on other factors that are significant.
 
And it fails as a science in that they completely ignore doing in depth studies on other factors that are significant.

Such as?

Many other factors are weight and given an estimated impact to the ongoing warming trend with error bars included. Black soot in the Arctic being one.
 
Portions of AGW are science, the portion that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it's atmospheric level
will cause some warming. The high level of predicted amplified feedback, is speculation, without much empirical support.
The actual mechanism of the warming from the additional CO2, while accepted,is poorly understood,
and contains unknowns which do not fit the century old concept.

Yes you are correct, and that uncertainty is reflected by the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (1.5C - 4.5C) for a doubling of CO2 or it's equivelant in radiative forcing.

The greenhouse effect is well understood. It follows from the black body radiation curve relative to temperature at thermal/radiative equilibrium. A radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 will raise the Earth's near surface temperature a bit less than 1.2C before feedback. Raising the incident radiation by 3.7W/m^2 to a block of coal will raise it's temperature 1.2C as well.
 
This HW / Administration / President and Bad Faith.

I do believe that they go together, and belong together, like peas in a pod. An apt description.
 
Yes you are correct, and that uncertainty is reflected by the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (1.5C - 4.5C) for a doubling of CO2 or it's equivelant in radiative forcing.

The greenhouse effect is well understood. It follows from the black body radiation curve relative to temperature at thermal/radiative equilibrium. A radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 will raise the Earth's near surface temperature a bit less than 1.2C before feedback. Raising the incident radiation by 3.7W/m^2 to a block of coal will raise it's temperature 1.2C as well.
If you think the greenhouse effect is well understood, then why has the forcing equilibrium doubling value been going down?
As recently as 2001 it was 4 W/m^2, and they used the same temperature delta 1.2 C.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
In addition the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry is still not understood.
One of the most cited papers on the subject Karl, et al (1993) concludes his paper with the final statement,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=natrespapers
It will be difficult to satisfactorily explain the observed changes of the mean temperature until an
adequate explanation for the observed decrease in the DTR can be determined. Moreover, the practical
implications of projected temperature changes and whether they are likely to continue will be even more
difficult to assess.
So while the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well accepted, (mostly due to empirical data)
there exist open ended questions as to the actual quantum mechanism.
(I think daytime CO2 is mostly in a state of population inversion, an so is incapable of absorbing
the 15 um wavelength, but have no way to verify this. If true we would see additional IR bands in the day time sky
not present in the nighttime sky.)
 
Such as?

Many other factors are weight and given an estimated impact to the ongoing warming trend with error bars included. Black soot in the Arctic being one.

OK...

Please find me a study of the changing atmospheric transparency.
 
Yes you are correct, and that uncertainty is reflected by the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (1.5C - 4.5C) for a doubling of CO2 or it's equivelant in radiative forcing.

The greenhouse effect is well understood. It follows from the black body radiation curve relative to temperature at thermal/radiative equilibrium. A radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 will raise the Earth's near surface temperature a bit less than 1.2C before feedback. Raising the incident radiation by 3.7W/m^2 to a block of coal will raise it's temperature 1.2C as well.
There are studies that disagree with the 3.71 W/m^2 that are more recent. Both the 3.71 and feedback as high as taking temperature to 4.5 C are using observed effects, without accounting for the skies transparency changes or feedback of the solar changes.

I challenge you to find me a recent study that supports the 3.71 W/m^2.
 
If you think the greenhouse effect is well understood, then why has the forcing equilibrium doubling value been going down?
As recently as 2001 it was 4 W/m^2, and they used the same temperature delta 1.2 C.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
In addition the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry is still not understood.
One of the most cited papers on the subject Karl, et al (1993) concludes his paper with the final statement,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=natrespapers

So while the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well accepted, (mostly due to empirical data)
there exist open ended questions as to the actual quantum mechanism.
(I think daytime CO2 is mostly in a state of population inversion, an so is incapable of absorbing
the 15 um wavelength, but have no way to verify this. If true we would see additional IR bands in the day time sky
not present in the nighttime sky.)

The boundaries of uncertainty are refined, but there will always remain uncertainties. That's the scientific process. It's not like we are looking at a magnitude of difference between 4W and 3.7W. Also, I'm sure you are aware that the value range for suspected equilibrium climate sensitivity has expanded a bit on the lower end from 2.0 - 4.5C to 1.5C - 4.5C.

It's easy to confuse the instantaneous greenhouse effect and the longer term form. Radiative forcing is a time integrated and spatially integrated quantity. The whole Earth for one full year. This averages out diurnal effects and seasonal asymmetries.

To your final point, remember that the effect of CO2 takes place high up in the troposphere which is a cold and very dry environment. There is no diurnal variance in temperature at those altitudes. The 15 um wavelength corresponds to a temperature -63C (-81F). In the upper troposphere there will always be some CO2 molecules within the distribution of all molecular motion near that energy level and thus able to absorb at the 15 um wavelength.
 
The boundaries of uncertainty are refined, but there will always remain uncertainties. That's the scientific process. It's not like we are looking at a magnitude of difference between 4W and 3.7W. Also, I'm sure you are aware that the value range for suspected equilibrium climate sensitivity has expanded a bit on the lower end from 2.0 - 4.5C to 1.5C - 4.5C.
I think you are confusing the direct response of added CO2 with the ECS.
The change in W/m^2 weather it is 4 or 3.71, is the direct energy imbalance number,
and has little to do with the uncertainties of the ECS.

It's easy to confuse the instantaneous greenhouse effect and the longer term form. Radiative forcing is a time integrated and spatially integrated quantity. The whole Earth for one full year. This averages out diurnal effects and seasonal asymmetries.
Actually it does not, as you say in you paragraph below The 15 um wavelength is very common,
and CO2 is well mixed, the effect should be occurring at all times, and in all locations.

To your final point, remember that the effect of CO2 takes place high up in the troposphere which is a cold and very dry environment. There is no diurnal variance in temperature at those altitudes. The 15 um wavelength corresponds to a temperature -63C (-81F). In the upper troposphere there will always be some CO2 molecules within the distribution of all molecular motion near that energy level and thus able to absorb at the 15 um wavelength.
The effect would occur when the first 15 um photon encountered the first ground state CO2 molecule.
I think I calculated the mean free path of 400 ppm of CO2 to be less than a few centimeters.
Besides that if the if the ground state CO2, and the 15 um photons are always around, the effect
should also always be around.
 
There are studies that disagree with the 3.71 W/m^2 that are more recent. Both the 3.71 and feedback as high as taking temperature to 4.5 C are using observed effects, without accounting for the skies transparency changes or feedback of the solar changes.

I challenge you to find me a recent study that supports the 3.71 W/m^2.


Seriously? The figure 3.71 is the mean value derived from many studies. Higher and lower values contribute to the mean. Most studies do not support exactly 3.71.

Again ECS is an aggregate of all studies which constrain the value range between 1.5 and 4.5C. A factor of 3 in uncertainty.
 
I think you are confusing the direct response of added CO2 with the ECS.
The change in W/m^2 weather it is 4 or 3.71, is the direct energy imbalance number,
and has little to do with the uncertainties of the ECS.


Actually it does not, as you say in you paragraph below The 15 um wavelength is very common,
and CO2 is well mixed, the effect should be occurring at all times, and in all locations.


The effect would occur when the first 15 um photon encountered the first ground state CO2 molecule.
I think I calculated the mean free path of 400 ppm of CO2 to be less than a few centimeters.
Besides that if the if the ground state CO2, and the 15 um photons are always around, the effect
should also always be around.

The effect is occurring constantly. Day and night, 365. Why would you think otherwise? The Earth's surface is radiating a thermal spectrum constantly, some of which will involve the 15 um wavelength. Remember the atmosphere is also radiating thermal energy. The temperature of the gas up high in the troposphere is very cold and much closer to a thermal temperature curve with an average wavelength of 15 um.

No, I am not misinterpreting the transient response for forcing. Sorry for the confusion.
I added the point that ECS has been lowered to indicate that more than just one uncertainty is being adjusted with time.
 
The effect is occurring constantly. Day and night, 365. Why would you think otherwise? The Earth's surface is radiating a thermal spectrum constantly, some of which will involve the 15 um wavelength. Remember the atmosphere is also radiating thermal energy. The temperature of the gas up high in the troposphere is very cold and much closer to a thermal temperature curve with an average wavelength of 15 um.

No, I am not misinterpreting the transient response for forcing. Sorry for the confusion.
I added the point that ECS has been lowered to indicate that more than just one uncertainty is being adjusted with time.
The point is that if both elements of the quantum interaction exists everywhere,(15 um photons, and ground state CO2)
the energy imbalance supposedly caused from that interaction should exist everywhere.
The asymmetry show this not to be the case, both in the daily cycle, and seasonally.
 
The boundaries of uncertainty are refined, but there will always remain uncertainties. That's the scientific process. It's not like we are looking at a magnitude of difference between 4W and 3.7W. Also, I'm sure you are aware that the value range for suspected equilibrium climate sensitivity has expanded a bit on the lower end from 2.0 - 4.5C to 1.5C - 4.5C.
They are not refined at all. It's all a SWAG...

It's easy to confuse the instantaneous greenhouse effect and the longer term form. Radiative forcing is a time integrated and spatially integrated quantity. The whole Earth for one full year. This averages out diurnal effects and seasonal asymmetries.
Why would you things that? Is that what your pundits tell you?

Not easy to confuse such things at all. The concept of equalization is rather simple.

To your final point, remember that the effect of CO2 takes place high up in the troposphere which is a cold and very dry environment. There is no diurnal variance in temperature at those altitudes.
If there is no diurnal variation, then where is the IR coming from? The changes from the surface have a very low lag time.

The 15 um wavelength corresponds to a temperature -63C (-81F). In the upper troposphere there will always be some CO2 molecules within the distribution of all molecular motion near that energy level and thus able to absorb at the 15 um wavelength.
Yes. That is where CO2 can have a greater effect as H2O starts to rapidly diminish. And at those altitudes, you aren't going to see much IR make it there. It's already acted upon the lower altitude CO2.
 
Seriously? The figure 3.71 is the mean value derived from many studies. Higher and lower values contribute to the mean. Most studies do not support exactly 3.71.

Again ECS is an aggregate of all studies which constrain the value range between 1.5 and 4.5C. A factor of 3 in uncertainty.

You don't have a clue about the truth. All papers that use it are just regurgitate old studies. The new studies have the sensitivity of CO2 far lower.

I challenge you to follow the papers using that number, and see the studies referenced for that number. About 4-5 studies later, you will find the root study, which is a total joke by today's understanding.

Argue all you want using the pundits lies. It just proves you to have zero credibility.
 
That's OK. A physicist who shares my view recently completed a year-long sabbatical at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton.

And so there are two. Awesome.
 
Back
Top Bottom