Getting Started In The Global Warming Debate[W:296]

[Threegoofs]

They are speculating as to why the surface temp have not increased much, when the Science of AGW almost required that they must.

Right, because physics is real.

Now do you ever reflect why the best journal in all of science is coming from the perspective that AGW is inevitable and a significant enough future problem that they decided to create an entirely new spin off journal just to have a place to publish all the data?

 

[longview]

Right, because physics is real.

We have been over this several times, the direct response of CO2 is very real, and therein lies the problem.
The increase in CO2 from 368 ppm to 401 ppm, if we use the IPCC numbers, should have increased the temperature
by about .14 C.
The problem is over that change the actual temperature only increased by half of that amount.
The discussion before was about the amplification factor beyond the direct response of CO2,
not the direct response itself is not matching the data.

 

[Threegoofs]

We have been over this several times, the direct response of CO2 is very real, and therein lies the problem.
The increase in CO2 from 368 ppm to 401 ppm, if we use the IPCC numbers, should have increased the temperature
by about .14 C.
The problem is over that change the actual temperature only increased by half of that amount.
The discussion before was about the amplification factor beyond the direct response of CO2,
not the direct response itself is not matching the data.

Again, write to Nature and publish it.

They seem to be amazingly unaware of your analysis.

The general thought among *real* scientists (as opposed to those who play them on DP and blogs), is that the energy/heat is being absorbed by the system in ways we have not measured yet, and this means the surface temperature warming will significantly accelerate after whatever cycle we are in is over.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, write to Nature and publish it.

They seem to be amazingly unaware of your analysis.

The general thought among *real* scientists (as opposed to those who play them on DP and blogs), is that the energy/heat is being absorbed by the system in ways we have not measured yet, and this means the surface temperature warming will significantly accelerate after whatever cycle we are in is over.

Or perhaps it won't.

 

[Threegoofs]

Or perhaps it won't.

Maybe the science is wrong.

Maybe we will also find out that some invisible man in the sky is guiding the development of species, too, or crystals emit vibrations that CAN cure cancer, or that rubbing Dr. Oz's cream on your skin really WILL melt fat.

But I'll stick with the current scientific thought.

 

[Jack Hays]

Maybe the science is wrong.

Maybe we will also find out that some invisible man in the sky is guiding the development of species, too, or crystals emit vibrations that CAN cure cancer, or that rubbing Dr. Oz's cream on your skin really WILL melt fat.

But I'll stick with the current scientific thought.

Indeed you will, just as the defenders of the Ptolemaic planetary system did. An implication of The Pause is that "current scientific thought" is missing something important.

 

[longview]

Again, write to Nature and publish it.

They seem to be amazingly unaware of your analysis.

The general thought among *real* scientists (as opposed to those who play them on DP and blogs), is that the energy/heat is being absorbed by the system in ways we have not measured yet, and this means the surface temperature warming will significantly accelerate after whatever cycle we are in is over.

The entire concept that is AGW is that warming from the somewhat accepted greenhouse response of added CO2 would be amplified
through a collection of open loop feedbacks. What has been happening is that even the direct response is not holding up.
The Science from the IPCC for the direct response could not be clearer.
Doubling the CO2 level would increase the surface temperature by 1.2 C +- 10%
That has not happened on that scale.

 

[Threegoofs]

The entire concept that is AGW is that warming from the somewhat accepted greenhouse response of added CO2 would be amplified
through a collection of open loop feedbacks. What has been happening is that even the direct response is not holding up.
The Science from the IPCC for the direct response could not be clearer.
Doubling the CO2 level would increase the surface temperature by 1.2 C +- 10%
That has not happened on that scale.

For a short period of time- that's what happens in highly chaotic systems like the earths climate.

 

[longview]

For a short period of time- that's what happens in highly chaotic systems like the earths climate.

and unless you can define "a short period of time" the statement is meaningless.
Also the earlier warming was also for a short period of time.

 

[Tim the plumber]

For a short period of time- that's what happens in highly chaotic systems like the earths climate.

If the present period of stable temperatures extends for more time than the period of increasing temperatures will that take any significance out of the first period then?

Its not got long to go to do that.

If the climate of the world cools over the next 10 years will that cause you to drop the AGW idea?

 

[Threegoofs]

If the present period of stable temperatures extends for more time than the period of increasing temperatures will that take any significance out of the first period then?

Its not got long to go to do that.

If the climate of the world cools over the next 10 years will that cause you to drop the AGW idea?

Heres the thing... who cares if *I* drop the global warming idea? What does my opinion have to do with anything?

In these threads, I am trying to relay the current scientific thought on AGW to the deniers here. They are countering with blogs, think tank pronoucements, handmade calculations, etc.

Its the body of scientific evidence and the best projections that scientists who study this issue that matters - because thats closer to reality than your 'oh, i reviewed the evidence and its not happening/happening but is no big deal/happening and good because i'm cold today' floppiness on the topic.

If the temperature drops in the next decade, something is seriously wrong with the basic physics and chemistry we now know, or we will have some massive particulate emission or some other issue. The reality is that we know unfettered CO2 emission will cause temperatures to rise (and it has for the last 50 years) and this will continue for a long, long time, even if we could stop all emissions.

 

[longview]

If the temperature drops in the next decade, something is seriously wrong with the basic physics and chemistry we now know, or we will have some massive particulate emission or some other issue. The reality is that we know unfettered CO2 emission will cause temperatures to rise (and it has for the last 50 years) and this will continue for a long, long time, even if we could stop all emissions.

We know the physics says the temperature and CO2 level should raise together.
There is not temporal component in the direct response of CO2.
The problem is that CO2 levels have continued to rise, but the rate of the temperature
increase has dropped by a factor of 5.25.
(Look at me calling a slowdown in an increase a drop, I might have to start voting democrat,:mrgreen

 

[Lord of Planar]

Heres the thing... who cares if *I* drop the global warming idea? What does my opinion have to do with anything?

In these threads, I am trying to relay the current scientific thought on AGW to the deniers here. They are countering with blogs, think tank pronoucements, handmade calculations, etc.

LOL...

Seriously?

You are regurgitating dogma. You don't understand enough of the underlying sciences.

Thanks a lot for making me spit out some 12 yr bourbon, when I read that.

Its the body of scientific evidence and the best projections that scientists who study this issue that matters - because thats closer to reality than your 'oh, i reviewed the evidence and its not happening/happening but is no big deal/happening and good because i'm cold today' floppiness on the topic.

Well, sorry, but with their track record of past models and predictions being so far off, they have no integrity with me.

If the temperature drops in the next decade, something is seriously wrong with the basic physics and chemistry we now know,

Wrong.

The physics and chemistry do not support the alarmist viewpoint. Never has, never will.

or we will have some massive particulate emission or some other issue.

maybe you should call Asia.

The reality is that we know unfettered CO2 emission will cause temperatures to rise (and it has for the last 50 years) and this will continue for a long, long time, even if we could stop all emissions.

We?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

There is no substantial temperature increase from the levels of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. If there was, we would not have stopped seeing the warming trend we have before this hiatus.

OK...

You say it will continue for a very long time even if stop emissions. Then please explain how forcing changes from CO2 can take decades to equalize, but solar changes can not.

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL...

Seriously?

You are regurgitating dogma. You don't understand enough of the underlying sciences.

Thanks a lot for making me spit out some 12 yr bourbon, when I read that.


Well, sorry, but with their track record of past models and predictions being so far off, they have no integrity with me.


Wrong.

The physics and chemistry do not support the alarmist viewpoint. Never has, never will.


maybe you should call Asia.


We?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

There is no substantial temperature increase from the levels of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. If there was, we would not have stopped seeing the warming trend we have before this hiatus.

OK...

You say it will continue for a very long time even if stop emissions. Then please explain how forcing changes from CO2 can take decades to equalize, but solar changes can not.

Sorry you spit out your bourbon at 7AM. I think we might now have some insight into your postings!

You talk about 'regurgitating' and dont realize that basically, all science that isnt from a primary source is regurgitation.

I have never seen DNA. I have never done any research on DNA. I do, however, believe it exists and explains a lot of issues in biology. I guess I'm just regurgitating dogma there, though.

The track record of predictions is PRECISELY the thing that should make you wake up! Look... fifty or sixty years ago scientists were thinking that CO2 emissions might cause significant (oops. I guess scientists like yourself get confused when I say that) warming on the globe. Thirty years ago, it was quantified a little better. Over the last few decades, its apparent that what they predicted was accurate - we are living in the warmest decade and the warmest year ever recorded. The effects of warming are all around us, and if anything, they have been UNDERestimated, because as anyone who spends any time around science knows, we tend to be conservative with predictions. (You call it 'using weasel words'!).

I think its pretty obvious that solar changes happen quickly (energy either comes to the earth, or it doesnt), but CO2 will be like a blanket on the earth, allowing the heat to gradually rise. The simple difference is like being under a sunlamp and turning it on or off, or putting on a blanket. One is pretty fast, the other not so fast.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Heres the thing... who cares if *I* drop the global warming idea? What does my opinion have to do with anything?

In these threads, I am trying to relay the current scientific thought on AGW to the deniers here. They are countering with blogs, think tank pronoucements, handmade calculations, etc.

Its the body of scientific evidence and the best projections that scientists who study this issue that matters - because thats closer to reality than your 'oh, i reviewed the evidence and its not happening/happening but is no big deal/happening and good because i'm cold today' floppiness on the topic.

If the temperature drops in the next decade, something is seriously wrong with the basic physics and chemistry we now know, or we will have some massive particulate emission or some other issue. The reality is that we know unfettered CO2 emission will cause temperatures to rise (and it has for the last 50 years) and this will continue for a long, long time, even if we could stop all emissions.

This is where we differ.

The reality is that we do not know with much confidence at all that the increase in CO2 will cause increased temperatures.

The idea that we fully understand just how much warming will happen with any confidence at all is bogus.

Evidence, such as 17 years of not increasing temperatures, or indeed future evidence of lower temperatures, does not it seems, cause you to wobble in your faith. This is why we see you as a religious zelot rather than any sort of scientist. You are not alone. That's why we think that it's all a load of over hyped doom from a doom cult.

 

[Threegoofs]

This is where we differ.

The reality is that we do not know with much confidence at all that the increase in CO2 will cause increased temperatures.

The idea that we fully understand just how much warming will happen with any confidence at all is bogus.

Evidence, such as 17 years of not increasing temperatures, or indeed future evidence of lower temperatures, does not it seems, cause you to wobble in your faith. This is why we see you as a religious zelot rather than any sort of scientist. You are not alone. That's why we think that it's all a load of over hyped doom from a doom cult.

Right. We differ in that you speculate despite you have virtually no scientific background, and I stick with what scientists know and understand.

See the difference is that i AM a scientist albeit in a different field (medical science) and understand that religious zealots are the ones who deny the best science based on ideology, or fear of 'big gubmint' or slightly higher electric bills, and that when this many experts are this sure of AGW, I should listen.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Right. We differ in that you speculate despite you have virtually no scientific background, and I stick with what scientists know and understand.

See the difference is that i AM a scientist albeit in a different field (medical science) and understand that religious zealots are the ones who deny the best science based on ideology, or fear of 'big gubmint' or slightly higher electric bills, and that when this many experts are this sure of AGW, I should listen.

Whilst you are working in a scientific field you do not need to do research. You do not need to question things. This is good. You are well suited to your job role. I am happy that you are in the right place. You should not, in your professional capacity, be questioning the medical consensus.

However, this global warming thing is very different. It is plainly over hyped to the point of being drivel. In this your (unscientific) faith in authority is a negative trait.

But never mind, without your constsnt posting of the indefensible we would have no sounding board to make our points against. You are the most effective persuader against the doom cult.

 

[Threegoofs]

Whilst you are working in a scientific field you do not need to do research. You do not need to question things. This is good. You are well suited to your job role. I am happy that you are in the right place. You should not, in your professional capacity, be questioning the medical consensus.

However, this global warming thing is very different. It is plainly over hyped to the point of being drivel. In this your (unscientific) faith in authority is a negative trait.

But never mind, without your constsnt posting of the indefensible we would have no sounding board to make our points against. You are the most effective persuader against the doom cult.

You misinterpret the concept of 'research'.

Like most laypeople, you consider it synonymous with 'reading stuff'. I'm referring to it in the context of data collection and analysis.

In my capacity, I question and challenge the medical consensus constantly, because I am qualified to do so. It doesn't happen much, because consensus is always there for very good reason.

I'm not really qualified to challenge solid, universal consensus outside my field. And neither are you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You misinterpret the concept of 'research'.

Like most laypeople, you consider it synonymous with 'reading stuff'. I'm referring to it in the context of data collection and analysis.

In my capacity, I question and challenge the medical consensus constantly, because I am qualified to do so. It doesn't happen much, because consensus is always there for very good reason.

I'm not really qualified to challenge solid, universal consensus outside my field. And neither are you.

And what consensus do I challenge?

I accept the findings of the IPCC. Admittedly because they are that there is no significant risk of anything bad coming along.

I just point out that this is the case. It takes many repititions of me asking you to answer what has actually happened so far that is a bad result of AGW for you to actually say that there has not as yet been any problems. In fact you have never actually said this. This type of evaision is just the same as the tacitics used by the religious when they are defending the undefensible.

 

[Threegoofs]

And what consensus do I challenge?

I accept the findings of the IPCC. Admittedly because they are that there is no significant risk of anything bad coming along.

I just point out that this is the case. It takes many repititions of me asking you to answer what has actually happened so far that is a bad result of AGW for you to actually say that there has not as yet been any problems. In fact you have never actually said this. This type of evaision is just the same as the tacitics used by the religious when they are defending the undefensible.

Yet the entire second snd third working groups detail what's bad in detail and give recommendations for mitigation.

You must have missed those parts when I posted them ten times.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You must have missed those parts when I posted them ten times.

You list the whole IPCC site instead of quoting and referring to and explaining pertinent paragraphs. Because of this, you are nothing but a joke to most people.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

The reality is that we do not know with much confidence at all that the increase in CO2 will cause increased temperatures.

It has been shown empirically and theoretically that CO2 has IR-active vibrational mode(s) , and that both as individual molecules (over their lifetimes) and as a statistical atmospheric ensemble (at a point time), functions like an isotropic radiator.

If you have any evidence showing otherwise, great.

if not, your statement is junk.

 

[Threegoofs]

You list the whole IPCC site instead of quoting and referring to and explaining pertinent paragraphs. Because of this, you are nothing but a joke to most people.

Reading is hard.

 

[longview]

It has been shown empirically and theoretically that CO2 has IR-active vibrational mode(s) , and that both as individual molecules (over their lifetimes) and as a statistical atmospheric ensemble (at a point time), functions like an isotropic radiator.

If you have any evidence showing otherwise, great.

if not, your statement is junk.

No one is contesting that CO2 has both vibrational and rotational energy states.
In can and does absorb IR at around 2.7 um ,4.3 um, and 15 um
http://chemistry.illinoisstate.edu/standard/che362/handouts/362molvibs.pdf
Figure 9 on page 6, shows the IR absorption bands of CO2.
Only the 15 um line is available as the higher frequency lines are absorbed mostly by
H20 long before they have a chance to strike a CO2 molecule.
CO2 as individual molecules are not isotropic radiator,
the decay products are unidirectional photons.
The direction of each decay product is random,
but they do not emit in all directions at once.

 

[Threegoofs]

No one is contesting that CO2 has both vibrational and rotational energy states.
In can and does absorb IR at around 2.7 um ,4.3 um, and 15 um
http://chemistry.illinoisstate.edu/standard/che362/handouts/362molvibs.pdf
Figure 9 on page 6, shows the IR absorption bands of CO2.
Only the 15 um line is available as the higher frequency lines are absorbed mostly by
H20 long before they have a chance to strike a CO2 molecule.
CO2 as individual molecules are not isotropic radiator,
the decay products are unidirectional photons.
The direction of each decay product is random,
but they do not emit in all directions at once.

You know how you know that?

Scientists who studied it.

Maybe you should listen to them in other areas.