Gore compares climate fight to slavery, gay rights & apartheid at Aussie summit

[vesper]

Oh...

I agree AGW is significant!

Who the heck doesn't?

From the beginning of the planet Earth there has been massive climate swings. It is called "change". In Iowa millions of years ago I understand it was under water according to scientists but 80,000 years ago it was under a lot of ice.

Fast forward to the last century and in the early 1900's pictures were taken of the Northern glaciers and much was melted and ships could travel to places they never could before. This happened while the majority were still using horse and buggy as transportation.

Yes climate change exist, it is a natural phenomenon. No progressive a member of the Church of AGW can stop what the Earth needs to do to survive. The earth is designed to know what it needs when it needs it as it has proved over billions of years. And at no time did it turn into a molten rock on fire or an entire planet encompassed in ice.

What has been going on is so dishonest because it has a political agenda behind it to enslave people into something they can believe that they can make a difference that may or may not happen, but reality says otherwise.

 

[vegas giants]

Who the heck doesn't?

From the beginning of the planet Earth there has been massive climate swings. It is called "change". In Iowa millions of years ago I understand it was under water according to scientists but 80,000 years ago it was under a lot of ice.

Fast forward to the last century and in the early 1900's pictures were taken of the Northern glaciers and much was melted and ships could travel to places they never could before. This happened while the majority were still using horse and buggy as transportation.

Yes climate change exist, it is a natural phenomenon. No progressive a member of the Church of AGW can stop what the Earth needs to do to survive. The earth is designed to know what it needs when it needs it as it has proved over billions of years. And at no time did it turn into a molten rock on fire or an entire planet encompassed in ice.

What has been going on is so dishonest because it has a political agenda behind it to enslave people into something they can believe that they can make a difference that may or may not happen, but reality says otherwise.

Nice speech. Now why do so few scientists believe you?

 

[vesper]

Nice speech. Now why do so few scientists believe you?

Because they get their grants for study from their governmnets pushing the political agenda?

 

[vegas giants]

Because they get their grants for study from their governmnets pushing the political agenda?

From who? The GOP controlled congress? That makes no sense

 

[vesper]

From who? The GOP controlled congress? That makes no sense

You make no sense. Good day.

 

[vegas giants]

You make no sense. Good day.

That's what I thought. You have not thought this thru. LOL

 

[Russell797]

You should review the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, among others.

We have gone over those two in the past. I acknowledge the work of Svensmark in particular. The problem is that his ideas have been further investigated at high level research facilities without bearing fruit. The mere suggestion that there may be factors involved which are poorly understood is insufficient reason to doubt that which is already well established knowledge.

 

[Russell797]

And Argos has how much area of coverage for how long?

Too short of a term to see any long standing trend. We have natural cycles in nature decades long.

Not the point... The claim by the conspiracy theorist is that scientists are fudging the data to satisfy those who pay their salaries.

 

[Russell797]

Considering they flat out lie about what the peer reviewed pays say... YES!

The National Academy of Science lies? The AGU lies?

Is it a lie that climate sensitivity could be as high as 4.5C/doubling of CO2?

 

[Russell797]

They believe it is bunk, that AGW will be catastrophic.

Your point?

They signed it because they thought they were agreeing with a statement put out by the National Academy of Science....on a phoney duplicate of the letterhead.

 

[Russell797]

People sometimes get sloppy here. I don't recall the exact wording. Once you are here longer, you will recognize what someone means when the leave out as word.

Are you sure he didn't say "AGW theory?" This is the hypothesis that AGW is dominant and catastrophic. AGW itself doesn't state any particular level of influence.

One of the polls given to scientists asks if antropogenic warming is significant. It received a 97% "yes". Well, what is significant. In science, it generally means 5% or more. So... If the scientist believe antropogenic warming contributes 10% of the warming, they would answer yes. The pundits them change the word "significant" to "most..." Hence the lie...

Oh...

I agree AGW is significant!

Um,,,,no....significance is usually taken to mean 95% confidence, or 2 sigma in science....in some sciences such as particle physics the confidence level must rise to the 5 sigma level, or 350,000,000/1. That's 5 standard deviations from the mean likelihood on a perfectly symmetrical bell curve.

To say one is confident at 5% probability is laughable. 97% of anything represents better than a 20 to 1 probability. That's still not very highly confident though. Would you board a plane that had 1 chance in 20 of crashing? I wouldn't.

That being said, I doubt any particular geologists or astrophysicist answers a poll of this nature from an informed point of view, when the matter is outside their area of expertise.

AGW holds a confidence level at better than 90% that the world is warming due to human activities. Catastrophic? Look to paleoclimatology for the answer to that.

 

[Russell797]

So you only looked at the data provided, rather than the tons of data ignored, right?


How about the loss of absorbed soil water from precipitation, because it is now diverted into storm sewers?

How far away from a suburban setting do you have to be for this loss of natural cooling not to be seen by nearby meteorological sites?

If the TREND is different at an urban site relative to nearby rural sites the urban site is thrown out. It's not a function of proximity or absolute temperature.

 

[Jack Hays]

We have gone over those two in the past. I acknowledge the work of Svensmark in particular. The problem is that his ideas have been further investigated at high level research facilities without bearing fruit. The mere suggestion that there may be factors involved which are poorly understood is insufficient reason to doubt that which is already well established knowledge.

On the contrary, the more it is investigated the more powerful his hypothesis becomes.

 

[longview]

The National Academy of Science lies? The AGU lies?

Is it a lie that climate sensitivity could be as high as 4.5C/doubling of CO2?

Not a lie, but a bit of slight of hand if they want to stay consistent.
In 2001 the claimed energy imbalance that would be caused by doubling the CO2 level
was 4 Wm-2, That imbalance would force a .3 C increase per Wm-2 increase, for a temperature increase of 1.2C.
The amplified feedbacks would further push the 1.2 C to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Since that time the claimed energy imbalance from 4 Wm-2 to 3.71 Wm-2, to some finding as low as, 3.53 W·m–2.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
Keeping the other factors consistent, 3.71 Wm-2 would have a ECS range of 1.375 C to 4.125 C,
and the 3.53 Wm-2 would have a range of 1.32 C to 3.79 C.
The actual measured imbalance per unit CO2 is much lower, at 2.38 Wm-2,
which would yield a ECS range of .9 C to 2.7 C.
So is it a lie to continue to use a number derived from a estimate that has officially been decreased?

 

[vegas giants]

Not a lie, but a bit of slight of hand if they want to stay consistent.
In 2001 the claimed energy imbalance that would be caused by doubling the CO2 level
was 4 Wm-2, That imbalance would force a .3 C increase per Wm-2 increase, for a temperature increase of 1.2C.
The amplified feedbacks would further push the 1.2 C to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Since that time the claimed energy imbalance from 4 Wm-2 to 3.71 Wm-2, to some finding as low as, 3.53 W·m–2.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
Keeping the other factors consistent, 3.71 Wm-2 would have a ECS range of 1.375 C to 4.125 C,
and the 3.53 Wm-2 would have a range of 1.32 C to 3.79 C.
The actual measured imbalance per unit CO2 is much lower, at 2.38 Wm-2,
which would yield a ECS range of .9 C to 2.7 C.
So is it a lie to continue to use a number derived from a estimate that has officially been decreased?

But why do this if the money to be made now is in an ANTI AGW stance?

 

[Russell797]

Not a lie, but a bit of slight of hand if they want to stay consistent.
In 2001 the claimed energy imbalance that would be caused by doubling the CO2 level
was 4 Wm-2, That imbalance would force a .3 C increase per Wm-2 increase, for a temperature increase of 1.2C.
The amplified feedbacks would further push the 1.2 C to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Since that time the claimed energy imbalance from 4 Wm-2 to 3.71 Wm-2, to some finding as low as, 3.53 W·m–2.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
Keeping the other factors consistent, 3.71 Wm-2 would have a ECS range of 1.375 C to 4.125 C,
and the 3.53 Wm-2 would have a range of 1.32 C to 3.79 C.
The actual measured imbalance per unit CO2 is much lower, at 2.38 Wm-2,
which would yield a ECS range of .9 C to 2.7 C.
So is it a lie to continue to use a number derived from a estimate that has officially been decreased?

To go along with your argument I will remind you that ECS has been lowered from 2.0C - 4.5C to 1.5C - 4.5C.

The tail (to the right) of the probability distribution remains very long. To the left of peak probability has stretched out a little and is not as steep.

Regardless, ECS is not dependent upon the radiative forcing value given for a doubling of CO2. It rather represents the net feedback due to a forcing the equal of that produced by CO2 whatever that value happens to be and regardless of the source of such a forcing...It could come from methane or the Sun...In actuality it's the net forcing from any and all sources.

So if we have a net forcing from all inputs equalling 1W/m-2 we can expect a Planck temperature response of about 0.3C and a total response somewhere between 0.45C and 1.35C at thermal equilibrium.

 

[longview]

To go along with your argument I will remind you that ECS has been lowered from 2.0C - 4.5C to 1.5C - 4.5C.

The tail (to the right) of the probability distribution remains very long. To the left of peak probability has stretched out a little and is not as steep.

Regardless, ECS is not dependent upon the radiative forcing value given for a doubling of CO2. It rather represents the net feedback due to a forcing the equal of that produced by CO2 whatever that value happens to be and regardless of the source of such a forcing...It could come from methane or the Sun...In actuality it's the net forcing from any and all sources.

So if we have a net forcing from all inputs equalling 1W/m-2 we can expect a Planck temperature response of about 0.3C and a total response somewhere between 0.45C and 1.35C.

So you are choosing to believe that the physics governing the amplified feedbacks have changed since 2001.
Do you find it odd that the input to this climate amplifier has declined by 12% yet the range of the output
has not changed at all?

 

[Russell797]

So you are choosing to believe that the physics governing the amplified feedbacks have changed since 2001.
Do you find it odd that the input to this climate amplifier has declined by 12% yet the range of the output
has not changed at all?

The physics does not change. As you know several recent studies have come in near the lower end for estimating ECS...They do not negate previous studies, they merely add to the basis for establishing a range of probability.

The input value as you put it is irrelevant.....The feedback is to the Planck Temperature response, not the forcing which produces that temperature change. So, if we get a black body temperature response of 0.3C/watt of forcing the feedback is to that change in temperature. The feedback does not respond directly to wattage, it responds to the consequential change in temperature. For example, water vapor saturation pressure is a function of temperature...the melting of ice is a function of temperature....cloudiness is a function of temperature and available water vapor etc.

 

[longview]

The physics does not change. As you know several recent studies have come in near the lower end for estimating ECS...They do not negate previous studies, they merely add to the basis for establishing a range of probability.

The input value as you put it is irrelevant.....The feedback is to the Planck Temperature response, not the forcing which produces that temperature change. So, if we get a black body temperature response of 0.3C/watt of forcing the feedback is to that change in temperature. The feedback does not respond directly to wattage, it responds to the consequential change in temperature. For example, water vapor saturation pressure is a function of temperature...the melting of ice is a function of temperature....cloudiness is a function of temperature and available water vapor etc.

The energy imbalance and the input temperature are linked. If the input declines the output must decline also,
unless somehow the amplifier has changed.
There is a good paper on the disagreement between the observed data and the GCM modeled data.
Estimating climate sensitivity using two-zone energy balance models - Bates - 2016 - Earth and Space Science - Wiley Online Library

When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and
tightly constrained EfCS values, in the neighborhood of 1°C.

The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (≈1°C)
given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effec-
tive, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed
value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered.

 

[Russell797]

The energy imbalance and the input temperature are linked. If the input declines the output must decline also,
unless somehow the amplifier has changed.
There is a good paper on the disagreement between the observed data and the GCM modeled data.
Estimating climate sensitivity using two-zone energy balance models - Bates - 2016 - Earth and Space Science - Wiley Online Library

Ok, so let's arbitrarily lower radiative forcing for the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 to 3W/m-2...We still get 0.9C of Planck Temperature response. It's not like that change makes a magnitude of difference....we still get about 1.3C on the lower end of ECS.

Please bear in mind that the values for radiative forcing contain a coefficient value determined by line by line computer codes made by such research centers as the U.S. Air Force and it's HITRAN DATABASE of atmospheric molecular spectral absorption.....where I once worked in the 70's.....that research was useful in the development and advancement of heat seeking missile technology...the values given work obviously.

 

[longview]

Ok, so let's arbitrarily lower radiative forcing for the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 to 3W/m-2...We still get 0.9C of Planck Temperature response. It's not like that change makes a magnitude of difference....we still get about 1.3C on the lower end of ECS.

Please bear in mind that the values for radiative forcing contain a coefficient value determined by line by line computer codes made by such research centers as the U.S. Air Force and it's HITRAN DATABASE of atmospheric molecular spectral absorption.....where I once worked in the 70's.....that research was useful in the development and advancement of heat seeking missile technology...the values given work obviously.

Well for starters if the Planck Temperature response were .9C and the same factors applied, then the ECS range would be 1.125 to 3.375C,
with a mid range of 2.25 C.
The line by line code, likely did not take into account some of the variables, because the calculated forcing and the measured forcing
disagree by a fairly large amount. 3.71 Wm-2 vs 2.38 Wm-2, and it changes the results quite a bit.
The HITRAN DATABASE is a wonderful piece of work, but it demonstrates what could be the failing of the GCM.
I think there is an assumption that CO2 absorbs and the reemits the 15 um photons, and it does do this sometimes,
yet the HITRAN DATABASE shows that CO2 has many lower frequency lines.
An excited CO2 molecule can emit many different wavelengths, the only requirement is that when it is back at ground state,
the total energy emitted is equal to the total energy absorbed.
(Not all the reemitted photons/radio waves are in the CO2 absorption bands.)

 

[Russell797]

Well for starters if the Planck Temperature response were .9C and the same factors applied, then the ECS range would be 1.125 to 3.375C,
with a mid range of 2.25 C.
The line by line code, likely did not take into account some of the variables, because the calculated forcing and the measured forcing
disagree by a fairly large amount. 3.71 Wm-2 vs 2.38 Wm-2, and it changes the results quite a bit.
The HITRAN DATABASE is a wonderful piece of work, but it demonstrates what could be the failing of the GCM.
I think there is an assumption that CO2 absorbs and the reemits the 15 um photons, and it does do this sometimes,
yet the HITRAN DATABASE shows that CO2 has many lower frequency lines.
An excited CO2 molecule can emit many different wavelengths, the only requirement is that when it is back at ground state,
the total energy emitted is equal to the total energy absorbed.
(Not all the reemitted photons/radio waves are in the CO2 absorption bands.)

The available 15 micron photon are made available for absorption by the temperature of the gas. The atmosphere radiates thermally. Some of that thermal radiation is smeared into the 15 micron wavelength where CO2 can absorb it. What is important to the greenhouse effect is the absorption. If CO2 did not emit any 15 um it wouldn't matter.

 

[longview]

The available 15 micron photon are made available for absorption by the temperature of the gas. The atmosphere radiates thermally. Some of that thermal radiation is smeared into the 15 micron wavelength where CO2 can absorb it. What is important to the greenhouse effect is the absorption. If CO2 did not emit any 15 um it wouldn't matter.

If the CO2 Molecule is not in a quantum state suitable for absorption, it will not absorb anything

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not the point... The claim by the conspiracy theorist is that scientists are fudging the data to satisfy those who pay their salaries.

Are you saying scientists don't care about income, or publishing, in a publish or perish environment?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The National Academy of Science lies? The AGU lies?

Is it a lie that climate sensitivity could be as high as 4.5C/doubling of CO2?

"Could be" and claiming as much as "4.5C" is just SWAG.

Nothing to date supports that contention.