• 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!

Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Your understanding of this is totally confused. The key concept here is equilibrium. I know from years of teaching students pharmacokinetics that this concept is hard to intuitively grasp sometimes. Try it though.

No one is saying co2 is different depending upon the source. But unmitigated release of gigatons on CO2 into the atmosphere in a blink of an eye (in geologic timescales) will take decades if not centuries to realize the full effect (Given the half life is about 100 years at the current equilibrium)
Now for the good news.

Don't you have any bad news?
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Fascist is not an insult. It is an ideology. That you don't know the difference, well, I'll spare you the insult.

lol

It's the humidity in the air relative to the air pressure. .. now I fail to see the relevance.

Then how could "even 1% humidity represents hundreds of kilograms of water in the atmosphere in any given spot"? What is the size of this "spot"?

Oh I get it, it's not the h2o in the atmosphere, you just don't like that there are emissions made by people.

Nope. Humans' effect on the atmosphere = one molecule's effect on the atmosphere X how long that molecule is in the atmosphere. Integrate the right side of that equation over time and you'll get the answer. The difficulty, of course, lies in setting it up precisely, but at least we can restrict the functions that constitute the right side to a particular range. At the boundaries of those ranges, we will wind up getting what we refer to as best-case scenarios and worst-case scenarios.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

lol



Then how could "even 1% humidity represents hundreds of kilograms of water in the atmosphere in any given spot"? What is the size of this "spot"?

1m x 1m x 11000m (of air) = 11000 meters cube of air.

With 1% being water... 110 cubic meters of water.

Yes, this is a grossly simple calculation but it's just to make the point.


Nope. Humans' effect on the atmosphere = one molecule's effect on the atmosphere X how long that molecule is in the atmosphere. Integrate the right side of that equation over time and you'll get the answer. The difficulty, of course, lies in setting it up precisely, but at least we can restrict the functions that constitute the right side to a particular range. At the boundaries of those ranges, we will wind up getting what we refer to as best-case scenarios and worst-case scenarios.

On its face this is not going to be accurate, because it's not just about the culmination of all single molecules in isolation, because those molecules will interact with their surroundings and that will have an impact.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

1m x 1m x 11000m (of air) = 11000 meters cube of air.

With 1% being water... 110 cubic meters of water.

Yes, this is a grossly simple calculation but it's just to make the point.

1 x 1 x 11,000 m is not a "spot." A "spot" implies a very very small volume. ;)

On its face this is not going to be accurate, because it's not just about the culmination of all single molecules in isolation, because those molecules will interact with their surroundings and that will have an impact.

You do realize what I was getting at with the math part, right? It's rather tricky to break down if you haven't seen definite integration in awhile.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Consider the implications of this graph:

ppmCO2.jpg


It shows the greenhouse effect as about 258 W/m^2, and CO2 contributing about 28 W/m^2 of it. This means they base this on CO2 being 11% of the effect. Of we say H2O is 70% of the effect, then it accounts for 181 W/m^2 of it. Put these on a log curve with H2O at 20,000 ppm and CO2 at 383 ppm, and increase each by 1 ppm, and you get fractional changes with the CO2 being about 13 times more of an increase. 0.00091 W/m^3 for H2O vs. 0.012 W/m^2 for CO2.

I did a little more focus on the whole solar forcing thing. As expected, the wikipedia page has a pretty good synopsis. It turns out, water vapor hardly even registers:

Radiative-forcings.svg

So I was right all along--CO2's effects >> H2O's effects.
 
Last edited:
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I did a little more focus on the whole solar forcing thing. As expected, the wikipedia page has a pretty good synopsis. It turns out, water vapor hardly even registers:

So I was right all along--CO2's effects >> H2O's effects.

I would like to demonstrate the latency effects of water vapor.
Two cites, Savannah, GA 32.5N, and Sierra Vista, AZ, 31.32N
Both receive almost the same numbers of hours of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere.
Weather History for Savannah, GA | Weather Underground
Weather History for Sierra Vista, AZ | Weather Underground
We all know the longest day of the year is around June 21,
let's look at the latency of the relationship between the longest day, and the hottest period.
On the Savannah Temperature graph, they hit the highest portion of the graph, before July,
but do not drop back to the lower range until into August.
In Sierra Vista, They also hit hit the high portion of the Graph before July,
but drop from that top level in the first week of July, and drop one more level before August.
The primary difference between these two cites in terms of heat loss is water vapor,
and it does seem to have a significant effect.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

1 x 1 x 11,000 m is not a "spot." A "spot" implies a very very small volume. ;)

A spot, yes, but there's approximately 11 km of air above your head.

You do realize what I was getting at with the math part, right? It's rather tricky to break down if you haven't seen definite integration in awhile.

Ya, I'm a few months away from being an engineer, so, ya, I know a thing or two about integration.

You don't seem to get what I was saying, even if you get the equation set up correctly, it does not really reflect reality, the atmosphere is not just these molecules in isolation. There are interactions at play that are not being considered in this, and since the water cycles continuously, it's asinine to suggest that a single molecule will drop down and not count anymore, since there's always a percentage of water in the air.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

This is strictly referring to aerosols' effects on global warming, not global warming itself. These effects are currently--wait for it--up in the air.

Well, sure. When you base your climate model on all the supposed positive feed backs and don't understand the negative feed backs then your model will run hot when you undervalue the negative feed backs. This is what we see currently.

And yes, this has EVERYTHING to do with "global warming". Trying to establish "global warming" without negative feedback is like trying to calculate a missile trajectory without including gravity.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Well, sure. When you base your climate model on all the supposed positive feed backs and don't understand the negative feed backs then your model will run hot when you undervalue the negative feed backs. This is what we see currently.

And yes, this has EVERYTHING to do with "global warming". Trying to establish "global warming" without negative feedback is like trying to calculate a missile trajectory without including gravity.

You need to alert the National Academy of Sciences right now!

The top scientific minds in the world have somehow been deluded into thinking this!

Thank you, so much, jmotivator! You will certainly save us a lot of trouble by bringing this important point to the attention of the scientists who have bascially invested most of their working lives on this issue!
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I did a little more focus on the whole solar forcing thing. As expected, the wikipedia page has a pretty good synopsis. It turns out, water vapor hardly even registers:

Radiative-forcings.svg

So I was right all along--CO2's effects >> H2O's effects.


Pay close attention to the error bars on aerosols.

The reason this is important is that to properly calculate CO2 forcing you have to actually know aerosol forcing values. The problem is, when you don't actually understand the contribution of aerosols to the climate it is impossible to actually discern the CO2 forcing.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I did a little more focus on the whole solar forcing thing. As expected, the wikipedia page has a pretty good synopsis. It turns out, water vapor hardly even registers:

Radiative-forcings.svg

So I was right all along--CO2's effects >> H2O's effects.

Also, water vapor is by far the most abundant and strongest GHG in the atmosphere. That chart is trying to quantify net anthropogenic forcings... which is odd, because the whole theory of CAGW is that the severely limited CO2 GHG effect causes the creation of water vapor and methane that further warm the atmosphere... so what they have done is take the bulk of whatever warming they think is caused by CO2 induced water vapor and lumped in as a CO2 forcing and then counted only the warming of water vapor created directly by anthropogenic means (ie. generator cooling towers) in the water vapor "forcing".

The assumption there being that water vapor warming is somehow exempt from "forcing".....
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You need to alert the National Academy of Sciences right now!

The top scientific minds in the world have somehow been deluded into thinking this!

Thank you, so much, jmotivator! You will certainly save us a lot of trouble by bringing this important point to the attention of the scientists who have bascially invested most of their working lives on this issue!

In case you missed it, the "top scientific minds" agree we don't know s**t about the effect of aerosols. I wasn't point out this obvious point to them, I was pointing it out to you since you think the science is settled enough that political action is warranted.

I'm here to educate you, not them.

But then I suppose to count James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones as "top minds" and discredit anyone that disagrees with them.... so adequate vetting of your sources is another lesson you will need to learn at some point.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

In case you missed it, the "top scientific minds" agree we don't know s**t about the effect of aerosols. I wasn't point out this obvious point to them, I was pointing it out to you since you think the science is settled enough that political action is warranted.

I'm here to educate you, not them.

But then I suppose to count James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones as "top minds" and discredit anyone that disagrees with them.... so adequate vetting of your sources is another lesson you will need to learn at some point.

But they all think the science is pretty much settled! You need to get over there now and tell them! Something has gone horribly wrong when a dupe like you can show up the entire worlds scientific community without any training whatsoever! I urge you to write this up and submit to PNAS. Or maybe Nature - this kind of breakthrough is clearly Nature material.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

But they all think the science is pretty much settled! You need to get over there now and tell them! Something has gone horribly wrong when a dupe like you can show up the entire worlds scientific community without any training whatsoever! I urge you to write this up and submit to PNAS. Or maybe Nature - this kind of breakthrough is clearly Nature material.

*sigh* no, threegoofs, the politicized cheerleaders for the anti-fossil-fuel movement are convinced. You have so sold out your own intellectual honesty and integrity that you can see a study that clearly says that the biggest mover of global climate is also the biggest unknown and you STILL want to argue the science is settled.

You can't have settled science with so many unknowns.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

*sigh* no, threegoofs, the politicized cheerleaders for the anti-fossil-fuel movement are convinced. You have so sold out your own intellectual honesty and integrity that you can see a study that clearly says that the biggest mover of global climate is also the biggest unknown and you STILL want to argue the science is settled.

You can't have settled science with so many unknowns.

YES! YES! You need to tell the world scientific community that! Somehow, they totally missed your brilliant point.

How do I know? Well:

Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


But you know better! You can restore the honesty and integrity to the worlds scientific communities! Just like a superhero!

Gosh. And you probably are just a janitor, or cub reporter in real life, too. Just like the best of them.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

YES! YES! You need to tell the world scientific community that! Somehow, they totally missed your brilliant point.

How do I know? Well:

Climate Change: Consensus

So, your defense of being pointed to the LACK of consensus is to double down and more strongly voice this (nonexistent) consensus.

Clever, there's a reason why the eco-fascists are losing so much ground.


But you know better! You can restore the honesty and integrity to the worlds scientific communities! Just like a superhero!

Gosh. And you probably are just a janitor, or cub reporter in real life, too. Just like the best of them.

It's not just one persons efforts, but by the cumulative voices of millions around the world, including the voices of many top scientists that are going to FORCE a return to scientific honesty and integrity, and dare I say sanity.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I did a little more focus on the whole solar forcing thing. As expected, the wikipedia page has a pretty good synopsis. It turns out, water vapor hardly even registers:

Radiative-forcings.svg

So I was right all along--CO2's effects >> H2O's effects.
I'm not speaking of stratospheric water vapor. I'm speaking of tropospheric water vapor. You really should understand the argument before inserting keyboard in mouth.

Isn't it convenient how hard it is to find material on tropospheric water vapor forcing and indirect solar forcing?
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

So, your defense of being pointed to the LACK of consensus is to double down and more strongly voice this (nonexistent) consensus.

Clever, there's a reason why the eco-fascists are losing so much ground.


It's not just one persons efforts, but by the cumulative voices of millions around the world, including the voices of many top scientists that are going to FORCE a return to scientific honesty and integrity, and dare I say sanity.

What part of every "significant national and international scientific society agrees " dont you understand?
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

YES! YES! You need to tell the world scientific community that! Somehow, they totally missed your brilliant point.

How do I know? Well:

Climate Change: Consensus

But you know better! You can restore the honesty and integrity to the worlds scientific communities! Just like a superhero!

Gosh. And you probably are just a janitor, or cub reporter in real life, too. Just like the best of them.


Hah, keep beating that drum. Are you saying that those Scientific Societies know the effects of aerosols on global climate? Let's get your full level of misinformation on the record here.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I'm not speaking of stratospheric water vapor. I'm speaking of tropospheric water vapor. You really should understand the argument before inserting keyboard in mouth.

Isn't it convenient how hard it is to find material on tropospheric water vapor forcing and indirect solar forcing?

Ah. Heres the second author to jmotivators soon to be publsihed cutting edge PNAS review.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Ah. Heres the second author to jmotivators soon to be publsihed cutting edge PNAS review.
Please tell us.

What is the forcing of tropospheric water vapor in... pick a time... 1750, 1850, 1880, etc. compared to the water vapor forcing of recent times. Do the same with CO2. The alarmists focus on the change. Change is irrelevant without knowing where the baseline is starting.
 
Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Please tell us.

What is the forcing of tropospheric water vapor in... pick a time... 1750, 1850, 1880, etc. compared to the water vapor forcing of recent times. Do the same with CO2. The alarmists focus on the change. Change is irrelevant without knowing where the baseline is starting.

Oh, no. I wouldn't be so brash as to challenge a brilliant scientific mind such as yourself. You really should be writing this up as a letter to Nature. (You know...where they actually discuss real science)
 
Back
Top Bottom