Global Warming?

[Ender]

40 years ago the same type of people said we’d all be floating in frozen ice blocks.

If you look at a graph of global temperatures, the concern that we might be entering another ice age seems absurd. After all, (according to global data) there was nothing in the 60’s and 70’s to indicate we were getting colder.

If you look at US temperatures, however, the concern becomes clear and this leads to one discrepancy I’ve not been able to resolve: how is it that what is by far the most accurate and extensive data maps so poorly with (ostensible) global trends? In fact, at one point in the last few years the five year trend point was actually below the high point in the 40’s … in the US. On the global chart the points are nowhere near one another. How is it that the best data available is so at variance with global data?

I don’t think we have the intellectual capacity to model the entire planet so accurately, and my guess is as a scientist that their models are off.

One doesn’t have to be a scientist to know the models are off; NOAA already noted the problem caused by the fact that there has been no warming for fifteen years. Since none of the models could account for such a hiatus there has been a rather great scurrying about to adjust the models to reflect reality.

Ender

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, if you want to use models for measuring something, you ain’t gonna get far.

Are you serious?

Models are used in climate science all the time.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=weller2;11480260]There is no such thing as sustainable development in carbon-powered economy.

I would say there is and it’s more sustainable than a lot of renewable energy projects that are hurting the economy and endangering wildlife.

That’s because most of those who are pushing the green agenda don’t have a clue about holistic modeling or thermodynamic balance in systems.

You need to look beyond what all these graphs and links are telling you.

It’s dangerous to just assume that it’s all correct.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you look at US temperatures, however, the concern becomes clear and this leads to one discrepancy I’ve not been able to resolve: how is it that what is by far the most accurate and extensive data maps so poorly with (ostensible) global trends? In fact, at one point in the last few years the five year trend point was actually below the high point in the 40’s … in the US. On the global chart the points are nowhere near one another. How is it that the best data available is so at variance with global data?

You say “at one point…the five-year trend…”. At what point do you think subset samples of a larger statistic become a significant indicator of the statistic as a whole? If you really want to make a point about how the recent data is contrary to predictions, cite a statistic that isn’t by its very nature more likely to prove your point. Being allowed to select that “one point” weakens the argument. But if you could say “pick a year - any year - and look at the 5-year trend starting in that year”, that would be a more powerful argument.

For what it’s worth, I also discount pro global warming arguments that are based on self-selected data points.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Good.

I have known for some time that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about – the question is, when will you realize that yourself.

Re: forcing vs. feedback – the difference is explained in any textbook on climatology or even in any book on control theory.

Weller, old sport, I have stated many times that I am not a scientist. I admit I have no idea what YOU are talking about. You are dazzling me with graphs, computations, and scientific terms.

All I have done is simply ask for proof. That usually raises the hackles of the pro AGW crowd and I get an overload of charts, graphs and scientific garble. And then I am told that I “don’t know anything.”

I understand the pro AGW crowd’s frustration with me because…there really is no PROOF of the AGW theory. THEORY…THEORY…THEORY.

Full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools, as well as the former president of the National Academy of Sciences have argued that AGW global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy.

No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds, yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats, and its 1995 report was revised after the scientists themselves had gone home.

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters per hundred years for the past 6,000 years.

Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts.

The threat of global warming is essentially nonexistent. Even if it were a real phenomenon, it would probably result in a net benefit to most of the world.

I am more of a history buff, and this theory of global warming has many similarities with pseudosciences of the past. Eugenics, DDT, Acid Rain, Alar on apples etc…

But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

That is the danger of this global warming hoax. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. Ethical scientists must remember the history, and be certain that what they present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

 

[weller2]

Are you serious?

Models are used in climate science all the time.

You have said that models are used for measurement. They are not. Models are mainly a predictive tool.

Did you ever take Physics 101?

 

[weller2]

I would say there is and it’s more sustainable

Fossil fuel deposits are not renewable, hence, economy based on fossil fuels is not sustainable by definition.

than a lot of renewable energy projects that are hurting the economy and endangering wildlife.

ROTFL. Because the fossil industry has no impact on wildlife. None at all:

http://s.ngm.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/img/candian-oil-sands-615.jpg

That’s because most of those who are pushing the green agenda don’t have a clue about holistic modeling or thermodynamic balance in systems.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics is not on your side. Increased atmospheric CO2 must increase Earth’s heat content. This directly follows from blackbody radiation and absorption characteristics of CO2. There is no way around it.

There is some controversy regarding how exactly temperature rises in response to CO2, but equilibrium temperature which must be eventually reached can be calculated pretty easily. In fact, Svante Arrhenius did so back in 1898 and his prediction turned out to be surprisingly correct.

 

[weller2]

Firstly, I said that I am waiting for proof that MAN MADE CO2 is causing global warming.

CO2 is CO2 – does not matter if it’s anthropogenic or natural.

What you are asking takes two steps:

Step 1. CO2 causes warming. This can be proven in two independent ways: (1) by calculations from radiative transfer and (2) by examining geologic record.

Step 2. Human activity increases CO2. This, again can be proven in three ways: (1) by isotopic ratios, (2) by comparing data on fossil fuel production and atmopsheric CO2 levels, (3) by comparing increase in atmospheric CO2 with decrease in atmospheric oxygen.

Since you don’t like isotope ratios, here is your homework:

(1) find how much carbon (coal, oil, natural gas) has been mined since 1950. Since almost all of this carbon has been burnt, calculate the mass of CO2 produced.

(2) find atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1950 and 2013. Convert to tons of CO2. Calculate change in mass of atmospheric CO2.

(3) compare the numbers obtained in steps (1) and (2).

 

[Ender]

You say “at one point…the five-year trend…”. At what point do you think subset samples of a larger statistic become a significant indicator of the statistic as a whole?

The argument has been made that global temperatures are significantly warmer now than a half century ago. The US data show that just within the past few years we were actually slightly cooler than in the 40’s. Given that CO2 has been steadily increasing, how is this possible?

If you really want to make a point about how the recent data is contrary to predictions, cite a statistic that isn’t by its very nature more likely to prove your point.

I’m not sure you appreciate what “my point” is so I’ll repeat it: how is it that the US data, which is unarguably the most extensive and accurate in the world, disagrees so significantly with what purport to be global temperatures?

For what it’s worth, I also discount pro global warming arguments that are based on self-selected data points.

If there has been such significant warming going on for decades, how is it possible for the current five year trend line to dip below the five year trend line of 70 years ago? What happened to 70 years of warming?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Fossil fuel deposits are not renewable, hence, economy based on fossil fuels is not sustainable by definition.

Looking perhaps hundreds of years into the future that assertion may be correct, but over shorter time spans it appears to be inaccurate. Given the colossal finds of natural gas and shale oil just in the US and just in the last few decades it is clear that we’re not running out of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics is not on your side. Increased atmospheric CO2 must increase Earth’s heat content. This directly follows from blackbody radiation and absorption characteristics of CO2. There is no way around it.

Well, yes there is. Your assertion is based on the assumption that CO2 has only one effect, that being to absorb IR energy when in fact the reaction of the atmosphere to higher CO2 levels is one of those great unknowns the modellers have been trying to calculate for decades. If nothing else was going on then global warming models could be constructed by high school students, but since the models are of extraordinary complexity (not to mention of dubious accuracy) it appears that other things are happening and a simplistic model of the future isn’t all that useful.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Step 1. CO2 causes warming. This can be proven in two independent ways: (1) by calculations from radiative transfer and (2) by examining geologic record.

(1) assumes CO2 has only one effect, that of absorbing IR energy. It’s quite clear this position is woefully deficient. (2) The geologic record shows that higher CO2 concentrations lag behind increasing temperatures. That is, CO2 increased because the Earth warmed, not the other way around.

Step 2. Human activity increases CO2.

Human activity has increased a lot of things. The question isn’t whether we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, the question is whether this will cause global warming to an appreciable, and harmful, degree.

Ender

 

[JB_Dugan]

CO2 is CO2 – does not matter if it’s anthropogenic or natural.

What you are asking takes two steps:

Step 1. CO2 causes warming.

Let’s stop right here Professor…

You said: “Speaking of which, technically, CO2 is also not a driver, but a feedback.”

I can understand that because historically the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere rose AFTER periods of warming.

Now it is CAUSING warming…Well what came first…???

Next: “CO2 is CO2 - does not matter if it’s anthropogenic or natural”

That leaves man out of the whole equation. Why are we arguing about this???

I’m not a scientist and I don’t spend much time reading Science Magazine, but there was an article written by a blue-ribbon panel who concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century.

So what’s the point??

Before I tackle your homework assignment, let me say:

Man has been a natural and righteous inhabitant of the Earth since God created him.
God gave man the intelligence and ingenuity to use the natural resources (Provided by God) to make his life better. (Domination over the land, plants and animals…Genesis)

Since man is a natural resident of Earth and fossil fuels are a natural resource, man is doing nothing wrong by burning these God given gifts to keep warm and provide transportation.

If the burning of natural resources produces CO2, a natural gas, one produced by other natural sources and even exhaled by man, then that is a perfectly natural occurrence and within God’s plan.

To assume that this is wrong or can possibly harm the Earth or alter climatic conditions beyond man’s adaptability is the height of human arrogance.

Sorry, Weller, but I think you are embracing a false religion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The argument has been made that global temperatures are significantly warmer now than a half century ago. The US data show that just within the past few years we were actually slightly cooler than in the 40’s. Given that CO2 has been steadily increasing, how is this possible?

If someone makes that argument, they aren’t making the right argument. Global warming, properly understood, does not guarantee a monotonic relationship between CO2 and temperatures for any specific data points. It is a statement about probabilities and trends, accepting the fact that there are other factors, random and not so random, that also influence temperature. Certainly the longer any specific cooling trend continues, the more doubt is cast on the theory. But the level of contrary trends has not risen to the level that seriously challenges the theory yet.

I’m not sure you appreciate what “my point” is so I’ll repeat it: how is it that the US data, which is unarguably the most extensive and accurate in the world, disagrees so significantly with what purport to be global temperatures?

There is no reason to think that taking data more accurately or more extensively is going to remove the random effects present in the data. The effects are real and are not going to go away just because we can measure more accurately. But the theory is compatible with those random effects.

If there has been such significant warming going on for decades, how is it possible for the current five year trend line to dip below the five year trend line of 70 years ago? What happened to 70 years of warming?

I need to see the specific data you are referring to before I can comment. Can you give me a link?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the burning of natural resources produces CO2, a natural gas, one produced by other natural sources and even exhaled by man, then that is a perfectly natural occurrence and within God’s plan.

Feces are also perfectly natural, but that does not mean it is within God’s plan that we should leave them in the streets.

To assume that this is wrong or can possibly harm the Earth or alter climatic conditions beyond man’s adaptability is the height of human arrogance.

On the contrary, it is a position of humility that prompts one to say “I don’t deserve to burn all this coal and risk that those who come after I am gone might not have such a wonderful world in which to live as that which I have ravaged for my own pleasure”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don’t like the use of the term “global warming”, as it gives the impression that the earth’s atmospheric temperature is warming, which it is not doing universally, but rather fluctuating. It seems to confuse the whole issue.

I think the real concern is - and why this is never highlighted, I have no idea - that the surface temperature of the earth is heating up, which is why we are seeing polar ice melting, coral bleaching, etc.

 

[Ender]

If someone makes that argument, they aren’t making the right argument. Global warming, properly understood, does not guarantee a monotonic relationship between CO2 and temperatures for any specific data points.

Warming clearly doesn’t mean that this December will be warmer than last December but if it has been occurring for decades then one would not expect to find after all that warming that global temperatures would be where they were 70 years ago. On an individual annual basis, perhaps, but a five year average seems less likely.

It is a statement about probabilities and trends, accepting the fact that there are other factors, random and not so random, that also influence temperature.

I’m pretty sure that global warming, properly understood, means that the globe is supposed to be warmer now than before. It is not a statement about probabilities or trends but a statement of fact.

Certainly the longer any specific cooling trend continues, the more doubt is cast on the theory. But the level of contrary trends has not risen to the level that seriously challenges the theory yet.

The current cessation of warming has been sufficient to demonstrate the inadequacy of all the models. Why isn’t it a serious problem when all of the models turned out to be wrong?

I need to see the specific data you are referring to before I can comment. Can you give me a link?

The first graph is US data, the second is global. Both are from NASA/GISS and they clearly bear no resemblance to one another.
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t like the use of the term “global warming”, as it gives the impression that the earth’s atmospheric temperature is warming, which it is not doing universally, but rather fluctuating. It seems to confuse the whole issue.

I think the real concern is - and why this is never highlighted, I have no idea - that the surface temperature of the earth is heating up, which is why we are seeing polar ice melting, coral bleaching, etc.

The theory of AGW requires the atmosphere to warm first which then leads to a warming of the surface. If the surface warms but the atmosphere doesn’t then CO2 cannot be the cause and the theory collapses.

Ender

 

[josh987654321]

What is your opinion on this article by the New York Times?
nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/earth/by-2047-coldest-years-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html?src=recg
God Bless!

Don’t worry, I got an inside tip that it’s all a load of ****

youtube.com/watch?v=R7poastmPSA

For more information on Global Warming - youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The theory of AGW requires the atmosphere to warm first which then leads to a warming of the surface. If the surface warms but the atmosphere doesn’t then CO2 cannot be the cause and the theory collapses.

Ender

That is not how the theory goes. The atmosphere does not have to warm first. Perhaps you are thinking that atmosphere that contains more CO2 somehow catches more sunlight. Here is how it really goes. Sunlight warms the surface directly. Then the warmer surface re-radiates some of that heat back into space as infrared radiation. You may have heard your local weatherman talk about radiative cooling, where the nighttime temperature drops much more on clear nights than on overcast nights. That is because on clear nights, the infrared radiation from the surface has nothing to block it so it radiates into space, leaving the surface cooler. But on overcast nights, the clouds reflect the infrared radiation from the surface right back to the surface. So what does this have to do with CO2? Well, CO2 is more opaque to infrared radiation than the general atmosphere, so it acts just like those clouds, blocking radiative cooling, even though CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are completely transparent to visible light. This allows heat to come in from the sun at visible wavelengths but blocks heat from leaving at the infrared wavelengths, resulting in more net heating than if there was less CO2. So you see that the mechanism does not involve the heating of the air at all. The air is only heated as a consequence of contact with the warmer surface.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The theory of AGW requires the atmosphere to warm first which then leads to a warming of the surface. If the surface warms but the atmosphere doesn’t then CO2 cannot be the cause and the theory collapses.

Ender

Hi Ender,

You’re right, but it’s only an initial warming, since greenhouse gases don’t hold heat indefinitely but radiate it out. Of course, the earth’s surface doesn’t hold it indefinitely either, but as more greenhouse gases are radiating more heat the cumulative effect is greater heating of the earth’s surface.