Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know whether to thank you for sharing the science so ably,…

or weep.
 
weller2 said:
Well, you have managed to put a lot of misrepresentation in a single post. Let’s break it down, shall we?

I hate to break it to you, but MOST research is actually done by grad students. Professors mainly deal with paperwork and overseeing the students. So the quality of this paper is probably the same as everything else out there.

This is the guy’s CV: soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/CamiloMoraCV.pdf
With 9 years of full-time experience after Ph.D., he would meet formal criteria for a department head in most of institutions I know.

Plus, a specialist in ecosystem biology looks competent to investigate impact of global warming,

In other words, it’s a totally legit way of doing science, known as meta-analysis or systematic review. Particularly popular in medical science.

Duh. Everyone, even with passing interest in science knows that all models published since 1985 or so predict that year 2100 will be between 2 and 6 deg. C warmer over the 1900-1950 mean, with about 3.5 deg. C being the most popular number. So an average of these of these models will also predict a similar warming (what else?). So the result of this study is nothing unexpected. The only novelty here is his way of presenting the results instead of saying “3 deg. C global average warming over the 1900-1950 multi-year mean”.

For your information, climate models are not based on temperature measurements. They are based on laws of physics. Temperature measurements are used to validate the models.
Meaningless term.

Again for your information, technical papers (like that one) are not journalism, they are not written by journalists, although the periodicals they are published in are called “journals”. They are however reviewed by experts in the field prior to publication.

Another gross misrepresentation. Nobody will not fry, people will just die of hunger because of extended drought. thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/20/206899/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/

And yes – further warming is unavoidable because of the CO2 we have already put in the system. Emission reductions can only limit the warming in 2050-2100 timeframe. In other words, the choice is between your convenience and the life of your grandchildren – and I understand why many people are willing to opt for the former.
Click to expand...
I take it I am not your favorite person if you think I choose convenience over the lives of my grandchildren. Pretty ill-mannered thing for a person to say even so; though not unexpected from those with the sort of totalitarian mindset one is accustomed to finding among those who promote MMGW.

As it happens, I care very much for my grandchildren; enough to oppose artificial barriers to energy uses that keep them warm and fed. I do realize some MMGW proponents would see them deprived of that now for the sake of a disputed theory that says THEIR children will die of hunger no matter what.

If this global warming article (reported in another article) was, as the OP article says, written by students, supervised by a non-scientist based on conclusions arrived at by others, then it’s nothing but a compendium of conclusions arranged in a different way. About as unscholarly as one could ask for.

Totally derivative. Double hearsay at minimum. Lacks foundation. Non-scientific.

Again, if most science articles are, as you say, like this, then publications featuring them have come to a poor pass indeed.
 
This thread has taken a curious and non-topical turn.

The original article is about a bunch of students who collected TEMPERATURE data collected by others all over the place, and drew conclusions from those.

But the thread has turned into an explanation of how, well, MMGW is not based on temperature information at all. We started with our theory of how surely CO2 content in the atmosphere, inasmuch as it’s rising, will result in rising temperatures. (One doesn’t doubt they did that) We then compared temperature data with it and, no surprise, we found that it validated our theory. Or, well, it did to a point, but then it didn’t, so now we think the computer model is still valid because (despite increased arctic and antarctic ice) the heat is being absorbed by the ice which (despite the reality) is melting.

All we need now is the addition of the MMGW theory that, well, ice is increasing because snow on the icepacks is increasing and snowfall, as we all know, is caused by increased atmospheric moisture which is caused by increased evaporation, which is caused by MMGW.

If the world froze into a solid ball of ice, they would still find a way to say it’s due to MMGW. And some do say Europe, at least, will turn into a ball of ice because of MMGW. (Well, you see, it will disturb the oceanic conveyor and tropical waters will no longer flow north, etc, etc, etc)

But I digress. The thread is about the NYT article, which is about another article written by a bunch of students, or for them, in which they gather together a bunch of TEMPERATURE information from around the world. All of this explanation of no temperature increase due to ice melt business isn’t in it.
 
weller2 said:
It does not matter: the infinite growth model will hit any limit – several years sooner or later. (Literally several years, due to basic properties of exponential function!)

Even if CO2 was completely harmless, we would finally run out of hydrocarbons. And even if we had an unlimited amount of hydrocarbons – we would finaly run out of oxygen.

19th century economics of infinite growth cannot be realized on a finite planet, period.

In the pipeline – temperature is predicted to stabilize around the year 2400.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/25954587/1_2.jpg

nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608

That’s the beauty of global warming – we get all the benefits of burning fossil fuels, our descendants will get all the costs!
Click to expand...
You do realize that the information you used from:

skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Conflicts with what you posted above.
 
SamH said:
So that’s how it works…🤷
Click to expand...
That’s what it seems like in GW discussions. If the ice is growing then thats proof of MMGW.

If the temps are steady or falling, again proof. It’s a little confusing at times.:confused:
 
weller2 said:
CO2 absorbs light at infrared wavelengths, which means it’s (mostly) transparent for Sun’s radiation, but (mostly) opaque for Earth’s radiation – Earth’s radiation is absorbed by CO2. In other words, the more CO2, the less heat gets radiated out into space. And, since there’s no other mechanism for transferring heat out into space – it means that Earth’s total energy must increase.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect in the real world even though it might seem correct in a simple model of a theoretical one. Heat is also lost through the reflection of light (as opposed to absorbtion/radiation) off surfaces like clouds and ice. Increasing the Earth’s albedo decreases the amount of energy it absorbs, CO2 notwithstanding. Nor is CO2 the only gas that absorbs and radiates energy. The point here is that the Earth’s climate is not nearly as simple as you portray it.
Whether that extra energy goes into increasing air temperature or melting ice is a very interesting question in itself, but it has no impact on the basic fact: this extra energy is trapped somewhere on Earth.
Click to expand...
If we knew the theory was right this would be a reasonable conclusion but, for questionable theories, the failure of predictions is usually understood as a weakness in the theory.
Temperature has increased – it was increasing regularly until 1998. Apparently, in 1998 air temperatures in polar regions (which heat most, BTW) has crossed some threshold and extra energy is now being diverted into melting ice.
Click to expand...
No, this is not accurate either as the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been increasing (by a small amount) even as it has been decreasing in the Arctic.
So lack of warming is perfectly consitent with the theory that we have now switched from “air heating mode” to “ice melting mode”.
Click to expand...
I was unaware that the models included a switch from “air heating mode” to “ice melting mode.” Can you point to a description of this in one of the IPCC reports?

Ender
 
SamH said:
And the infinite growth model has been proven correct by?
Click to expand...
The infinite growth model is a religion in economic circles. We must always have GDP growth, because if we don’t, then we will be unable to manage the debt. The model has worked fine for the last couple hundred years, because human civilization was very small compared to planetary resources. But human civilization has now grown to the size where its resource requirements are comparable to total resources available on the planet.

As I said, thepresent economic model is doomed. It just happens that the global warning is the thing which will kill it first. But if there was no global warming, it would run out of carbon. If carbon was unlimited, it would run out of oxygen.
SamH said:
You do realize that the information you used from:

skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Conflicts with what you posted above.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. The natural warming pattern (Millankovich cycles) works like that:

orbital change (closer to the Sun) → warming (due to increased solar (name removed by moderator)ut) → CO2 release (due to defreezing ground) → CO2 driven warming (in addition to initial warming)

In the initial warning mode, CO2 lags temperature. When enough CO2 is released, the system switches to a CO2-driven warming mode and temperature lags CO2, until an equilibrium temperature (for a new value of CO2 and solar (name removed by moderator)ut) is reached.

Anthropogenic warming is purely CO2-driven, so temperature lags CO2. The current temperature is lower than should be given the CO2 level. This is because the system has not yet reached equilibrium state – this takes several hundred years.
 
Ender said:
If we knew the theory was right this would be a reasonable conclusion but, for questionable theories, the failure of predictions is usually understood as a weakness in the theory.
Click to expand...
What you were objecting to was:
Whether that extra energy goes into increasing air temperature or melting ice is a very interesting question in itself, but it has no impact on the basic fact: this extra energy is trapped somewhere on Earth.
Click to expand...
What weller2 was presenting was not a conclusion from global warming theory. It is a long-established fact that heat energy is interchangeable between temperature rises and ice melting. This fact all by itself does not need global warming theory to support it. It has been known for several hundred years, long before global warming was ever mentioned. Perhaps what you really object to is estimate of the total amounts of energy that is being trapped and lost. You can disagree about that, but you cannot disagree that the total energy, whatever it is, is easily transferred between latent heat of melting and specific heat of temperature rise.
No, this is not accurate either as the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been increasing (by a small amount) even as it has been decreasing in the Arctic.
Click to expand...
How does that help your case? If you look up the original NASA report on this you will see that the comparative amounts was such that the ice briefly gained in the antarctic has been dominated by the much larger loss in the arctic. The models of global warming are primarily about overall changes, not localized ones. Finding local exceptions to the global predictions is not a significant refutation.
I was unaware that the models included a switch from “air heating mode” to “ice melting mode.” Can you point to a description of this in one of the IPCC reports?
Click to expand...
Again, this is a level of detail that is unreasonable to expect from global warming theory.
 
This figure shows Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 through 2012 using data from September of each year, which is when the minimum extent typically occurs.

www.epa.gov

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/sea-ice.html
If that was the performance of your investment portfolio you would be really upset if your financial adviser told you that “well sometimes it grows.”

Another important piece of info is how old the ice is, not just how wide is it spread.

www.epa.gov

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

This figure shows the distribution of Arctic sea ice extent by age group during the peak melting week in September of each year.
  • The total extent in Figure 2 differs from Figure 1 because Figure 1 shows a monthly average, while Figure 2 shows conditions during a single week.
epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/sea-ice.html

www.epa.gov

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

So there’s less ice, and the ice is getting more short-lived.
 
Ender said:
This is incorrect in the real world even though it might seem correct in a simple model of a theoretical one. Heat is also lost through the reflection of light (as opposed to absorbtion/radiation) off surfaces like clouds and ice.
Click to expand...
That’s true, and impact of albedo and clouds is no sufficiently researched. However, note that cloud and albedo feedbacks did not stop pre-1998 warming, so why would they suddenly activate in 1998? More to the point, if lack of warming since 1998 is caused by cloud feedback, how can you be sure that this mechanism will not suddenly deactivate tomorrow?

Anyway, this is university-level topic and we’re currently discussing kindergarten-level material, i.e. radiative transfer. We can move to cloud feedbacks after we agree on basics.
Ender said:
The point here is that the Earth’s climate is not nearly as simple as you portray it.
Click to expand...
Sure it’s not, but as I said above, there’s no sense in discussing intricacies of global warming until we can agree on the basics. Trust me on that, there was a time I did not understand the basics either 😃

The basic lesson from the science of radiative transfer is that you cannot put unlimited amount of CO2 in the air and expect no change in temperature. How much exactly CO2 can be put into the air we’re not sure… but all estimates of maximum “safe” levels are between 450ppm and 1000ppm. (“Unsafe” level being defined as a level which causes warming which will wipe out, or severely damage, human civilization in 2100-2500 timeframe). Since the emissions are increasing, the difference between 450ppm target and 1000ppm boils down to enacting emission controls now (450ppm target) or in ~25 years (1000ppm target):

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima....png/450px-Carbon_Stabilization_Scenarios.png
Ender said:
No, this is not accurate either as the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been increasing (by a small amount) even as it has been decreasing in the Arctic.
Click to expand...
The increase is below the level of statistical noise:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Ender said:
I was unaware that the models included a switch from “air heating mode” to “ice melting mode.” Can you point to a description of this in one of the IPCC reports?
Click to expand...
They did not, that’s the problem. After 1998, the models diverge from reality in two areas:
  • the ice is melting FASTER than the models predicted
  • the temperature is raising SLOWER than the models predicted
It’s quite obvious what is happening given the physical properties of ice. I expect a revision of models over the next few years. Why the modellers missed that is an interesting topic, but probably outside the scope given the current direction of this thread.
 
Predictions of storms coming in the next few days are “some” credibility, but predictions of weather patterns decades into the future are very unreliable.

Also, there is actually evidence (published online) of “cooler” temperatures over the past 15 years, which even the “Global Warming” pundits acknowledge.

So, I don’t accept the idea of Global Warming or even the idea of an “ice age”, but I do believe in a Global Flood (whole Earth).
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Perhaps what you really object to is estimate of the total amounts of energy that is being trapped and lost. You can disagree about that, but you cannot disagree that the total energy, whatever it is, is easily transferred between latent heat of melting and specific heat of temperature rise.
Click to expand...
What I object to is the ease with which the proposed mechanism for global warming is ignored. Additional energy must appear first in the atmosphere; that is the base assumption for everything. If the atmosphere is not warming then, assuming the theory is valid, heat must be being transferred from the atmosphere at the same rate it is being absorbed. Melting ice is an endothermic reaction, that is it absorbs heat which is a possible explanation for where the missing energy is. On the other hand if heat is being removed at the poles that makes it a little more difficult to understand why the (North) pole is warming.
How does that help your case?
Click to expand...
The claim was that the “polar regions” (plural) were losing ice. “My case” is proven by the fact that the South Pole is gaining ice.
If you look up the original NASA report on this you will see that the comparative amounts was such that the ice briefly gained in the antarctic has been dominated by the much larger loss in the arctic.
Click to expand...
The trend in the Antarctic is as long as the opposite trend in the Arctic; it has not been a “brief” gain, albeit it has been a much smaller one. Why would you say it was a “brief” gain if you are unfamiliar with the data?
The models of global warming are primarily about overall changes, not localized ones. Finding local exceptions to the global predictions is not a significant refutation.
Click to expand...
One of the issues for me that points to the weakness of the theory is the way it is defended. If it is so obviously valid then it should not be necessary to employ falsehoods and exaggerations to support it. The assertion that the “polar regions” are losing ice is false.
Again, this is a level of detail that is unreasonable to expect from global warming theory.
Click to expand...
I’m concerned not about a lack of details but about a lack of concern for facts.

Ender
 
weller2 said:
More to the point, if lack of warming since 1998 is caused by cloud feedback, how can you be sure that this mechanism will not suddenly deactivate tomorrow?
Click to expand...
The point was to address your assertion that “there’s no other mechanism for transferring heat out into space.” That claim is incorrect.
The basic lesson from the science of radiative transfer is that you cannot put unlimited amount of CO2 in the air and expect no change in temperature.
Click to expand...
The basic lesson from all the other sciences involved in climate analysis is that science doesn’t understand how all of this works together. Temperatures are not controlled solely by radiative transfer.
The increase is below the level of statistical noise:
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know how to calculate statistical noise but according to the NSIDC sea ice anomaly index the slope of the 30 year mean average is +1% (+/- 0.6%), which, even at the lowest limit of variability, means the extent is increasing. The one sure thing is, contra your assertion, the Antarctic sea ice extent is not decreasing. This is another assertion that is incorrect.
They did not, that’s the problem. After 1998, the models diverge from reality in two areas:
Click to expand...
The models were presented as accurate with a 95% confidence level. Given that even supporters of the theory now acknowledge the models “diverged from reality” why would we think they will do better in the future than they did in the past?

In a nod to Ridgerunner, who noted that the thread had gotten off topic, perhaps I can suggest a relation between the OP and this particular tangent. Most people now know that the models failed rather markedly in (statistically) ruling out a 15 year period without warming. The article in the Times and many of the posters here are rallying to defend a theory that has taken a fairly significant hit because reality was ungrateful enough to ignore its predictions.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Melting ice is an endothermic reaction, that is it absorbs heat which is a possible explanation for where the missing energy is. On the other hand if heat is being removed at the poles that makes it a little more difficult to understand why the (North) pole is warming.
Click to expand...
Global warming does not have to explain everything that happens. Understanding of this particular fact is not a necessary consequence of global warming theory.
The claim was that the “polar regions” (plural) were losing ice. “My case” is proven by the fact that the South Pole is gaining ice.
The trend in the Antarctic is as long as the opposite trend in the Arctic; it has not been a “brief” gain, albeit it has been a much smaller one. Why would you say it was a “brief” gain if you are unfamiliar with the data?
Click to expand...
If you want an explanation of the Antarctic ice gain, read this article. But the reason I say “brief” is that it has only been observed for about three decades. Furthermore, the total ice in the Antarctic has been declining. What has been observed is a gain in sea ice around Antarctica. The ice that covers the land mass of Antarctica has been declining. See this article for an explanation of the difference between sea ice and land ice and why it is relevant.
One of the issues for me that points to the weakness of the theory is the way it is defended. If it is so obviously valid then it should not be necessary to employ falsehoods and exaggerations to support it.
Click to expand...
I defend the science. I do not defend the methods of everyone who pushes global warming. To me the science stands or falls on its own merits. I do not depend on the character of those doing the analysis. Science should not be built on trust.
The assertion that the “polar regions” are losing ice is false.
Click to expand...
When properly qualified (considering land ice) it is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top