Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf,
Look, I understand what a “sink” is. I own my own–a 250 year old house that simply absorbs money and sends it into the ether. I’ve come to understand, through my 70 years, that you don’t own anything–no matter what you’ve paid for it—it owns you.

How true it is!

Well, in the first place, the Arctic ice pack is not melting at an unusual rate.

Unusual, no. But usual for 1978-2013. Do we need to see a falling off a cliff graph to get the point?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So, the real question, I think, becomes not, "what is actually causing the climate change? it’s an recurring event that will eventually happen whatever I do to try to change it.

It is all a question of scale. Yes, it is true that over the eons the climate of earth has undergone much greater extremes than we have seen so far. But the AGW issue is not about what will happen eons from now. It is about what will happen in less than 200 years from now.

Now, let’s get back to AGW. Do you remember the hole in the ozone layer? It was back in the 60s or 70s.

Yes, this is one of the remarkable stories of how international cooperation succeeded in averting a disaster. It does not help your point. You will have much better luck arguing against AGW directly rather than by saying how it is like the CFC/Ozone issue.

Furthermore, every single one of these academic alarmists have funding for their projects on the line.

You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them!

That is perhaps your weakest argument. Scientists have just as much to gain financially by disproving AGW as they have by proving it. Think of the fame! To be the first one who definitively proved man had negligible effect on climate! The people who want this to be the outcome have a lot more money than the people who want AGW to be true. If a scientist breaks ranks with the “fraud” of AGW, he will be warmly welcomed with even greater rewards by the oil industry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf,
Look, I understand what a “sink” is. I own my own–a 250 year old house that simply absorbs money and sends it into the ether. I’ve come to understand, through my 70 years, that you don’t own anything–no matter what you’ve paid for it—it owns you.

How true it is!

Well, in the first place, the Arctic ice pack is not melting at an unusual rate.

Since 1978 it has come to be “usual”, but it is no less disturbing. Take a look at the graph of “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent”.

So, the real question, I think, becomes not, "what is actually causing the climate change? it’s an recurring event that will eventually happen whatever I do to try to change it.

It is all a question of scale. Yes, it is true that over the eons the climate of earth has undergone much greater extremes than we have seen so far. But the AGW issue is not about what will happen eons from now. It is about what will happen in less than 200 years from now.

Now, let’s get back to AGW. Do you remember the hole in the ozone layer? It was back in the 60s or 70s.

Yes, this is one of the remarkable stories of how international cooperation succeeded in averting a disaster. It does not help your point. You will have much better luck arguing against AGW directly rather than by saying how it is like the CFC/Ozone issue.

Furthermore, every single one of these academic alarmists have funding for their projects on the line.

You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them!

That is perhaps your weakest argument. Scientists have just as much to gain financially by disproving AGW as they have by proving it. Think of the fame! To be the first one who definitively proved man had negligible effect on climate! The people who want this to be the outcome have a lot more money than the people who want AGW to be true. If a scientist breaks ranks with the “fraud” of AGW, he will be warmly welcomed with even greater rewards by the oil industry.

 

[estesbob]

dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/

 

[aragonjohn1]

ok…

Yes?

 

[Ender]

Well because (1) we see the ice melting, and (2) stations near the pole do actually show warming (check in NASA GISS for yourself).

The issue is not whether temperatures have increased but what has caused the increase. Noting that temperatures at the pole show warming says nothing about whether the warming was caused by CO2.

If you replace “theory” with “IPCC and their models” then I’m inclined to agree. Basic theory is rock solid. IPCC and their models… not so much.

It is the theory - not the models - that predicts warming in the troposphere. Whether the models can correctly forecast future climate conditions has nothing whatever to do with whether changes occur where the theory predicts them. It is not the models that “discovered” the troposphere was supposed to warm, it was the theory that predicted it. If measurements fail to find it it is a problem with the theory, not the models.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The issue is not whether temperatures have increased but what has caused the increase. Noting that temperatures at the pole show warming says nothing about whether the warming was caused by CO2.
It is the theory - not the models - that predicts warming in the troposphere. Whether the models can correctly forecast future climate conditions has nothing whatever to do with whether changes occur where the theory predicts them. It is not the models that “discovered” the troposphere was supposed to warm, it was the theory that predicted it. If measurements fail to find it it is a problem with the theory, not the models.

Ender

The only prediction that I have seen for tropospheric warming is in those IPCC charts you cited, which were derived straight from the models. I have not seen anywhere that this is a necessary consequence of the theory.

In general, the theory of global warming is a theory, not a model. Theories are developed in a variey of ways. Sometimes it is a generalization of a few observed facts. Sometimes it is the result of pure logic. At this stage in its development, a theory has no real value. The real work begins to validate or disprove the theory, either by additional observations, or by logical connection with other more established theories. In the case of global warming, progress has been made in both these areas. One way to validate global warming theory is to construct models of the processes involved. These models are not based on global warming theory. They are based on the known basic interactions of the elements of the environment, and then applied to a known starting condition. Due to limitations in data gathering, the known starting condition is only an approximation. And due to the limitations in computing power, the simulations deal with larger chunks of the environment than we would like. Despite both these limitations, such models have proven useful in things like predicting the path of storms. Anyway, the model predicts global warming and it also predicts tropospheric warming. These are two independent predictions. One does not rely on the other. If there is a failure in a prediction, that directly reflects negatively on the model that produced the prediction. The only implication regarding global warming is that the model that might have validated global warming is suspect. So it is no worse than if the model had never been made. That is, we still have global warming as a theory, validated to an extent by direct observations, and by those aspects of the models that are not so suspect. This is a long way from disproving global warming, that is, saying that temperature could not have been caused by CO2.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Not true. collective.chem.cmu.edu/ozone/ozone.ppt‎

BTW – the hole was over the South Pole, not North Pole.

It is true. The “Ozone Hole” was a hoax.

“New satellite ozone data and other atmospheric studies based on actual measurements confirm that the ozone layer is not a homogeneous, flat and that atmospheric dynamics, not chemistry, is the driving factor that determines the thickness of the ozone layer. The scientific research reported here strips any shred of credibility from the claims of the ozone depletion theorists leaving the Montreal Protocol backed only by the Malthusian ideology of its founders.”

mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html

This is exactly why I do not hold the credibility of alarmist “political” scientists in very high esteem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is true. The “Ozone Hole” was a hoax.

mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
.

This propaganda is straight from the Lyndon LaRouche Society. I prefer to get my science from, you know, scientists.

 

[Ender]

The only prediction that I have seen for tropospheric warming is in those IPCC charts you cited, which were derived straight from the models. I have not seen anywhere that this is a necessary consequence of the theory.

The theory of GHG warming absolutely requires warming in the troposphere.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

*τ is infrared absorption measured from the top of the atmosphere looking down. Diagram (a): When the earth is in radiative balance with space, net incoming solar radiation (NISR) is balanced by outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the characteristic emission level, τ=1. Diagram (b): When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the characteristic emission level is raised in altitude. Since atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude at about 10 ºC per mile, the new characteristic emission level is colder than the previous level. Therefore outgoing longwave radiation no longer balances net incoming solar radiation. The Earth is no longer in thermal balance with space. This imbalance is called “radiative forcing”. To re-establish balance, the temperature at the new τ=1 level must increase to about the temperature that had existed at the initial τ=1 level, which is typically 7-8 km in the tropics and lower elsewhere. The warming at τ=1 is the fundamental warming associated with the greenhouse effect. How warming at the characteristic emission level τ=1 relates to warming at the surface is not altogether clear, but computer models can be helpful here. Source: Lindzen (2007).

*Ender

 

[JB_Dugan]

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading climate change expert.

He says the Left needs to cool it.

While he believes the climate is changing, he argues, “The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for.” Furthermore, all the hype is "just a dream come true for politicians,"

"The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense. You can see their eyes bulge."

He warned that folks should “back off from catastophism. It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.” Well sure – that’s where the votes and the money are.

boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

 

[weller2]

While he believes the climate is changing, he argues, **“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for.” **

So far.

Furthermore, all the hype is “just a dream come true for politicians,”

"The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense. You can see their eyes bulge."

That’s actually true, but it does not change the nature of global warming. Global warming is a physical phenomenon, and whether it occurs (or not) is independent from politics.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

So far.

That’s actually true, but it does not change the nature of global warming. Global warming is a physical phenomenon, and whether it occurs (or not) is independent from politics.

1. The world hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1994
2. The number of record lows in 2013 exceeded the number of record highs

 

[buffalo]

It may be helpful to think of the atmosphere as a balloon. When the air inside heats the balloon expands presenting more surface to radiate the heat off.

 

[JB_Dugan]

That’s actually true, but it a dream come true for politicians] does not change the nature of global warming. Global warming is a physical phenomenon, and whether it occurs (or not) is independent from politics.

I agree, global warming and cooling are a physical phenomenon, not unlike sunrise and sunset. As such, politics has no business involving itself.

Let’s tell that to the United Nations and the “carbon credit” yahoos.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

1. The world hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1994
2. The number of record lows in 2013 exceeded the number of record highs

“Global warming” is a misnomer. The concern is climate change and to what degree our carbon emissions relate to it.

 

[estesbob]

“Global warming” is a misnomer. The concern is climate change and to what degree our carbon emissions relate to it.

The alarmists quit calling it global warming when the earth quite warming.Personally I prefer to describe it as “weather”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It may be helpful to think of the atmosphere as a balloon. When the air inside heats the balloon expands presenting more surface to radiate the heat off.

Let’s consider that analogy. 3/4 of the mass of the atmosphere is less than 7 miles up. Even if you assumed that it was 100 miles up, and even if the heating you mentioned were to expand by 20 percent (which would be a huge increase in temperature), that would make the radius of your “ballon” 6120 miles instead of 6100. The resulting increase in surface area with which heat could be radiated would be 0.65 %. Hardly enough to make the kind of difference you were alluding to, if that’s what you meant. So it does not appear to be helpful to think of the atmosphere as a ballon.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The alarmists quit calling it global warming when the earth quite warming.Personally I prefer to describe it as “weather”

“Climate change” better captures the growing instability and extremes.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m not sure whether this has been pointed out yet, but it’s misleading to just look at the temperature of the atmosphere. Much of the heat is actually absorbed by oceans, and they are noticeably warmer. A couple of degrees may not inconvenience us humans, but it could mean life or death for some fish, coral, and algae, which would correspond to higher prices at your local Long John Silver’s.

 

[Lapey]

I’m not sure whether this has been pointed out yet, but it’s misleading to just look at the temperature of the atmosphere. Much of the heat is actually absorbed by oceans, and they are noticeably warmer. A couple of degrees may not inconvenience us humans, but it could mean life or death for some fish, coral, and algae, which would correspond to higher prices at your local Long John Silver’s.

Not true, look back in the long thread and you will see data, provided by the MMCC proponents that show the earth’s oceans have cooled recently.

This is all about politics and money; not necessarily in that order.