Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 Next
Comments 10151 to 10200:
-
John Hartz at 06:54 AM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's response to the attacks made on her employment record by the Republican/Tea Party echo chamber including jjworld #12...
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:24 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Since the peak temperatures of the Holocene 7,000 years ago, global temperatures naturally cooled 0.8 C.
Over the past 100 years, the warming from human activities has warmed the globe 0.8 C, utterly erasing that natural 7,000-year cooling.
With plenty more warming to come.
Bigger image here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:21 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Current peak global temperatures have already exceeded those of the Eemian OR the Holocene, looking at the land station data (red):
-
ilfark2 at 06:18 AM on 2 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Global Warming is inherently political if you take the view we have to implement a WWII scale mobilization.
BTB, "socialism" originally meant "for society", while "capitalism" meant "for capital".
The Paris Commune, Free Catalonia of the 1930s, Mondragon to the extent worker owned/operated enteriprises can do so in a sea of Capitalism, Rojova (last I checked, maybe gone by now), the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico) among many others through space and time democratized resources. I.e., means of production, food, shelter, education, healthcare.
And yes, under these systems you own your home (everyone gets one you can't get evicted from), and everyone gets a say in all the things that affect you per the amount they affect you. E.g., you have ane equal say in the operation of your work place. Means of production are democratically owned and operated.
Stalinism, Maoism along with any other system that destroyed democracy at any levels of life shold not be considered socialism by a reasonable person.
A nice intro to some of the history of various sorts of systems "for society", can be had in "It's not over..." by Dolak.
There's also a website called ZComm (google "Z Communications").
Among others doubtless.
-
TVC15 at 06:10 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
@ 756 Daniel Bailey
Thank you!
Is our current Holoceen cooler than previous interglacial periods...thus there is nothing to worry about? A denialist posted this.
From my understanding we should be in a cooling era but as we all know we are in a warming era.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:52 AM on 2 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Jjworld,
You have a severe reading comprehension problem. I did not call you, Morano, or anyone ignorant or worthless. I called Morano's comment ignorant and worthless, and I stand by that statement. There is plenty of scientific literature to justify calling it that, literature that you have declined to discover, despite being repeatedly pointed toward it. Now if you want to have your little feelings all hurt and be a snowflake by proxy of an inanimate thing like a comment, be my guest.
You say "I think the site is arguing that Morano is not including heat retained by convection." You think wrong. The site does not mention convection a single time. I read it again, the word convection does not appear in the OP. You pulled it out of thin air, showed that you do not understand what it means, then argued about it. That pathetic attempt at spreading the confusion raging i your mind is evident here too: "the convection story does NOT invalidate the saturation argument." There is no convection story othe than what you made up.
jjworld " I do have concerns with the calculations that attempt to explain the amount of heat trapped by convection." I am not aware of any atmospheric dynamics that can accomplish that, you must cite scientific works including such calculations and expose where you believe the weaknesses are.
Further "convection delivery molecule". What in the world is that? How do molecules deliver convection?
"The thread quotes Hulburt." No, it does not. Where is the quote? Who the heck is Hulburt, why is it relevant? The name, or a quote from the person does not figure anywhere in the OP.
"The error rate is so large" talking about the diagrams at the top of this page. What is the error rate? Where is the error rate in the diagrams? These diagrams have no other purpose than to explain concepts in a graphic way to a lay audience; as such they do not contain any numbers. They are not graphs of exact data, they are not calculations, they are not from scientific publications, so your attack of "who would want to publish that" is once again BS, completely removed from any reality. Nothing but hot air.
"When the climate moves the molecules around we have tremendous negative feedback." SO the climate moves molecules around? I would have thought that weather does that. In any case, there is an immense scientific literature on feedbacks, positive and negative. Your arguments seems to be that negative feedbacks prevail; it is again, nothing but hot air if not supported by scientific work, where are the citations?
"we don't even know if CO2 molecules are the primary convection vehicle or just a secondary heat transport." What in the world could this possibly mean other than that you do not have any grasp of the subject?
This funny one " I think we are both agreeing that Morano is correct if we are only talking about radiative heat." So grotesque, it truly falls within the not even wrong category. We do not agree at all, and Morano is so far from being correct that he would need a super fast "vehicle" (of convection or other) to make it back to relelvance within his lifetime.
This "If CO2 can possibly hold more heat through convection, it can possibly not hold enough heat to explain the temperature anomalies." comes in response to being pointed to the fact that having the central part of the radiation spectrum of CO2 saturated does not preclude the possibility of absorbing more heat, namely in the wings of the spectrum. In a sort of lawyer fashion, you latch on the word possibility and attempt to sow confusion, as if it meant probability, when in this case, it means capability. The gas does absorb more, that can be demonstrated by both experiment and calculation.
This gem is priceless "I just wish we could be intellectually honest about what we don't know" and then a suggestion that Morano is a scientist, and "incomplete." I'll let readers appreciate the supreme irony.
You have been pointed in the right direction and have refused to engage with that. You have attributed fantasy-like concepts to the OP, and a careful read shows that it is all pure invention on your part. You have been asked repeatedly to support you extremely wide-ranging and bold assertions with references, and the only one you mustered does not accomplish anything close to that.
You have contributed thousands of words to this thread, and so far they amount to little more than technical sounding word salad.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:01 AM on 2 July 2019Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
Wiffrantz, it appears you did not read this post that you commented on. Please do.
If you really were a statistician, you would be acutely aware that finding a correlation between just one of several causes of an effect requires isolating that one cause, for example by multiple correlation analysis. See the post "CO2 is main driver of climate," and note that it is not the only driver.
If you really were a statistician, you would be aware of the time dependence of bidirectional causality. Over very long periods, warming oceans have released CO2 and so increased atmospheric levels after the warming. In other cases, CO2 has been released by other sources, thereby causing warming after the CO2 releases. In the past 150 years, humans have caused increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which has then caused warming.
-
Wffrantz at 03:42 AM on 2 July 2019Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
If CO2 was a primary factor in global heat forcing, then we'd expect to see easy-to-find correlations between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
For example, we know that from the laws of heat transfer that the thermal output from a blow torch has an impact on the temperature of the object at which the blow torch is heating. The greater the temperature of the flame relative to the temperature of the object, the faster that the temperature of the object increases.
We also know that correlations can be found in unlikely pairs. For example, World-Wide Noncommercial Space Launches is highly correlated with the number of US Sociology Doctorates awarded in the US. If statistics are done well, conclusions like that can be avoided.
So let's assume that greenhouse gases are real (they are) and that they have a direct impact on global earth temperatures (clearly yes, but is the relationship strong or the strongest as in the case of the blow torch?). Read "As I turn up the blow torch output in heat, the temperature of the object will rise. If I correlate the temperature delta between the torch flame and object to the temperature change of the object, I'll find a 99%+ correlation."
Clearly we don't expect to find that size of correlation when considering a system as complex as global earth temperatures.
But be honest. Before you read farther, what would you expect the correlation to be? 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%?
My question is this. When I correlated 400K years of Vostok CO2 and temperature changes sliced into 100 year blocks, the correlation was only 7%. And when trying to predict the next 100 years of temperature change from change in CO2, the correlation dropped in half. Yet when doing the same to the Milankovich data, the predictive correlation was higher than the time-aligned correlation. If CO2 is a primary factor, then
1) Why is the correlation so low?
2) With CO2 levels at record highs (thermal forcing should be at its max), why was 2018 cooler than the prior four years?
As a statitician, I've learned that it is:
- easy to model the past (e.g., the stock market).
- one cannot use a modeling fit of the past to make assumptions about model accuracy in the future. That is a dangerous assumption.
- the only way to do the later is to:
... evaluate the model in the future using a Kalman filter that has an overall control loop to dampen the prediction if predictions are not accurate.
... changes to a model in time starts from scratch when trying to predict the future (a model must earn its accuracy in real time).
... evaluate delta changes, not absolute values (screens out false positives). We are talking physics. If their is a predictive correlation in absolute value then there will be the same correlation in deltas.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:43 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
Here's those details and links on vineyards then vs now:
While England had 42 vineyards at the time of the Domesday Book, as is well known, there are now over 300 commercial English vineyards today. So the climate today in England is much more conducive to wine-making than during the Roman occupation of England.http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
"It is generally agreed that the Romans introduced the vine to Britain. It has also been inferred that the climate in Britain at that time was warmer. At the end of the first century AD, however, the writer Tacitus declared that our climate was “objectionable”, and not at all suitable for growing vines.
Today, there are vineyards in nearly every county of England and Wales, and there are vines now planted in Scotland. Much of the acreage and vineyards lie in the southern part of England, and more specifically Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. Those few hundred acres first planted has now grown to over 5,000. In the last ten years alone, the acreage planted has more than doubled, and nearly tripled since 2000. Last year, around 1 million vines were planted – the highest planting in a single year, and perhaps a higher volume is set to be planted in 2018. All of this will lead to some substantial increases in production."
Emphasis and underlining added.
https://www.winegb.co.uk/visitors/background-info/history-of-the-industry/
By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. The website of the English wine producers suggests that at present extent of vineyards in Britain probably surpasses that of the Medieval Warm Period between circa 900 AD to 1300 AD.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/
https://www.eh-resources.org/historical-climatology/
In case anyone was wondering about Vikings and vineyards:“Let me…assure you that the last wine plants to grow in Greenland were those that grew…60 million years ago.”
-
TVC15 at 00:48 AM on 2 July 2019Climate's changed before
@ [PS] LOL that's a new one on me. I had never heard of it so it must be a desperate attempt by this denier!
@753 Philippe Chantreau
I thought the same thing...what the heck does wine making in England have to do with anything. Glad to be able to expose this denier as he's been commanding the stage for quite some time as if he's some sort of expert! *rolled eyes*
@ 754 Daniel Bailey
Agree his house of cards has been slowly tumbling down since I arrived to "educate" him.
Thanks everyone I've been learning a lot from you all!
-
Kevin C at 20:55 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Part of the purpose of Skeptical Science is to equip science communciators to better communicate science into science-hostile environments. From my perspective, anything that Greta Thunberg says or does is something I want to read about, because she is someone from whom I as a climate scientist have a lot to learn. And while politicians are an incomprehensible alien species, I am interested in how they interact with scientists and advocates for science.
The Thunberg article and the PPI article would be my top two picks. -
nigelj at 19:27 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
jjworld @12, I understand where you are coming from, but editors choice just means its an interesting article. This doesn't mean the website endorses OCS's views and this should be obvious. I would publish the article, but I only half agree with her views on the GND.
Working as a bar tender after graduating doesn't change the quality of her degree or her judgement. Maybe she wanted some time out. Have you thought of that? Plenty of good people do that.
Your claim that she tanked the Amazon deal is just your opinion. About 30% of people blamed her for tanking the Amazon deal in some poll which isn't exactly an in depth analysis of what tanked the deal. Maybe her concerns about the tax breaks were well principled concerns. Donald Trump tanked plenty of deals, and many of his companies went bankrupt. The point I'm making is many people make mistakes, if she made a mitake, and its absurd to judge them on one deal.
What I find very annoying is you are personally denigrating OCR's judgement, rather than by talking about the points she raises on the issues and how we best mitigate climate change.I agree we dont want to have to be discussing politicial issues, it frustrates me as well, but its impossible to avoid political discussion because the science and mitigation has become politicised. Its possible to discuss politics rationally and if anyone can do this scientists can because of their training.
"The article was clearly meant to invoke an emotional reaction since she was meeting with a young climate activist. For a science site, the bar should be higher."
I don't believe they are trying to invoke an emotional reaction. The interview just happened to be with a young person, and young people have a right to be heard on the climate issue, and ironically Greta comes across as cool headed and with her emotions well under control.
-
Eclectic at 19:12 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
JjWorld :
As a reader of this thread, permit me to make the observation that your posts present you as highly confused about the physical realities of the Earth's atmosphere.
Perhaps part of your problem is that you are using neologisms (such as "CO2 convection" ~ a term which is, at face value, meaningless) and you are failing to use the precise terminology of science. And this failing gives the strong (but perhaps unjustified?) impression that you have not grasped the essential basics of the situation. Once you attain an understanding of the physics, then you will be able to apply your mathematical skills.
But to talk of mathematical ideas of error margins etc before you understand the the underlying science of what is happening with the radiation, the molecules, the heat/energy transfers . . . is to put the cart before the horse, and risks you embarrassing yourself even further.
It might help, if you gave indications of the source of your misinformation ~ for it is clear that you have not used physics textbooks or genuinely scientific formal websites such as the N.A.S., the U.K. Royal Society, the A.A.A.S., or the more informal ones like RealClimate, S.O.D., SkepticalScience, etcetera.
# FYI, Mr Morano is not a scientist but a propagandist (with a long track record of giving misinformation and disinformation to the general public). Nor has he redeemed himself, in the matter of CO2 "saturation".
-
MA Rodger at 17:06 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
jjworld,
You do spout a lot of nonsense. If you are genuinely hoping to understand the science of the greenhouse effect, you will need to stop spouting and take on board that science being presented to you, but probably in small bits.
And note that @521 you write "I don't know why my questions have produced such ire." yet you don't actually present any questions; just bold unsupported assertions.
Your assertion that there is some sort of convective effect attached to the greenhouse effect is unsupported by anything anywhere in these threads. Convection is discussed as the mechanisms of heat transfer through the upper troposphere include convection, there being large convective circulations throughout the troposphere. The other mechanism is radiation and for that you need greenhouse gases. 99.95% of the upper troposphere is transparent to radiation. Only 0.05% is radiatively active. These gases are directly responsible for a quarter of the +35ºC greenhouse effect and indirectly responsible for the other three-quarters.
I hope this reply to your various comments begins to be helpful.
-
jjworld at 16:29 PM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Maybe I misunderstood. I see "Editor's Pick" at the top of the article. That sounds like an endorsement.
"She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics." So she has rather good credentials to grasp concepts."
Really? She worked as a bartender after graduating. That doesn't sound like she leveraged those credentials very well. And she clearly doesn't understand economics since she tanked the Amazon deal which cost her constituency dearly. She thinks being rich is evil on its face as evidenced by her numerous statements on the topic.
If the Editor's Choice title didn't come from Skeptical Science than I'll back off. But the article was clearly meant to invoke an emotional reaction since she was meeting with a young climate activist. For a science site, the bar should be higher.
-
jjworld at 16:15 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Well no, I think we are both agreeing that Morano is correct if we are only talking about radiative heat.
Perhaps I don't understand the thread, but I think the site is arguing that Morano is not including heat retained by convection. That doesn't make Morano ignorant or worthless. It makes him accurate but incomplete. There's a huge difference to those of us trying to understand the issues. You can't call him wrong when he is actually correct. The rebuttal in the post suggests there is more to the greenhouse effect than just radiative heat. I agree. So Morano's statement is incomplete but it puts a greater burden on other methods of heat retention such as trapped convection. This is a tremendously important concept since most climate change sites don't mention anything about how the heat is stored other than radiative heat captured by CO2 molecules. It's an oversimplification that is repeated on many climate energy budget graphics.
I don't have evidence refuting or supporting Morano. I do have concerns with the calculations that attempt to explain the amount of heat trapped by convection. As I explained in a prior post, the IPCC math is complicated but not impossible to follow. I just wish sites like this one would give a little on how much we DON'T know. Billions in research and we have little more than guesswork on precisely how much heat is being convected through CO2.
So, I put it back to you. I agree that Morano is incomplete. But the only hard evidence that he is incomplete, is a suspicion that heat is being convected which cools the surface but heats the atmosphere. OK, we know some of that is happening because it has to. But we don't actually know that CO2 is the primary convection delivery molecule. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. CO2 certainly is NOT the most efficient of the GHGs at convecting heat. And water vapor is far more abundant but pretty easy to measure.
The premise of this thread is that Morano is wrong because he's leaving out convection. The bulk of the responses focus on CO2 alone. We're being beat over the head that CO2 is the key.
We all agree that CO2 radiated heat is saturated and not responsible for the temperature increases. The top of the thread states that "... the saturation of the absorption at the central frequency does not preclude the POSSIBILITY to absorb more energy." OK, so is Morano wrong or is he possibly wrong? I don't see the myth here. Morano is correct about part of the story. If CO2 can possibly hold more heat through convection, it can possibly not hold enough heat to explain the temperature anomalies.
The thread quotes Hulburt and he hedges his conclusion: "Apparently the uncertainties and omissions have conspired to counteract each other to some extent." I agree entirely.
So how does the fact that heat is stored in CO2 across a wider band than previously considered 100 years ago change the fact that CO2 can only hold a certain amount of energy for a limited amount of time? In order for the recent temperature records to be modeled, a tremendous variability has to be answered. I just don't think the math works without assuming too much. Again, I'm not talking about the lab coefficients of CO2. I'm talking about the global scenario Morano explores. When the climate moves the molecules around we have tremendous negative feedback. Heat is absorbed all over the planet and it escapes all over the upper atmosphere. None of this changes the fact that Morano is at least paritally correct and we have no idea where the heat goes. We know where large portions go but when the portions are added together we end up with too much heat or not enough depending on the IPCC model that is chosen.
I don't know why my questions have produced such ire. We know what I'm saying is correct by nature of the number of climate models that are currently in the works. I'm in California and there are 18 models just in Northern California that attempt to predict precipitation: http://climate.calcommons.org/article/why-so-many-climate-models
These models are off topic but look at the graphic at the top of the article. Would any mathematician actually agree to consider any of this worth publishing? The error rate is so large that we might as well just stop spending money on models and admit we don't know.
That's my only premise: Morano is correct but probably incomplete. We don't know where the heat goes and we don't even know if CO2 molecules are the primary convection vehicle or just a secondary heat transport. They might be, but nobody has proven it yet. And since CO2 concentrations fluctuate so much across the planet and year, we aren't likely to prove or disprove anything soon.
I just wish we could be intellectually honest about what we don't know and how much variability that lack of knowledge causes before we slam scientists for being incomplete.
Moderator Response:[PS] Your statements here are causing concern because you are making assertions based on you dont know and assuming that science dont know either. You do not appear to be reading material commentators have pointed you to and continue to postulate an incorrect version of how atmospheric physics work.
It would not be intellectually honest to say we dont know about that things that are perfectly well understood in theory and confirmed by numerous observations and experiments.
If you want to continue this argument, asserting science is wrong or incomplete, then first you cite the science statements that you beleive is incorrect (eg from the IPCC report). Then you cite the evidence that you believe contradicts the science. You cannot get anywhere postulating the science is based on your bizarre ideas about the role of CO2 molecules in "convective" heat transport. This is nonsense and if that is what the science did postulate, then you would have a point. Take Phillipe's advice and learn what the actual physics is. I recommend Science of Doom's excellent series for the basics. And throw away your own preconceptions for starters.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
"Convection via CO2" is nonsense. CO2 does not cause by its presence changes to convection. Convection can not act as a forcing. Additional energy in the system can alter convection patterns, different thing altogether. You clearly lack an understanding that would allow you to formulate an cogent, well informed opinion. The article you linked does not support your position at all, read it more carefully. You also need to read the RC posts on the saturated argument.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:50 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Marc Morano's comment indicates his lack of understanding of the science, showing ignorance. It leads to a conclusions that's entirely wrong, so it is also worthless. These are objective facts. Calling it anything else wouldn't do it justice.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:48 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
And, by the way, the answer is not yes, it is saturated; it is not. As I said earlier, the extra absorbtion happens in the wings of the spectrum. You do not provide any refutation of that. Convection can not add heat to the system, that's nonsense. The only ways to add heat to the system is by impairing the cooling of the surface or adding solar insolation.
-
jjworld at 15:24 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Philippe, I don't understand what you gain by calling anyone ignorant or worthless (me, Morano, or anyone). It is why I made my comment about proponents being less reasonable. If you count the name calling on this site you'll find the majority coming from folks like you that try to bully those of us that want to understand the issue fully before giving a blank check to governmental organizations that don't have a history of good stewardship.
I believe the CO2 saturation statement is relevant since the heat stored in the atmosphere cannot be explained by anthropogenic CO2 alone. Temperature observations do not support convection via CO2. The IPCC conclusions agree with my statement and introduce other GHGs to fill in the blanks. That's where I believe the math doesn't work without huge assumptions. I don't trust assumptions without tight mathematical tolerances. A previous poster seems we should take all the IPCC assumptions as gospel. That set me off, and here we are.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:21 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
It appears that you confuse radiation and convection. Since you seem enclined to stay on topic, let's go back to the topic at hand, namely the saturation argument, as expressed in the Morano quote. That argument is wrong. Do you have any science to demonstrate otherwise?
-
jjworld at 15:16 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
I'm not sure when green boxes appear in this thread as I'm new to the site. So I'll respond to that one here.
Why is my comment regarding the math behind the CO2 saturation question off topic but this comment is considered reasonable?
There is an easy way to find out how increasing CO2 affects temperature: read the IPCC summary and figure they are correct!! It is a waste of time to attempt to calcualte or completely understand the atmosphere yourself, it is too complex.
If nobody questioned the IPCC reports we'd be stunting our progress.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:14 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
It's you who need to re-read my post. I very specifically mentioned Marc Morano's comment, quoted at the top of the page on this thread. That comment belongs to Morano, and it is demonstrably ignorant and worthless, as can be shown by any examination of the science behind the radiative properties of CO2.
-
jjworld at 15:09 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
I re-read my post to make sure I didn't misstate anything and you've proven one of my points regarding proponents being less reasonable. In your third sentence of a two post response you call my comments ignorant and worthless. So you didn't even bother to follow my statements to the conclusion. That makes you unreasonable.
My initial response was to the statement from michael sweet that readers should not "waste" time trying to "understand" the science. Seriously? What about that premise is not directly on topic with this or any thread? And what part of my critique about using the scientific method are you calling ignorant and worthless?
My second portion is precise and accurate if you were willing to process it before calling my efforts ignorant and worthless. The math can be accurate and weak. Those adjectives are not mutually exclusive. Taking time to explain the language to you is far more off topic than my original post. For example, if f(x) = ax + bx and both a and b are assumptions derived from estimates, the math is potentially correct but definitely weak. Before you attack someone who is trying to learn and instruct, perhaps you should be more REASONABLE and consider the position first. My advice is to research, be skeptical and prove each point. I was responding to another poster's advice to ignore the science and trust a group of people that are still learning and evolving their positions as much as any other research group. I don't need any examples to recommend that readers not follow bad advice.
This post relates to saturation. The argument in this post is that saturation is not the issue since heat is being transferred to CO2 by convection. I'm not making up the topic, the 11 pages of comments brought up the topic as it relates to saturation. I'm directly on the topic if you cared enough to process my comments.
Since there is no mention of convection in the IPCC summary, I had to try and explain some of the details from the supporting references, all of which are already mentioned in this and other posts. So, I don't need to re-reference material here. I tried to be pithy since the post was getting long and you picked apart the abbreviated supporting points while leaving the premise untouched.
Thus far, this response is completely off topic since I'm having to defend my language which you chose to attack rather than consider. In an effort to get back on topic and honor the spirit of this site, I'll summarize as follows:
This topic suggests that the ONLY reason that the saturation argument doesn't hold is because of CO2 heat transfer via convection. For reference, read the post and the comments. I'm not arguing the math or the physics related to CO2 convection. I'm familiar with the calculations in a controlled environment. And despite your incorrect statement, the last several decades DO NOT correlate temperature and CO2. CO2 has steadily increased while the temperature spiked, leveled, and spiked again. Convection does not exhibit this pattern and cannot explain the temperature changes. In order for the convection argument to trump the saturation argument, the convection would need to involve something OTHER THAN CO2. Since the anthropogenic portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 20ppm, there is no way CO2 can explain the temperature. I'm not arguing about the totality of climate change. I'm simply stating the physical limitations with the argument that CO2 convection can adequately explain the storage of IR heat in the atmosphere. The theory (and it is still a theory since the scientific method has not proven it), is that other GHGs are also contributing to convective heating. That discussion is off-topic for this post. But the IPCC math makes huge assumptions regarding the contribution of CO2 in the convective process. Are you suggesting that isn't true? And since the anthropogenic portion of CO2 is extremely small it cannot explain the totality of the temperature anomaly. The IPCC reports do cover this topic, but it goes beyond this thread's subject.
In summary, the convection story does NOT invalidate the saturation argument. This is the statement I was trying to make and encourage readers to research the topic and NOT trust the IPCC report just because one poster recommended it. Convection only explains the heat differential with one or more of the following:
1) Non CO2 GHGs are contributing more heat via convection than CO2. If this is true, than what are the ratios of those GHGs? The question remains unanswered without using a model to guesstimate the ratios. I'm a mathemetician and don't support guesstimates as scientific. (the non CO2 GHG question is beyond the scope of this thread)
2) More CO2 is coming from natural sources or indirectly caused by temperature change (thawing tundra, etc). If this is true, the CO2 is coming from temperature changes and not causing temperature changes. (the CO2 is leading or following temperature change is beyond the scope of this thread)
Regardless, the IPCC reports support my statements. My conclusion is simple. Since the source of the heat cannot be explained without assumptions on CO2 sources that cannot yet be proven, the math is unable to accurately predict future temperatures with any reasonable accuracy. From a mathematical scenario, a range of 1.5C to 4.5C is not reasonable accuracy. In the lower range, we have little change to worry about. If the upper range, we have dramatic regional climate changes. The math has a 50% error range and cannot be relied upon to divert trillions of dollars.
Other than my last sentence, I don't think many would disagree with any of my assertions. This thread is titled "Is the CO2 effect saturated?". The response to the question is YES, CO2 is saturated as it relates to radiant heat, but convection provides the difference.
To the readers, research the IPCC reports in detail since the IPCC summary does NOT mention convection. Convective heat transfer is a linear temperature model unless pressure or concentrations change. The temperature changes do not follow the path of a convection heat transfer based on the current CO2 concentrations without additional interference. There is plenty of support for this statement on this site.
Consider this article:
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/30/10943
In order to explain the current temperature trajectory, assumptions have to be made for time of year, location, and concentration. Those variables create the huge range of error in the climate models that predict 1.5C to 4.5C over a doubling of CO2. In other words, the models that predict these temperature changes still need dramatic improvements since we simply do not know how to treat all these variables under so many different conditions.
I say again, the math is not necessarily flawed, but it is weak. It relies on huge assumptions that no applied mathematician would support since each assumption adds more room for error. In other words, we don't know! CO2 does appear to be saturated for radiated IR and trapped convection doesn't explain the temperature anomaly.
But I'm "ignorant" and my comments are "worthless" according to the "reasonable" Philippe Chantreau. If only we had a scientific method to help us formulate, test, and MODIFY our hypotheses.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:38 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Your post is full of very confusing pieces. The following need clarification
"convective heating model with CO2." What exactly is that?
'the anthropogenic concentration would have to be increasing dramatically to support the 400ppm if the natural portion were to be static." What does that mean? Anthropogenic contribution is approximately 100 times that of volcanic activity, it has increased immensely in the recent past, a blink of an eye in geological scales. What does natural mean? Geological, biological, both? Most living creatures are carbon neutral since they get their carbon, directly or indirectly, from the atmosphere. Plants that fix carbon are in fact carbon negative if they are not burned. You need to be more specific.
'we know that the natural portion of the CO2 concentration has increased in recent decades as the planet has been greening." This does not follow. The greening suggest plant biomass increases in some regions, not increased contribution to atmospheric CO2 from natural sources.
"Recent temperatures have not followed recent CO2 measurement." Actually, they have, with the normal wiggles of variability, the trend continues, in all datasets.
"CO2 concentrations might be less convective than the IPCC asserts" Say what? This requires a detailed explanation, starting with the Trenberth schematic so you can explain where exactly the concentration of a radiatively active gas has convective properties. Perhaps you should tell everyone what you think is "convective."
"heat transfer related to atmospheric CO2 convection." Once again, you need to clarify what that means.
You start your post by saying "the math is not necessarily flawed" and then concludes with "the math is weak." Which is it? What math are you refering to? Demonstrate how it is weak or provide references to peer-reviewed publications that do so. As it stands, you post is a gish gallop of confusing language without a single reference, full of advice that you do not seem to follow yourself.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you. The poster does not appear the understand the science he/she is criticizing but hopefully will do some more research. Please respond to any further comments in an appropriate thread.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:20 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
Jjworld, most of your post is off-topic. This thread is about the argument that additional CO2 is not going to have an effect, as quoted from Marc Morano at the top of the page. That argument is ignorant and worthless. For more detail, see the Real Climate threads named "A saturated gassy argument." I'm sure they are referenced here somewhere and they are easy to find with RC' search function. The additional effect is in the wings of the spectrum. The rest of your objections belong in other threads. I have seen skeptics arguing that CO2 could fall as carbonic snow in Antarctica, that waste heat was the real cause of warming or that MODTRAN was just a computer model without basis in reality so, to me, the idea that skeptics are more reasonable is laughable beyond description.
-
jjworld at 12:04 PM on 1 July 2019CO2 effect is saturated
michael sweet @506, instructing readers to blindly accept the IPCC summary and not "waste" time trying to understand the atmosphere is not wise if you are trying to gain consensus. There is no scientific method that ends in "trust me".
I'm focused on mathematics and, to a lesser extent, the physics of the arguments and most of the posts on this science seem reasonable and well-intentioned. I've been studying the IPCC reports and find it difficult to opine without more research. This site is typically useful although I find the proponents of ACG less reasonable than the skeptics.
On the topic of CO2 saturation, the math is not necessarily flawed, but the assumptions are immense and I'm not at all comfortable with the magnitude of error analysis required to reach some of the conclusions. For example, identifying the factors that support a convective heating model with CO2 are statistically impossible. Anthropogenic CO2 is approximately 0.0012% of the atmosphere. But the anthropogenic concentration would have to be increasing dramatically to support the 400ppm if the natural portion were to be static. Of course, we know that the natural portion of the CO2 concentration has increased in recent decades as the planet has been greening. This is the first of many assumptions that do not have much scientific basis. We know the current concentration and its fluctuations through a 12-month cycle. We know natural CO2 has increased although we don't know entirely from where. We know anthropogenic concentrations have increased although we don't know how much is being contributed from each continent. We know that reflective heating has almost peaked. So the assumption is convection but we don't know how much of the convective heating is due to other molecules. So scientists guess at what might be happening and how much heat might be involved in different transfer models without knowing exactly which molecule is involved and to what degree each molecule is contributing to convection. Mathematically speaking we've already reached a level of uncertainty with only the points I've mentioned to make the entire convection from CO2 theory basically worthless. The error rates are exceeding 50% in some models. In any other field of study, such a large error rate would be considered a SWAG and not worthy of publishing. Since the climate argument has gone tribal, the science is not being mathematically supported as long as the conclusion is that the result supports the bias of the publisher.
That you would recommend we "trust" the IPCC summaries when the details have so many mathematical SWAGs is intellectually disingenuous. I will fully admit to not understanding the chemistry enough to know how much error is introduced with each atmospheric assumption (not to mention the ocean carbon sink assumptions), but I can say with some authority that the mathematics is not tight enough to support any engineering application. And since we're talking about taking trillions of dollars away from more present and tangible efforts such as disease, I think it is fair to question the outcome of these models that carry such broad ranges of uncertainty.
Recent temperatures have not followed recent CO2 measurements. It appears that CO2 concentrations might be less convective than the IPCC asserts. And if that is the case, we're pretty much back to guessing on why there appears to be a temperature correlation with CO2 emissions in the first place. I don't think the public or the lawmakers realize how important this CO2 convection issue is to the broader argument of CO2 related climate change.
So, my response is, NO! Do not trust the IPCC summary on the topic of heat transfer related to atmospheric CO2 convection since the math is weak. Use the scientific method, question every assertion, and come up with a better explanation for the heat fluctuations in the atmosphere. If somebody doesn't understand the science, learn the science, don't ignore it.
I would encourage the readers of this site to ignore any advice that suggests a conclusion should be assumed valid if even a single assumption is left untested.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is offtopic. This thread is about myth that adding more CO2 would not increase temperature. If you can do the maths, then Michael Sweet comment does not apply, but you would be better off delving into atmospheric physics text book for starter (eg this one). For a paper start with Ramanathan & Coakley 1978. The Radiative Transfer Equations are key to numerous technologies other than climate science (USAF is source of main database) and the maths has been checked against observation at top of atmosphere or from ground in numerous papers. A very direct observation can be found here. The full IPCC report is massively cross-referenced with the papers. If you dont like their summary of the research, read the papers. You certainly cannot discuss it sensibly with a comic-book view of what the science actually says. Do not discuss offtopic here - they will be deleted. Try Search or Arguments | by taxomony to find for relevant threads. CO2 is just a trace gas, human CO2 is tiny. I cannot understand your "convective" assertion at all.
-
scaddenp at 11:36 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
it is pretty hard to be immersed in climate science without being very aware that urgent action is required, even if only on the precautionary principle. When we have political parties in major democracies embracing anti-science disinformation, then it becomes obvious that political traction is needed or science will be only able to say "I told you so". While Skpsci has not embraced any particular political position on how to deal with climate change, let alone activism (beyond debunking), it has done articles looking at the validity of proposed solutions. While this article is just a reprint from another source, it is likely to be of interest to many concerned about the way climate will affect our future. The roadblocks to dealing with climate change are more political than technical.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:51 AM on 1 July 2019Climate's changed before
England's climate today is far more conducive to growing grapes for the wine industry than at any point in recorded history.
I'll post the links tomorrow.
Your denier is clearly desperate and unencumbered by an education in the science in question.
-
nigelj at 10:01 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
jjworld @9
"I would recommend that a site focused on science not endorse political activism which this particular article clearly demonstrates."
Imho this website didn't endorse politicial arcivism. It's just presenting an article in the Guardian, and John Hartz expressed no opinion on the matter. The article in the guardian reports facts on what has happened in the lives of these people, and a record of the interview so is not really an opinion piece. It didn't endorse anything either. We need to know whats happening.
"AOC does not have a good record of embracing intellectual concepts much less scientific concepts."
Opinionated, and not backed up with any examples. According to her wikipedia entry "She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics." So she has rather good credentials to grasp concepts.
"This particular post suggests a clear bias..."
I dont see a bias: the website discusses different sides of issues. Imho this website treads carefully on political issues and just reports on what is happening. We are free to make up our own minds on the issues.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:53 AM on 1 July 2019Climate's changed before
What does wine making in England have to do with anything? The Romans brought it to England, so what? They liked it, and it was unknown there until then. The climate made it possible, although never ideal. It was cultivated in England almost without interruption until the tax laws of the 19th century discouraged production, and later WW1 activity demanded the land. It was cultivated throughout the so-called little ice age as well. What does that show? That England's climate was stable for about 2000 years. Big deal, like we didn't know that.
-
jjworld at 09:08 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
I would recommend that a site focused on science not endorse political activism which this particular article clearly demonstrates. AOC does not have a good record of embracing intellectual concepts much less scientific concepts.
This particular post suggests a clear bias which I thought the editors were trying to avoid. We must all remain skeptical of all the scientific efforts toward climate research in order to embrace new information and methods.
Embracing a political stunt on the front page of a science site by someone that clearly has no interest in science outside of its political benefit is a ding to the site's reputation.
-
TVC15 at 08:30 AM on 1 July 2019Climate's changed before
Here we go! My favorite denier is back to attacking me.
Why don't you tell us about the severe weather up through the 1700s? Oh, that's right, you can't, because nobody recorded it.
I'm guessing you're totally oblivious to the fact that the Romans grew grapes in Britain and made wine. The Emperor Hadrian was drinking and enjoying that wine.
I responded with a NOAA link that stated.
Clues about the past climate are buried in sediments at the bottom of the oceans, locked away in coral reefs, frozen in glaciers and ice caps, and preserved in the rings of trees. Each of these natural recorders provides scientists with information about temperature, precipitation, and more. Many of these have some type of layers, bands, or rings that represent a fixed amount of time, often a year or growing season. The layers vary in thickness, color, chemical composition, and more, which allows scientists to extrapolate information about the climate at the time each layer formed.
Moderator Response:[PS] Desparation to be retreading that old one. Try here.
-
RedBaron at 08:14 AM on 1 July 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
@13 3-d construct
It's fine but the reason is that seaweed digests/decomposes much easier.
I have explained multiple times here at skeptical science they (and many other climate scientists who are weak in biology) the issue with methane has nothing to do with the cow. It's the grass. Lignified carbon and celulose carbon are extremely difficult to break down and recycle. So whether it is a worm, or a caterpillar, or a termite, or a compost pile, or fire, or slow oxidation in standing dead material, or a cow, there will be some methane released. The cow and other wild ruminants with their highly evolved reticulorumen are actually some of the more efficient of the many ways to break down and recycle old biomass. Termites for example produce much more methane!
Nevertheless, a well managed grassland biome including att the various insects animals and worms are a net negative for methane and actually cool the planet. The only time a cow can be considered a net source is in the factory farming business model. So clearly this idea that livestock are causing AGW is highly misleading. And so what seaweed digests easier? All it means is something else will need you digest that grass besides a cow, something far less efficient and very likely to be a greater methane source that the cow would have been.
Meanwhile the real culprits to increasing methane are actually warming and melting permafrost and arctic ice along with natural gas leaks. And the largest agricultural emissions source for methane is paddy rice production, not livestock.
-
scaddenp at 07:08 AM on 1 July 2019Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Should add to Eclectic that nothing special about earth in respect. You can calculate the surface temperature of any rotating planet, around any sun, knowing solar insolation at top of atmosphere (simple calculation from solar output and distance from sun), atmospheric composition, and aerosols. (Of course assuming that laws of physics dont vary with space and time).
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Swampfox @1-7
"America displays the fascist variant...look at the voluminous Code of Federal Regulations telling everybody how they will behave in our "free" country.'
Mostly health and safety related regulations, environmental regulations, building codes, occupational licencing. Seems fine to me so I'm not sure why you would object to that? Not sure if I would categorise it as control of the economy.
Socialism doesnt work in dictatorships like the Soviet Union because leadership is not accountable for failures and so the system stagnates and environments get utterly trashed. State owned and controlled education and healthcare works quite well in democracies, because teachers and doctors are passionate about their jobs and governments can be voted out if performance of the education system falls. Industry works better in private ownership. I like systems that combine elements of capitalism and socialism, fwiw.
Agree with comment 7, all economies are going to have to change to become more environmentally sustainable.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:28 AM on 1 July 2019CO2 lags temperature
Per David Archer's Nature paper 'Carbon is forever':
"The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this. The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
"The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our "fossil fuel addiction", to use George W. Bush's phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years."
https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122
At the end of The Long Thaw, David Archer calculates that the amount of energy that is trapped by the CO2 produced by burning gasoline today is, over its atmospheric lifetime, 40 million times the amount of fuel energy released today.
"Longer than nuclear waste"...savor that thought.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:25 AM on 1 July 2019CO2 lags temperature
"How long do human GHG emissions namely CO2 remain in the atmosphere?"
Let's ask ourselves:
"What would happen if we magically cease all CO2 emissions and hold them at zero, forever?"
What will happen is that the oceans and lakes will start "breathing out" the CO2 we are chemically overstuffing them with.
1. Normally, warming water holds less CO2. However, the partial pressure differential of CO2 in our atmosphere at the water:atmosphere interface (the thin skin layer of the waters) is such that our waters are forcibly having CO2 sequestered in them. This is the mechanism of action that is acidifying our waters.
2. As fossil fuel usages are eliminated, atmospheric levels of CO2 will stabilize. As levels then start to decline, the partial pressure differential of CO2 at the water:atmosphere interface will reverse...and the oceans and lakes will begin to give up the many gigatons of CO2 we have forced them to hold onto for us.
3. As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels will stay very stable for many decades before slowly declining. 300 years after the cessation of the usage of fossil fuels, more than 10% of the man-made rise in atmospheric CO2 will still be there. From the AR5, WG1, Box 6.1:
"15 to 40% of CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years...10 to 25% of the original CO2 pulse [remains] after about 10,000 years"
-
swampfoxh at 04:42 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
But capitalism, fascism, socialism and autocracy will, all, have to be re-conceptualized if the human race is going to survive the coming climate future because nature is pitiously indifferent and won't save anybody or any thing in the coming future if organisms can't adapt to the conditions that will exist tomorrow.
-
TVC15 at 04:42 AM on 1 July 2019CO2 lags temperature
Sorry if this has already been answered before.
How long do human GHG emissions namely CO2 remain in the atmosphere?
-
swampfoxh at 04:36 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Democrats just don't want to understand why socialism is a generally bad idea because they refuse to look at the Russian experience or the Chinese system. Republicans soothe their nerves thinking private ownership is always the "best" idea, the most moral, the only way to spread equal opportunity amongst the masses whom they are sure want to climb the ladder of success through efforts on their own. They can demonstrate that "effort on their own" axiom by citing Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Facebook's CEO....accolades go on forever. Jonas Salk and MLK have done more for the welfare of Humanity than those Captains of Industry
-
3-d construct at 04:34 AM on 1 July 2019Why my fears about climate change made me cross the line that separates academia from activism
In regard to ruminant methane production, at University of California, Davis, studies are being done to address this problem. It had been reported that a type of red seaweed when added to supplemental feed greatly reduces it, in the high ninety percentile. I can't comment on the modality. I suppose that, if it supresses methanogenic microbes, it would interfere with nutrient uptake. If it fosters methanotrops on top of the normal digestion of celluose, it might be less so.
-
swampfoxh at 04:22 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Clearly, the US Government doesn't own the means of P and D unless you just want to argue about the Tennessee Valley Authority, a dam on the Colorado, nuclear power stuff or the USPS...and a few other things. But control? Yep...lots of control emanates from the USG. LOTS!
-
swampfoxh at 04:14 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
America displays the fascist variant...look at the voluminous Code of Federal Regulations telling everybody how they will behave in our "free" country.
-
swampfoxh at 04:10 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
Hitler's cabal loved control so they didn't have to own the means of P an D...the Soviets wanted to own it. that led to a real hatred between the advocates of the two variants...like it still does.
-
swampfoxh at 04:03 AM on 1 July 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
The Republicans hate socialism because they practice its variant...fascism. I'm referring to Ayn Rand's classical definition and her distinction that the two systems only vary in whether there is only government control of the means of production and distribution (fascism) versus government ownership (socialism).
-
MA Rodger at 17:53 PM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
TVC15 @93,
The denialist's assertion that "sea levels always rise 3 meters to 14 meters" needs a little more nailing down to mean anything. Sea levels didn't rise by such an amount yesterday, for instance. So presumably this is about interglacials and their sea levels relative to today, the previous four interglacials being MIS-5, 7, 9 & 11 with the present 'interglacial' MIS-1.
So did all these four interglacials see "sea levels ... rise 3 meters to 14 meters" above today's values? This does rather depend on how you measure sea level. The reference to Lopes et al (2014) [Abstract linked @93] suggests three of them did. And there was a fourth high-stand at the site investigated by Lopes et al, MIS-1, the present 'interglacial'. But the data of Lopes et al is not global sea level rise but a regional measure. The Holocene high-stand in the tropics is indeed 3m above today (as explained by this SkS post). So it sounds like 'job done!' The +3m high-stand was delivered during this interglacial and now, having cancelled the next ice-age with our GHG emissions, if we keep up the GHG emissions we can look forward to a truly global +3m SLR, although it might take a couple of centuries to deliver.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Good quality general discussion in the following link, with considerations on the current interglacial with and without anthro influences:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015RG000482
AS always, the weight of the evidence is what matters...
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:43 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
More on the comparison of MIS 11 to present here:
-
TVC15 at 08:36 AM on 30 June 2019Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
@ 94. Electric
I don't enjoy challenging this particular denier as he will come back hurling insults just as you can see in the condescending attitude displayed in my post. He also plays as if he's some sort of science genius. Sadly most Americans fall for such disingenuous displays due to many here not holding basic science literacy.
Instead of challenging him, I simply post evidence to refute his denier statements.
@ 95,96 Philippe Chantreau
Yes the "No severe weather" comment is baffeling indeed.
Thank you for the response and the link.
Prev 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 Next
