A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

Take that, Mr. Gore.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[2dye4]

TGS4 and cvg

Any situation that you can imagine that would result in no net increase in heat absorption by the planet will do.
Just pick one that explains how 100% of the heat absorbed by an additional increment of GHG leaves the Earths system.
I am interested in light of ZDAS4 questioning whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Of course is you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to some warming then never mind.

Sorry i hurt your feelings TGS4, but it is time to get over it please...

 

[2dye4]

"" It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles'""

Hansen 1980, its on the net..

 

[2dye4]

actually here

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/hansen81sci.pdf

 

[zdas04]

What a messed up ball of twine this discussion is. Gasses in the atmosphere interact with incoming energy. Some is scattered, some is absorbed. The energy that is absorbed never reaches the earth

A greenhouse acts to allow light energy in, and then not allow long wave length heat energy out. That is a very different effect and like the glass in a greenhouse the trapping mechanism does a better job at passing short wave length energy than it does at passing long wave length energy.

You can't have it both ways. Either CO2 grabs the incoming energy or it reflects the outgoing energy back to earth (or it does neither), it can't do both. I can certainly accept the real, unadulterated data that I've seen on CO2 interacting with incoming energy. I think that that creates a negative feedback loop that helps to keep the planet livable. The GHG and AGW arguments require a positive feedback loop (e.g., the sun's energy gets to the earth and then can't escape into space due to the dome of GHG, which warms the planet, melting the permafrost, releasing untold tonnes more GHG from the rotting organic material, further restricting radiation until we all boil).

The requirement for a positive feedback loop is a powerful argument that AGW is nonsense and that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. We are seeing increasing atmospheric CO2 several years after the warming trend stopped. That looks like a strong indication that CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

The only thing that offends me is being obstinate in the face of data/information contrary to your opinion. And not answering questions. 2yde4 - do you or do you not have experience in thermodynamics/heat transfer and numerical methods? A simple yes or no to both questions will suffice.

 

[TGS4]

Any situation that you can imagine that would result in no net increase in heat absorption by the planet will do.
Just pick one that explains how 100% of the heat absorbed by an additional increment of GHG leaves the Earths system.

Easy - the additional heat creates increased cloudiness (small amount of increased evaporation, coupled with an initially higher temperature creates strong convective upward currents) one half hour to one hour earlier than it might otherwise occur. The increased albedo decreases the incoming energy rate (power), resulting in a net decrease in the total energy in the system.

This has been hypothesized that this is how the ENSO cycle works, but there is insufficient data to test it.

You do understand that this is not a static system, right? The earth, being a spherical oblate that spins on its axis, exposing itself, daily, to a varying insolance. There is no such thing as a steady-state, so even your question fails, because it assumes a static scenario.

Try again.

 

[beej67]

I know you guys like talking science and all, but I'm still waiting to hear how letting Goldman Sachs trade carbon emissions on a completely contrived derivatives market is going to stop all carbon emissions.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TenPenny]

"" It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles'""

Hansen 1980, its on the net..

It is to laugh, as they say. That article doesn't claim to be a model of the global climate, and makes the specific disclaimer that 'Second, the predicted global warming for a given CO2
increase is based on rudimentary abilities to model a complex climate system
with many nonlinear processes.'

But hey, if you want to stake your life on a model that is incomplete and inaccurate according to its creator, by all means, go ahead.

 

[2dye4]

"" Either CO2 grabs the incoming energy or it reflects the outgoing energy back to earth (or it does neither)""

It actually does BOTH ..

Incoming energy warms CO2 molecules. Warmed CO2 molecules emit increased IR both downward and spaceward. Heck I know this and I am miles away from being a climate amateur much less scientist.


TGS4

Well there certainly does seem to be some debate on cloud formation and whether this will cause a net increase or decrease in reflected energy in the atmosphere.

This is interesting.

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf

 

[zdas04]

I knew that CO2 was a really special molecule, but I didn't know that it was perpetual motion and a net energy generator--Second Law of Thermodynamics be damned. Are you actually saying that CO2 absorbs energy from the sun and then radiates more energy back towards the earth than it absorbed? You are joking right?

CO2 seems to work as a trailing indicator of climate change.

CO2 seems to work as a damper of climate change (i.e., it does absorb some amount of incoming energy, so the IR emissions are slightly less than the amount that came in, and radiates those emissions in all directions so something like 80% of the radiated IR goes into space--in other words when a unit of solar energy hits a CO2 molecule a small portion of that energy is used to change the state of the CO2 and 20% of the rest heads towards earth). CO2 net contribution is to LOWER the energy from that particular energy packet by about 80%. Darn good thing that there isn't a lot more CO2 in the air or we'd all freeze to death. [For those of you who don't read sarcasm, that was some.]

The evidence is piling up that CO2 does not work as a cause of climate change.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - how could you read the presentation in the link that you provided and yet still have "faith" in GCMs?

 

[ewh]

Interesting article tangentally related to the topic at hand.

http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever

The author seems to be pro AGW, but the knife can cut both ways.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[cranky108]

And the sun is going through a period of lower numbers of sun spots. Could that be the cooling you are looking for? Or would that make you admit the sun is more important to the earths tempetures than many of you clame?

Does this matter much when we are just one crop failure from a world war? Have you looked at the political tempeture?

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/new-study-says-threat-global-warming-greatly-exaggerated/

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

I went back and looked in detail at 2dye4's link. I found a lot of really interesting things. The correlations in the Southern Hemisphere are an order of magnitude worse than that Northern Hemisphere. Grid blocks for some calculations are 250 km X 250 km X 1 km, but by others the grid blocks are 10° X 10° on the surface. How do you ever reconcile that data.

The most telling item was the summary slide on feedback:

Uncertainties in Feedbacks
[ul]
[li]general theories do not exist for quantifying most individual climate feedbacks[/li]
[li]observations lack sufficient detail and comprehensiveness[/li]
[li]competing climate processes cannot be distinguished using observations[/li]
[li]global climate models have insufficient spatial resolution to simulate climate processes[/li]
[/ul]

In other words they are making most of this crap up.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cvg]

"In other words they are making most of this crap up."

there's a quote I can get behind!

 

[2dye4]

I don't recall saying that climate models that attempt fine resolution are reliable.

My point is that they are not truly necessary to understand that CO2 will warm the Earth.

Now the paper I linked on clouds does raise a possibility that TGS4s idea that warming will create clouds that
will mitigate the warming through reflected energy. I dunno, not a climate scientist.
Won't we all become severely depressed with the cloudy days and start joining the republican party ...

I also look at it from a strictly phenomenological point.

CO2 was hypothesized to warm the planet over 100 years ago.
The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming.
One 100 year period out of 20 possible 100 year periods.

And guess what, that 100 year period corresponds to same period as industrialization.
If mans influence was negligible for warming then this current warming period could have occurred in 19 other 100 year slices.
Yet it 'chose' the one with large CO2 emissions. Kinda funny eh ??

 

[ornerynorsk]

"The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming."

What about the Medievel warm period? I believe there is evidence of a significant warming trend from ~900 to 1300, or thereabout?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[debodine]

"...2000 year temp reconstructions..."

I would like to see the specifications on one of those 2000 year old temperature recording devices....

 

[CajunCenturion]

CO2 was hypothesized to warm the planet over 100 years ago.
The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming. One 100 year period out of 20 possible 100 year periods.
And guess what, that 100 year period corresponds to same period as industrialization.
If mans influence was negligible for warming then this current warming period could have occurred in 19 other 100 year slices. Yet it 'chose' the one with large CO2 emissions. Kinda funny eh ??

I call that cherry picking the sample size.

Let's look at a much broader range, say, 500,000 years:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...M7UvSzHMTOqAHkz4CYDQ&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAA&dur=2585

When you look at that graph, it's clear that there four time periods where the temperatures were as warm, if not warmer than they were today. There is no debate that man had no influence on those prior warming periods. That graph also clearly shows that CO₂ concentration growth trails temperature increases. The graph shows that very recent temperatures are stable despite considerable growth in CO₂ concentration. The chart also shows that the earth's climate systems have the means to dissipate the heat and gasses as necessary, because it has done so in the past. Additionally, one cannot help but notice the striking regularity of the cycle.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein