What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

None of the other albedo's really matter, Boston, if the mechanism of cloud formation works as I've outlined, since water vapor concentration is then self-regulating. Ice and ocean albedo is not the issue; the issue is whether water vapor concentration rises as a result of thermal perturbations to the system. If it works as outlined (and we have A LOT of confirming observed data), then it does not, and it's again game over for AGW via CO2.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Jim, read what Boston has to say/write, weather is more complex than your simplistic postulation and I for one lack the patience and perseverance of Boston, and the lessons worthy of other readers should not be interrupted out of childish arrogance....

[Jimbo1490]

Mas,

I have no idea on what you base your opinions WRT this subject, but be aware that there is a real scarcity of scientific papers which can quantify/support this idea of positive feedback/unstable equilibrium with water vapor. It is simply ASSUMED by the IPCC and other AGW alarmists! All the observed data contradict this idea. The predictions of future climates based on this understanding have a 25 year history of FAILURE toward the high side. Look at what Hansen (the chief proponent of the unstable equilibrium idea) was saying two decades ago. Did it come to pass? NO! How about his predictions of 10 years ago; have they come to fruition? NO WAY!

The very idea that water vapor is the augmenter of all thermal perturbations to the atmosphere is simply absurd. If it were so, then why don't the tropics look like desserts? Why is there no shortage of rainfall in the summer in the tropics?

Jimbo

[Boston]

None of the other albedo's really matter, Boston, if the mechanism of cloud formation works as I've outlined, since water vapor concentration is then self-regulating. Ice and ocean albedo is not the issue; the issue is whether water vapor concentration rises as a result of thermal perturbations to the system. If it works as outlined (and we have A LOT of confirming observed data), then it does not, and it's again game over for AGW via CO2.

thats why the basics need to be gone over
because a lack of understanding of the basic principals of how clouds and vapor interact is essential to understanding both the albedo and the feedback between water vapor and co2

your jumping ahead Jim
lets just take it slowly from the top and agree on the basics
then we can go into what the studies found and why

seems like a logical approach when folks have such a basic disagreement as this eh

[Jimbo1490]

Boston

You're just setting things up for another battle of the gurus. Richard Lindzen, perhaps the world's most expert scientist on the subject of cloud physics, says the feedback is negative. His colleagues over at UAH, Christy and Spemcer, have papers which support his ideas with good observational data.

All you can do is parade about another expert and try to convince us all that we should believe him instead of Lindzen, Christy and Spencer.

In the end, we can look to the failed predictions based on the AGW/IPCC understanding of cloud physics. As Lindzen and Spencer have both stated, it's very clear that a large negative feedback mechanism is being left out of their calculus, thus the consistent high-side failures.

Jimbo

[Boston]

once again thats why the basics need to be gone over
so that we can look at what has been written of this subject with a informed eye and from a place of agreement on the basics
that way we are more likely to find that middle ground that would help bring this conversation along in a more reasonable manor

continually attempting to jump ahead is not going to accomplish much

also it is important that we agree on what science is and the parameters as to how it is conducted
basically the ethics of science
what constitutes good science
what constitutes bad science
what constitutes well conducted science
and what constitutes biased science
all will need to be covered in order to have a scientific debate concerning these issues

your mention of Singer and Christy are perfect places to start, but its essential that the ethics of good science be understood before any consideration of there views can be interjected into the debate

[gonzo]

Some answers are so long and rambling that it would take several pages to discuss. It is very wrong the statement the science is by consensus. One solitary proof is all that is needed to bring a theory down. Consensus works in politics and social issues. When we talk about global warming from those point of view then science is not a consideration,

[Boston]

going to do a little cut and pasting to try and get through these next few elements of basic physics so we can move forward and have a productive conversation

basically radiation exists in the form of electromagnetic waves
the shape of the wave is can be thought of as a sign pattern
a snake like line
if this pattern is more than double the size of the object in its path
it can go around it
the larger the sign wave is from the object in its path
the more waves will pass freely past that object

the dynamics of the water vapor vs water droplets in reflecting certain types of radiation and not others is based on the amplitude and the frequency of the energy coming both from the sun and being reflected off the surface of the earth

basically amplitude is the height of the sign wave



with frequency being the number of wave peaks passing a given location in a specified amount of time

and wave length is the distance between peaks



what this is leading to is that certain wave forms pas through certain gasses more easily than others depending on the size of the wave form and the size of the gas

another thing to remember is that the gas is evenly distributed in available volume so its effect equals 100% its ability to reflect a given type of radiation over the entire volume

obviously the earth is not covered entirely by clouds at any given time and the pat answer for how much area is covered depends on who you ask
ild like to agree on 50% since its about the most common answer I found although for the sake of piece Im willing to consider other numbers

a definition of albedo might come in handy right about now

Albedo (Al-bee-dough): the fraction of the incident sunlight that is reflected. When an object reflects most of the light that hits it, it looks bright and it has a high albedo. When an object absorbs most of the light that hits it, it looks dark. Dark objects have low albedos.

now the properties of solar radiation should be easily agreed on
and the physics of how that solar radiation might pas through some gas or water droplets is what we need to work on

a gas is an atomic or molecular substance obeying the ideal gas laws

and not all gasses are created equal
take water vapor and say co2
one may allow solar radiation to pas more easily than another


so the question is
does the size of the atom or molecule of a gas alter the way a wave form will pass through that gas

any thoughts on that or do you folks think that varying atoms and molecules should reflect varying wave forms in the exact same manor and to the exact same degree

once we can establish an answer to that question we can move on
I refuse to just talk to myself over hear so if you guys want to engage in a peaceful and productive conversation agreeing on a few things is whats going to facilitate that best

this one simple questions seems like the perfect place to start cause a correct answer establishes a few basics
and is completely obvious

Ill repost this as I need to but agreeing on a few of these fundamentals is crucial to understanding the more intricate interactions

gonzo we will get to our discussion as to the ethics of science and how it is conducted once we can establish a few basics
if we try and take everything at once as we have been then we're going to be getting nowhere fast
Ill try and keep things as succinct as possible
B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

There's really no need to get this basic. Everyone following this subject into this kind of detail has already studied the differing absorptive spectral bands of the various gases involved. This is purely academic at this point and a complete understanding of this will not answer all of the climate realist's objections.

This is essentially just more condescension on your part wherein you assume that the reason we disagree with the 'AGW via CO2' hypothesis is that we just don't sufficiently understand all of this 'well treaded' pedestrian science that you believe underpins it all. Gosh, if we could just get it through our thick heads

Nothing could be further from the truth both with respect to your assessment of both our level of understanding and objections and to the notion that all the technical points of the AGW alarm hypothesis are well supported in the basic sciences!

What makes your attitude more ironic is the fact that you previously (before participating in this thread) held several viewpoints or understanding of the mechanisms of AGW that the AGW alarm camp does not in fact share; viewpoints that have NO basis in the basic sciences, such as that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas by itself.

On the point you are trying to make now WRT radiative absorption, we just get back to Beer-Lambert versus 'Mikey Mann's Virgin Stratosphere'. In this case, Beer-Lambert is the 'well treaded' science while the MMVS is not only unproven, but in any event not happening since the stratosphere has exhibited a substantial cooling trend. Particulates don't make it up there in any sufficient quantity to allow you to throw up that particular red herring to save the MMVS red herring; you'll just have to accept the fact that the earth is not impressed with the MMVS theory.

So skip to the end and do tell us, how and why additional CO2 matters when we are basically saturated at anything over 250ppm, according to Beer-Lambert?

Jimbo

[Boston]

there is an obvious need to get this basic when every single detail of the obvious is argued by deniers

only thing to do is take it back to the ultimate basics and follow it logically to its conclusion

by understanding why certain molecules reflect various wave lengths better than others it will be possible to establish why co2 is considered a strong green house gas
why and how clouds are considered in the mix and why co2 drives vapor content in a forcing that can only result in greater warming
assuming the basics are understood the conclusion is inescapable

so the question remains based on the basics that no one seems to be disagreeing on

the question is
does the size of the atom or molecule of a gas alter the way a wave form will pass through that gas

any thoughts on that or do you folks think that varying atoms and molecules should reflect varying wave forms in the exact same manor and to the exact same degree

essentially if this thread is designed to resolve the issue and determin if there is validity in the claim that the earth is warming and that warming is caused but humans then no one on either side should have any trouble agreeing on the basics and seeing were it leads

or are you now going to argue these most basic of tenants
if you admit them
your dogmatic grip on denial is in deep trouble
if you deny them
everyone can see it for what it is
an obvious break from reality

Im just trying to as peacefully as possible get to the bottom of the denial and find out were it really starts
if there is no actual denial then you should have no trouble answering the questions Ive presented
if there is denial
then you will
as you have so far
continue ignoring the posts and insist on jumping past the basics
so as to hide the exact location of the denial

my position is that in order for deniers to hold he position they do they must deny basic physics at some point
If Im wrong you should have no worries following the basics up to there use in rapid climate change theory
if Im write you will do as you are doing and attempt to distract the logic path

[fasteddy106]

Looks like someone sobered up, goody. The above is facinating but hardly a revelation. The one area that Boston doesn't address is evidence. With the exception of a single paper by James Hansen, the entire scientific community now accepts that CO2 follows warming and that CO2 feedback play an insignificant part in temperature increase. Without a smoking gun exhibit of anthropogenic CO2 increases causing warming, all of this is just an exercise in mental masturbation. The evidence of CO2 driven heat is not there. Earlier Boston mentioned melting, ice may or may not be melting, but that is not evidence of AGW. The oceans may rise, but not because of human activity. Mumbai may flood, but CO2 won't be the villian. None of the facinating posts of scientific data are meaningful unless they show conclusive proof that increases in CO2 caused by the human race will tip the atmosphere into a non-stop warming cycle. They don't and they can't. In fact, the earth slipped into a glacial period during one of the highest ever concentrations of CO2.

As far as the civil tone???? Perhaps if Boston refrained from calling folks stupid simply because they question his dogma on Climate Change. Perhaps thats the problem, dogma belongs in Church, science relies on evidence. I remember Dr. Burner, Lyman Hall High Schools Science Dept. Chairman. He started every year by reminding us that Science is based on evidence, and that evidence should always be questioned, for in questions lie the possibility of learning and knowledge.

[Jimbo1490]

my position is that in order for deniers to hold he position they do they must deny basic physics at some point
If Im wrong you should have no worries following the basics up to there use in rapid climate change theory
if Im write you will do as you are doing and attempt to distract the logic path

And this is where you are DEAD wrong!

Basic physics of absorption says we are saturated with CO2 right now and so additional CO2 won't matter. Basic physics tells us that the greenhouse effect can never raise the earth's temperature above its black body temperature. This temperature establishes the maximum that the earth could ever reach under any circumstance as a result of radiative absorption, so there's absolutely no need to ever worry about the hobgoblin of a runaway greenhouse effect from such trivialities as a small rise in the trace gases like CO2.

Another way of looking at is is that the Earth has already experienced a 'runaway' greenhouse effect thousands of times during its lifetime. Each time the global temperature rose to the maximum possible level that it could (somewhere near the 'black body' temperature), bringing us the much more habitable climate that we have today, which is a decidedly pleasant break from the ice ages. It is not possible for there to be a tipping point that spirals us into a third metastable climate state that has not been shown to have ever existed during the entire history of Earth. It this were possible, certainly it would have happened when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 10X or 20X what they are today. So barring a sudden change in input from the sun, changes in climate upwards can only occur smoothly, in a slow and limited fashion. A tipping point towards another ice age is a different argument; that has happened before.




Jimbo

[Boston]

hey hey the village idiot is back
no Id call you stupid any day since the rational behind my plea for civility obviously fell on deaf ears
there was obviously no civil intent from the moment you first embarrassed yourself
and your still struggling to try and make even more of an ass of yourself than you already have
why
because your pathetic assertions are blatantly falsified in order to support the industry view
at least Jim is able to recognize the benefit of a more adult conversation
you on the other hand are obviously incapable of acting in an adult fashion
my bet is you were an only child and threw a lot of tantrums

I notice your all over the classic industry tactic of claiming there is no proof when we all know that the huge majority of evidence clearly supports the theory

once again
there is no coherent competing theory
there is no debate to be had as the evidence is overwhelming
the only effort to continue the debate is brought on by industry and its pundits in an effort to prolong there profits at the expense of the rest of us
industry cannot force the scientific community to consider its agnotism so they spread there spin in other ways
like on this thread for instance were the tactics of denial are so self evident



Jim
if you are right then why are you so resistive to answering the questions proposed

I notice you have still not made clear your position on how a wave of a given size behaves in conjunction with particles of varied size

its pretty obvious that if a wave form of a given type encounters an atom or molecule of varied size its going to react accordingly rather than in exactly the same way no mater what size the gas particles are

its getting obvious your avoiding admitting something

[Boston]

a momentary deviation from attempting to get some agreement concerning the basics

was having coffee with a buddy of mine from NOAA which is right up the road from me and he pointed out that we have likely reached a tipping point regarding co2 in the atmosphere
with the following being the % of increase over the last few years


1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73
1964 0.29
1965 0.98
1966 1.23
1967 0.75
1968 1.02
1969 1.34
1970 1.02
1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10
1976 0.91
1977 2.09
1978 1.31
1979 1.68
1980 1.80
1981 1.43
1982 0.72
1983 2.16
1984 1.37
1985 1.24
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.55
2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66


so not only is co2 increasing
but its increasing faster and faster all the time
the snow ball is rolling and going faster all the time

[Jimbo1490]

was having coffee with a buddy of mine from NOAA which is right up the road from me and he pointed out that we have likely reached a tipping point regarding co2 in the atmosphere
with the following being the % of increase over the last few years

But you can't even show that this CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic sources so WHO CARES!!!!

The fact that you just feel it's the result of fossil fuel burning isn't enough; since the isotopic 'fingerprint' of ancient carbon is way different from recent, this is an easy question to settle.

All the mass-balance studies show that the CO2 in the present atmosphere is not in any significant way,sourced from ancient (fossil) sources but is the result of recent terrestrial and pelagic biotic sources. The cumulative average result is 97% natural, 3% fossil.

Jimbo