What Do We Think About Climate Change

[BillyDoc]

Jimbo, the nature of science is such that many things are not directly observed but inferred from indirect evidence. Just about all of quantum mechanics fits that description. I don't believe anyone has seen a quark, for example, and the existence of the Higgs boson is still just a prediction (but not for long, I bet.)

In the present case, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that "since NOBODY has been able to demonstrate the existence of this supposed, fabled, mythical feedback" and by that I assume you to mean increased heat from CO2 buildup causing increased water vapor, thus more heat buildup, you have no basis for "believing" in this relationship. Is that correct?

If so, then I will not be able to demonstrate it any better, as it is actually implicit in the logic of the two theories I posted above, namely the theory implicit in the definition of vapor pressure (an equilibrium state caused by evaporation and re-absorption of the liquid into a gas), the Kinetic Molecular Theory, and the theory of differential absorption and reflection by wavelength of various molecules. I didn't mention the latter, but simply put, these molecules act like the glass in a window, high energy heat passes through, is absorbed by whatever it hits and re-emitted as low energy heat, which is reflected. So when you have the windows up in your car, the heat gets trapped.

If I accept that there is such a thing as vapor pressure, and it works as described, and I accept that the Kinetic Molecular theory is at least something like as described, and then further accept that the so-called Greenhouse gases behave basically like glass when transmitting light (an empirical question) then I think I MUST accept that I cannot increase water vapor pressure without first increasing temperature.

If you do NOT think that this is true, please explain why!

I know I am being difficult here, but I really have been forced on past occasions to try and explain to someone why some muddled theory is incorrect, and it just doesn't work. You either understand it, or you don't. Science is not just about collecting data, it's primarily about fitting data into a coherent logical structure. So let's stick to the basic data and it's logic here, before going off on some other tangent. If you can demonstrate logically where I went wrong with the above business with the vapor pressure, kinetic molecular theory, and differential molecular transmission then I'll have some crow for dinner and go read Spencer's paper. Fair enough? To keep it simple, let's restrict the exercise to a small container with a volume of one cubic meter, within which we have absolute control of the temperature. Pure water and ordinary air in the container in equal volumes. Given those constraints the question then becomes: "How could you increase the vapor pressure of the water without increasing the temperature?"

I'm trying to keep it simple here because adding in the complications of global circulation, etc. will just get us off on useless tangents.

Oh, and if you can't solve this riddle, is crow in your diet?

BillyDoc

 

[Boston]

we got difficult down on this thread and your still wearing a halo and wings near as I can tell

my theory is that if I can find enough things we can agree on that we can then come to a basic understanding as to why so many scientists agree that global climate change is real

97% is a significant number and certainly it is unusual that 97% of people involved in a field of science agree on anything

it begs the question
why
why do so many people in the field of climate research agree
and conversely
why are those few who refute the belief found to be employed or supported by the oil and gas industry

I know I am being difficult here, but I really have been forced on past occasions to try and explain to someone why some muddled theory is incorrect, and it just doesn't work. You either understand it, or you don't. Science is not just about collecting data, it's primarily about fitting data into a coherent logical structure.

another bulls eye there Billy
let me see if I can go back and find the exact quote

this from about 850 posts ago #1350
actually farther but I didnt go back and actually find the original I just stumbled on this in 1350

A debate implies there are two viable positions to be considered, in regards to global climate change there appears to be only one position with the necessary continuity in refereed work to form a theory. the dissenting opinion having no such chain of peer reviewed work available.

 

[Boston]

in post 2162 I noted the term unprecedented and received no objections

un·prec·e·dent·ed (ŭn-prěs'ĭ-děn'tĭd) Pronunciation Key
adj. Having no previous example: unprecedented economic growth.
un·prec'e·dent'ed·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Un*prec"e*dent*ed\, a. Having no precedent or example; not preceded by a like case; not having the authority of prior example; novel; new; unexampled. -- Un*prec"e*dent*ed*ly, adv.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

given that we agree on this Ild like to agree that we have a unprecedented consumption of fossil fuels within the last hundred or so years

unless someone can point out that dinosaurs or arthropods somehow drilled for oil

 

[Boston]

just noting a few graphs I may be using in future

Figure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (red line) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (yellow) over the past 649,000 years. The vertical red bar at the end is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2007.
References

CO2 Data

647426 BC to 411548 BC: Siegenthaler, U., T. F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D. Lüthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J.M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J. Jouzel. 2005. Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317. Data

415157 BC to 339 BC: Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. Data

9002 BC to 1515 AD: Flückiger, J., E. Mono2_mm nin, B. Stauffer, J. Schwander, T.F. Stocker, J. Chappellaz, D. Raynaud, and J.-M. Barnola, 2002, High resolution Holocene N2O ice core record and its relationship with CH4 and CO2, Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2002, 10.1029/2001GB001417. Data

1010 AD to 1978 AD: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan. 1998. Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. Data

1958-2006 AD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. 2007. Monthly Mean CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. (Accessed May 29, 2007). Data

Temperature Data

420,765 BC to 2000 AD: Petit J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436. Data

====================================================================================================

History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

====================================================================================================

this graph is based on a geological reconstruction of continental drift and bedrock analysis with some fossil and paleobotony thrown in
Ive written to the team who created it and am interested in how long of a time frame exists between average plots
should be interesting
my theory is that the time frame between plots is insufficient to show the relationship of co2 and temp that is obvious in the more detailed data set of the ice cores
Im also writing to a friend of mine at NOA ( just up the road ) to find the average time frame of plots on the Vostoc data
also the range of error on the reconstructed data of the geological record is significantly higher than in the ice core data

 

[Guillermo]

Help Guillermo, it does not seem to work/play???

It works, but it takes a bit of time to begin.

Cheers.

 

[Guillermo]

Billy Doc,
Read Spencer carefully, without preconceived ideas.
The fact is that IPCC predictions have shown to be grossly exagerated, and nowadays everybody has been (and is) refining their computer and statistics models, thanks to the work of people like Spencer, McIntyre, and the like.

Also read Svensmark and his cosmic rays theory (i.e.), being under test nowadays at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva
http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/About...eas/Climate-Research/Cosmic-Rays-And-Climate/
http://www.dsri.dk/sun-climate/

There is much more out there than anthropogenic CO2 to explain recent climate warming (It seems to me you have not been following this thread closely as you are coming back again with matters only Boston keeps on discussing )

Cheers.

P.S Anyway, Boston: Interesting and honest your exercise. Go ahead

 

[Guillermo]

About methane:

"When you’re working in temperatures that drop to 20 degrees Celsius below freezing, maintaining the equipment can be a chore. However, in this case it was a fantastic experience. It was exciting and unexpected to watch the methane release from the tundra suddenly increase as the temperatures dropped at Zackenberg,” Charlotte Sigsgaard reports. The methane release was so voluminous that the total amount was equal to the entire outlet over the summer months."

Read more at:
http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/About...earch/Methane-Emission-From-Permafrost-Areas/

Cheers.

 

[Boston]

G you might be surprised to find out that I have data to support a position you held way earlier in the debate concerning the sun cycle
although at the time I agreed with you I think we failed to communicate it adequately ( pretty sure I said no **** Sherlock ) but the point is
Im trying to quantify the relationship a little before I attempt to present it to the group as it is about as direct as the relationship between carbon and temp
and is highly relevant to the point Im trying to get at
why
cause in the past the sun was brighter and it has cooled over time
in terms of its cycle
even relatively accurate data only goes back so far ( not very )
and the sun data is scarce so its taking a while to find good data
but
the correlation is relevant in any conclusion and so eventually it will need to be addressed

if you have any graphs of the suns cycle feel free to post em
it should line up fairly well with the graph showing a near perfect correlation between temp and co2

best case is you find one that overlays the graphs of temp and co2 so I can calculate the correlation coefficient between the two

 

[Boston]

Billy
how do you calculate for correlation coefficient considering the amplitude of the parameters

 

[Guillermo]

What do you think about these IPCC “contradictions”?

IPCC projects global warming at a rate of 0.2C per decade in the early 21st century; so far the first 8 years of the 21st century have shown cooling at an average rate of around 0.1C per decade.

IPCC states that the rate of sea level rise has increased in the latter part of the 20th century, switching from tide gauge records to satellite altimetry; the tide gauge record shows a slight decrease in sea level rise in the second half of the 20th century, as compared to the first half.

IPCC states that changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of only 0.12 W/m2, equivalent to a net warming of around 0.02C; several studies by solar scientists conclude that the 20th century warming caused by the unusually high level of solar activity is around 0.35C.

IPCC claims that the satellite temperature record has shown a faster rate of tropospheric warming than that at the surface, confirming the anthropogenic cause of warming; both the satellite and radiosonde record show less warming than the surface record.

IPCC models all assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds with warming, resulting in 1.3C of the total assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C; actual physical observations show a strongly negative net feedback from clouds of around the same order of magnitude; correcting the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for this factor brings it to around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C.

IPCC states confidently that the upward distortion of the surface temperature record due to the urban heat island effect has a negligible influence of less than 0.006C per decade; many studies from all over the world show that the UHI influence is thirty to fifty times as great as claimed by IPCC.

Time to go to work.
I'll review your posts tonight, Boston.

Cheers.

 

[Boston]

well you know me
Ild have to check the veracity of each claim
along with the credentials of the people making em
then do the same with the rebuttals or the contradictions in this case
and who made em and when
if you give me some further information I can get it done more quickly

thing to remember is two scientist in a room generally dont agree on anything
so just cause some fool got on a committee doesn't mean that committee is in harmonious tune with one another
frankly its a miracle given the diverse nature of the group that they haven't all strangled each other by now

not sure if you have ever worked in that kind of committee environment before but honestly its enough to piss off the pope

 

[BillyDoc]

Hi Boston,

I've posted the formula for the Pearson Product-Moment correlation (r) below. As you can see, the correlation is taken from two data sets (x and y), with (in your case) time incrementing to define the data sets. If, for example, you wanted to know the correlation between CO2 and Temp for a particular data set and you had the graph, you would have to pick off the magnitude of each value by some even time interval, say by year or every ten years, whatever. By that I mean something like this: at the first time interval, determine the magnitude of CO2 (your first "x") and record that data. Then determine the magnitude of the temperature (your first "y") and record that adjacent to your first "x". Proceed through the data in this fashion, making sure your adjacent "x"s and "y"s are always taken from the same time interval. It looks like you are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges here, but the magnitude of the scale for each data set washes out in the math. So, you might have a temperature range of 10 degrees that you are comparing to a CO2 range of a thousand units . . . and it doesn't matter.

The peaks and valleys in the data are taken care of by the method.

(I know this will define me as totally weird, especially since I generally hate to do math, but I truly think that this formula is quite elegant! If this sort of thing "floats your boat" compare this formula to one for linear regression and then take a look at the basic formulas for "t" and "f" scores. You will find some very similar stuff there! It's mind-blowingly elegant, in my view.)

I just checked the OpenOffice spreadsheet (free to download as part of the OpenOffice suite) and it has the Pearson function built in. You just enter the data into two columns, call up the function and it does the rest. Probably all the modern spreadsheet programs have it. Sometimes the raw data sets are available from the authors of the various papers you are looking at as well, it's worth an email to find out, or check the references for a link.

BillyDoc

 

[Boston]

well there were estimates made in the fifties as to what global climate change would do given a change in co2 over a certain time
and they worked out to be spot on

what Im after is quantifying the idea that there is not enough resolution in the long term co2/temp graph to see the relationship between them
the average time interval looks to be about ten million years
not even close to the say the twenty thousand years or less that you would need to see the relationship as found in the ice data


dam Ild love to find that program and just fill in the data
would save a lot of time on the old calculator for each plot
which all off a sudden I dont have what with the new gig and all

best
B

 

[Boston]

that first ones pretty easy
so Ill tackle it right off
and await your sources for the rest

IPCC projects global warming at a rate of 0.2C per decade in the early 21st century; so far the first 8 years of the 21st century have shown cooling at an average rate of around 0.1C per decade.

well Im not seeing a contradiction in this one G

among the thousands of graphs I could have chosen to depict temp over time
this one has a number of data sets that generally agree pretty well with one another

seems clear we are in a rising trend

looks like the guy who said things were cooling of was a little off base with his statement

hears one from a skeptics page

there are hundreds of em and they all show the same thing
we are definitely in a rising trend

 

[Jimbo1490]

If you do NOT think that this is true, please explain why!

Billydoc,

I'll explain it to you through a series of 'If, Then' conjunctions:

IF we add more of any greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, all other things being equal, THEN the atmosphere will warm up.

IF we want to know how much it will warm up, THEN we examine the change in concentration, dwell time and the light absorptive properties of that gas.

IF examining the above parameters reveals the change in greenhouse heat budget to be trivial, THEN we conclude that that change in concentration is of trivial importance from a greenhouse heating perspective.

The above series applies to CO2. A doubling of CO2 from ~280ppm to ~560ppm will increase surface temps about .5 degree C in ~100 years, an amount that would be difficult to distinguish from natural variation.

But what if the situation were more complex than this, i.e., that CO2 leverages it's small greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor? We can make a new "If, Then" conjunction series to examine the outcome given what we now know about the behavior of the components involved.

IF water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, THEN small changes in water vapor concentration will make a significant difference in the greenhouse budget, thereby causing significant changes in temperature.

IF small changes in CO2 concentration cause changes in water vapor concentration, THEN small changes in CO2 concentration cause significant temperature changes.

IF small changes in CO2 concentration cause changes in water vapor concentration, THEN this is a positive feedback coupling between CO2 and water vapor.

But what IF water vapor was subject to its own set of strongly negative feedbacks which keep its concentration levels 'in check' or between a set of limits?

THEN we can make a new set of conjunctions:

IF water vapor is subject to its own set of controlling negative feedbacks, THEN changes in CO2 concentration are not coupled to changes in water vapor concentration.


IF changes in CO2 concentration are not linked to increased water vapor concentration, THEN we need only look at the intrinsic greenhouse potential of CO2 by itself to predict the warming which might occur when CO2 concentrations increase, which, everyone agrees (except Boston ) is not enough to matter.

What warmers like YOU want to pretend is that we are incapable of observing or measuring the supposed, fabled positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. So satellites, balloon-launched radiosondes and all the rest aren't up to the task? So you want to prove it's existence through indirect means? How about computer modeling?

IF the fabled feedback exists, THEN why do computer models incorporating the fabled feedback do such a piss-poor job of predicting atmospheric phenomena such as clouds, precipitation and temperature?

IF Roy Spencer is wrong, THEN why is his 'one equation climate model' more predictive than the complex computer models?

IF there is no positive feedback between CO2 concentration and water vapor concentration, THEN there can never be any significant warming caused by changes in CO2 concentration.

All of your careful 'analysis' of vapor pressure is of NO IMPORTANCE in deciphering the question at hand; it's just a side show with which you amuse yourself. Even warmers don't mention this at all; it's all about whether or not this feedback exists. This is a question to which many warmers actually don't want an answer, because it's looking increasingly like the answer is not going to be the one they prefer.


Jimbo