What Do We Think About Climate Change

again I have to wonder why all the distractions
( jim if you would like to rehash the subject of co2 building up in the atmosphere then please begin at post 1416 and read from there )

why the unwillingness to discuss the basics that inevitably lead to an understanding of cloud and ice albedo and why co2 interacts with h2o vapor in the way it does

is anyone else noticing that the deniers are extremely hesitant to discuss the basics
with only Jim having the courage to even remotely dance around the edges

could it be that in order to deny the science of rapid climate change it is necessary to deny not only how science works but the very tenants science is based upon

its getting really obvious the deniers are avoiding something

 

Boston, I don't know how you stand it. If I was religious (and I'm definitely not) I'd nominate you for sainthood.

Anyway, sometime in the recent past (and I just got the email, so it can't have been too long ago) there were some interesting claims about "black body temperatures," so I looked it up. As usual, the physics claimed was . . . more than a little bit dubious.

Anyway, the "black body temperature" of the earth is easily calculated (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Temperature_of_Earth ) and turns out to be -24.577 degrees C (-12.2386 degrees F).

According to the email I just got, Jimbo claims that: "Basic physics tells us that the greenhouse effect can never raise the earth's temperature above it's black body temperature."

So, what is our average temperature nowadays? Is it really over 12 degrees below zero F? Or, has "basic physics" been lying to someone? Could there be some other overlooked variable? And my last question, what is the probability that any of these issues will be taken seriously by those claiming this unidentified "basic physics" dude as their supporter?

I would say that the answer to the last question has already been put forth: none. To actually address the issues would involve doing exactly what you have been trying, getting to the basics to see who is lying. It simply isn't going to happen. The sponsors of this disinformation campaign know full well that repeated lies always work in the end. All they have to do is ignore anything to the contrary, and repeat, repeat, repeat. The ignorant always buy it in the end.

BillyDoc

 

Co2 has no direct interaction with water vapor. Your warmer gurus do not make this claim either. Are you going to reveal a completely new understanding of the AGW hypothesis right here on the Boat Design Forum? This forum is not peer-reviewed, you know. It might be better to post this to a recognized scientific journal if you have some new understanding that is heretofore unpublished.

Otherwise, allow me to school you, once again, on what the rest of the AGW camp is saying. They say that CO2 causes a 1.7w/m^2 increase in the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. This in turn causes an increase in oceanic evaporation and that the atmosphere, it is claimed, then retains this 'new' water vapor, greatly increasing the greenhouse potential of the atmosphere, far beyond CO2's minuscule fraction of the greenhouse budget.

Note that there is no 'special' interaction between CO2 and water vapor; it's just a simple heat budget transaction, meaning that ANYTHING that increases the heat budget could participate in this alleged feedback loop with water vapor.

Some of those things include, but are certainly not limited to, other trace gases like methane, daily and seasonal heat budget changes, albedo changes and etc.

What they are saying in a nutshell is that CO2 is able to change the 'set point' of water vapor concentration. Trouble is, since they are claiming that this happens through a simple heat budget transaction, then a plethora of other substances/mechanisms, many of which generate heat budget changes much larger in magnitude than that caused by CO2, could also participate in such augmentation.

The daily observed realities of weather strongly refute this idea of water vapor as the augmenter of all atmospheric thermal perturbations, as I've patiently explained several times.

If you don't see the fallacy of the AGW reasoning on water vapor, then I'm going to have to conclude that you are either:

1. An ideologue, who sees the fallacy but won't admit to it because such an admission is off-message for your agenda
   
   
   
2. A complete *****, unable to grasp anything of importance in this discussion

Please tell me you see the fallacy, Boston. Otherwise, I don't know which of the two options above to root for


Jimbo

 

[qoute]I would say that the answer to the last question has already been put forth: none. To actually address the issues would involve doing exactly what you have been trying, getting to the basics to see who is lying. It simply isn't going to happen. The sponsors of this disinformation campaign know full well that repeated lies always work in the end. All they have to do is ignore anything to the contrary, and repeat, repeat, repeat. The ignorant always buy it in the end.[/quote]

Everything you said here, every last word, applies to your AGW case. You guys have pathetically never even jumped the first hurdle in the entire discussion, and yet you prattle on about a 'finished debate' that only 'flat earthers' and liars could possibly dispute.

The first hurdle, in case you've forgotten, is to point to something; ANYTHING, unusual with respect to climate that has happened in the last 150 years. There have been warming events of greater magnitude and rapidity in the past, even in recorded history. Nothing unusual has happened WRT climate to even begin to warrant alarm, let alone a search for an 'unusual' cause, let alone draconian actions.

All this hoopla over 1.3 degrees F in 130 years. You guys are f'n ******.

Jimbo

 

Post 2945; "is anyone else noticing that the deniers are extremely hesitant to discuss the basics
with only Jim having the courage to even remotely dance around the edges

could it be that in order to deny the science of rapid climate change it is necessary to deny not only how science works but the very tenants science is based upon

its getting really obvious the deniers are avoiding something"


You have two Identcal posts 36 minutes apart, Boston, and I am not willing to devote the time to the basics when Jim is doing such a good job


"The oil industry is just sitting back and thanking guys like you Boston, their profits have never been higher since new drilling has come to a near halt" ( I would leave that argument out of it, Eddy. It doesn't work that way unless you're talking just about foreign oil).


The whole debate will be moot if we choke ourselves out of existence. Then there will be wonderful, clean EVERYTHING for the least successful people's of the world to share (those that won't kill their economies because they don't have much of one anyway)

 

sounds like some kind of tantrum to me
and a piss poor excuse for a distraction

people
if you go to post 1444 you can clearly see were the lack of basics begins to unravel for Jim and his merry band

it has been a classic tactic of the industry deniers to point fingers that were best pointed at themselves

and I notice that the deniers are again incapable of addressing the topic at hand
understanding the basic physics

because by adressing the basics it can be shown why and how co2 and h2o vapor interact

denial and distraction
a refusal to admit what the established science is
and therefore competently discuss what the more complex science is

I dont think anyone reading the last few pages could possibly miss the idea that deniers are desperately avoiding a review of the basic physics involved

 

Mark
please see post 1485
in an effort to engage in a meaningful and productive discourse I've tried to ask a few basic questions, in order that we may establish what is agreed upon from what isn't. I cant help but notice nor could anyone that the deniers are desperate not to engage in a level of conversation were one is faced with the established science

why is a great question and one that is likely to be asked a few times

for instance
why is it that 97% of scientist agree
and why do deniers claim that the number is shrinking when its clearly up form 81% in just the last few years

what do the scientists who actually have degree's in this field know that deniers fail to realize

best place to start would be the beginning wouldnt it

so I ask again
would a wave form react differently if passing through a two different gasses of different molecule size and properties

it is a beginning and we will need to agree on the answer in order to have a constructive conversation

B

is there really not one denier who will engage in a productive conversation regarding the known elements of science

 

"The oil industry is just sitting back and thanking guys like you Boston, their profits have never been higher since new drilling has come to a near halt" ( I would leave that argument out of it, Eddy. It doesn't work that way unless you're talking just about foreign oil).

Mark, I was talking about the profits that Exxon/Mobil made last year during the price spike. As most of the companies are multi-national anyhow it doesn't matter much. My point was, unless Boston and his type suceed in changing the fundementals of our economy, a shortage of oil is just going the make the oil companies greater profits. They win either way, from increased output or supply pushed price increases.

 

Actually Boston, it would seem to me that you are trying to divert the topic into an AGW gameshow rather than address the real issue. Dr. Evans seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the issue. Why don't quote and refute the article that I posted so us ignorant unwashed can understand it a bit better. Btw, I think the spelling you are looking for is tenet, unless the doctrine you are referring to is just trying to rent space in everyones brain.

 

http://www.ianschumacher.com/maximum_temperature.html

Read carefully, look up the unfamiliar words.


Jimbo

 

Nah, Jimbo, I don't think I'll bother. Not until you actually address some of these nasty basic physics issues, like the one quoted that you are avoiding, the calculated black body temperature that is so chilly, yet according to you we can't exceed. That is what you said isn't it?

Make your own arguments, Dude. It's too easy to just cut and paste and send people off chasing wild geese in the never-never land of the Internet. Every time you start of with "basic physics tells us" or "it has been well established" or anything of that sort I know that you probably haven't a real clue about the issue you are talking about, you've certainly proven that enough times.

 

This is false. There is no such study. If you know of one, please fwd it to the IPCC as thy are only willing to commit to 21%, but produce to studies to support even this amount. The study you and Thomas and Tcubed and I posted DID NOT attribute 27%, but only "19% anthropogenic" distinct from purely 'fossil' sources. On the mass balance side of the study which excluded his rather dubious 'land and biotic changes' parameter, the study looks like many others with only a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the present atmosphere attributable to the burning of 'fossil' fuels.

The graph I posted showed the error in calculations by the IPCC and your AGW gurus, wherein they believe that half of the CO2 that should be in the atmosphere now is 'missing'; according to their calculus, we should be at about 800ppm right now! So off the AGW fools go searching for the mystery CO2 sink that's absorbing all the CO2 they believe
should be there but isn't.

Of course the problem is that they have painted themselves into a logical corner WRT the atmospheric dwell time of CO2. You see, in order to get scary warming scenarios out of their climate models, they had to stretch the dwell time of CO2 past the provable, well established time of less than 10 years all the way out to 200 years. But in so doing, they've screwed up the cumulative tabulation of atmospheric CO2 such that they've created a 'shortage'.

The author of the graph you are referring to showed that when the correct dwell time is substituted back into the calculations for cumulative CO2, we get the correct amount; the line in the graph you believe showed anthropogenic CO2 was for the 'missing/error CO2'. It was marked that way on the graph, you just facetiously ignored the markings to try to shoehorn that graph into your agenda. This would be the the same CO2 of the fabled 'mystery sink' which the AGW fools are off on a mission to find.

Sounds like a good summer job for you Boston;
Get out there and find that sink, boy!



Jimbo

 

The only way the oil companies loss, is when Obama use some excuse to nationalize then.
Of course it is for our own good, to keep price low
To save the environment from those evil rich oil companies that don't pay their share of taxes. Then add a Vat tax of 25% and the US turns into France....Well actually Brazil, anyone want to Samba...

 

Billy

To answer your question about interpretation of the black body temperature number that you can get anywhere on the net, and why it differs from the measured surface temperature, I'll offer you this basic explanation:

First, remember that the earth is approximately spherical but receives radiative energies from the sun on a sphere's cross-section, which is of course a circle. Yet the earth re-radiates thermal energy from the area of a sphere. As we all know, the ratio of spherical area to circular area is 4. Dividing the incoming energy flux (1366 w/m^2 )by 4 gives the Earth an approximate maximum temperature of 279° K (from Stefan-Boltzman). This is quite a bit below the standard value usually stated as earth's average temperature which is ~288° K (or ~15° C). This is likely due to the fact that this 'black body' temperature number is basically the average atmospheric temperature, which will be different (lower) than the surface temperature. Overall this averages out over the entire atmosphere to a maximum value of 279 ° K , which is said to be the earth's maximum 'black body' temperature. But at the surface the temperature will always be higher.

What are the reasons for this?

For one thing, the atmosphere is held in place by gravity, and therefore as a consequence of this particles higher up in the atmosphere have higher potential energy and lower kinetic energy, while the inverse is true for particles lower in the atmosphere. The 'black body' temperature number does not take this or many other factors into account; it cannot. Therefore calculating the 'expected' surface temperature would be really big deal mathematically because there are so many factors to consider, if you wanted to get the accuracy of the predicted vs observed temperature down into the >3% range. We are extremely close to our 'black body' temperature right now.

Meanwhile you've never answered one single question I've posited to you over the course of this thread. You claim that the questions are somehow beneath you, and have never risen to a level of sufficiently intelligent or novel inquiry to warrant your participation.

But I think there's another reason:

If you'll recall back to your earlier involvement with the thread, you seriously misunderstood the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as it operates in our earth's atmosphere. It was I that schooled you in how it actually works.

So if you don't even understand the basics yourself, how can you dare to have such well-formed and entrenched opinions about the subject matter? Well it's because the entire AGW 'scene' is in harmony with your world view. You don't need to know the details, so you never bothered to learn any of them. That is still true; you don't really participate in the thread (except to throw a cheap shot in here or there) because you CAN'T; you are not well-informed enough to do so.

So you just ASSUME that something really unusual or alarming has been happening over that last century that has got scientists alarmed when in fact there's nothing unusual we can point to. Past warming events of greater rapidity and magnitude have already occurred, even in recorded history.

You just ASSUME that someone has tested and determined that the 'extra' CO2 in the atmosphere is all from fossil fuel burning, when in fact it's not. The tests show the CO2 is almost entirely natural.

When the AGW gurus tell you that there is this strongly positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor, you simply ASSUME that they must have hard observational data to back up this claim, yet they do not. All the observational data cuts the other way, in fact.



Jimbo

 

Here's another industry shill for Boston to make fun of ...... oh wait, he's a professor at MIT, can't be a shill, must be a mistake that the AGW nazi's haven't had him fired yet............

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/