What Do We Think About Climate Change

Two most interesting videos from Bob Tisdale (http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/) on Thompson et al's paper "Identifying Signatures of Natural Climate Variability in Time Series of Global-Mean Surface Temperature: Methodology and Insights"
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI3089.1&ct=1



and



Cheers.

 

That graf is a joke see it your self..

 

The joke is your belief in an impossible thing. The principles pictured in the graph are not even controversial; the logarithmic absorption is well known and understood. If it's all up to CO2, then this is all CO2 can do; end of discussion.

The REAL battle is over the feedbacks with water vapor, which is the important greenhouse gas NOT CO2, which is only a very minor player, especially after 200ppm. Without a positive feedback with water vapor, the graph illustrates the greenhouse warming capability of CO2.

If you have a rebuttal (something a little more substantial than what you've already posted, please!), please post it. But be warned that the "A Saturated Gassy Argument" page from Surrealclimate.org has already been debunked several times for its obvious clash with observed realities.

Jimbo

 

While I didn't actually think I wrote the Viaticum for AGW on earth, Teddy didn't even break stride in his innocence. I'm afraid, Jimbo, that the task of reason may require all four billion years.
Does very, very thick bone have a better chance of becoming a fossil?

 

Nothing to do with logarithm.. but do you seriously say that 20ppm warms more than 350ppm

 

It's not me that says this; it's the science of radiative absorption. That first 20ppm, certainly the first 200ppm, have absorbed all there is for CO2 to absorb, so adding more and more CO2 just does not have much effect as there is simply nothing left to absorb.

Think of it like a window shade. If you pull a window shade down over a window, it blocks most of the sunlight, but some, a minority, does get through. If you then put another identical window shade over the first, you block most of the remaining light that was coming through the first window shade. There's now very little light coming through with 2 shades in place, so each successive shade makes less and less difference.

Substitute CO2 for window shades, and you can understand the situation perfectly; the first 20ppm of CO2, like the first window shade, does all the work. By the time you get to 200ppm (like say 10 window shades) all the absorbing is already done. Going from 200-400ppm CO2 will only make a tiny incremental change in absorption, like adding an 11th window shade over the 10 already in place.

Again, this part is not controversial; the battle is over feedbacks. The rebuttal at Surrealclimate.org ("A Saturated, Gassy Argument")is a concocted red herring; the IPCC does not use it in their calculations but instead relies on feedbacks to get their warming scenarios. The part of the atmosphere discussed is famously cooling anyway, so this mechanism does not operate as alleged, else it would be warming there.

Jimbo

 

but co2 doesn't block sunlight
it reflects radiant heat
big difference and one of several reasons your analogy and the assumptions behind it are way wrong

basically your analogy is dead backwards

just sayin

B

I also notice some confusion concerning tropospheric temps
can you identify within the theory or predictions of Rapid Global Climate Change where exactly is stated what warming or cooling would take place and where
then I think it can easily be shown why you are mistaken in your later claims as well
by looking up what the theory actually says you might learn why nearly every word of that last is so wrong and why your getting so much stuff backwards

cheers

 

Hey Boston the Scientist! How good to see you around here again, with all of your mixed confusion!

BTW, very nice aquariums and terrariums. Good job!

Cheers.

 

Got no problem understanding what you are saying.. but somebody fuggedup drawing that graph baddly.. Right way to draw that is an ascending (logarithmic ) line. The one you offered is more like derivative values of particular heat absorbtion lewels...

 

Try to find somewhere in my post where I said CO2 "blocks sunlight". I believe you will find that the word i consistently used was "absorbed" which implies a transfer of radiative energy, which it in fact does, according to its particular properties and as a function of concentration, all described by the Beer-Lambert equation.

cheers

Jimbo

 

you mean like this:



Or better yet:

 

Jim,

Have a look at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.c...ease_2009-196&msource=19609&tr=y&auid=5719285

Of course NASA supports the hipothesis of the CO2-water vapour positive feedback and long CO2 resident time. Nothing new here. But what I've found interesting is this:

"Chahine said previous AIRS research data have led to some key findings about mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide. For example, the data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather "lumpy." Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport have assumed its distribution was uniform."

Cheers.

 

Im back to just being a struggling contractor again G the science thing was fun while it lasted but the hypocrisy of spending 50+ million bucks on 7 not so endangered animals was a bit to much. Besides there were political issues with the brass that was preventing people from my department from getting into any kind of actual paying position. Most of what they wanted us to do was more educational in nature and at that they didn't want us to paint to gloomy of a picture that and I had a knack for leaving them weeping in there seats. They were not as interested in conservation as they were following office policy which was definitely geared to the lowest common denominator and they were all about big and fuzzy money that may not actually be needed rather than just a few bucks for some creepy crawly that was in dire straights

oh well
something else will come along and maybe Ill try again but for now Im happy just building whatever and designing the retirement build. Glad you liked the tanks I thought Ild pound out a few in all my spare time and see if I could get something started there. Built this thing over the summer.



Jim you likened co2 to a window shade and suggested adding multiple shades would be the similar to adding more co2 to the atmosphere. Nothing could be farther from a reasonable analogy. Adding co2 doesnt block light, and it has almost the exact opposite effect of a one way mirror, it insulates, keeping heat in and eventually screwing up the balance of temp thats existed for the last say ~800,000 years or a huge chunk of the development of modern man. Would be kinda nice if we didn't have to eventually walk around in moon suet's cause some fool energy executive authorized destroying the atmosphere

its kinda hopeless trying to straighten out all the misconceptions though so no real point in getting to far into it
your welcome to believe whatever as nothing either of us think is going to put much of a dent into the massive issues we as a race have allowed to build up to a point were there can only be one possible outcome.

The ecosystem is in big trouble, we are loosing species like crazy, we have eaten out the oceans, denuded the land, what is it? an 80% reduction in North American song birds over the last 20 or so years, trashed the farmlands, we have more plastic than plankton in the oceans by what 10~12/1 and are working on trashing the atmosphere as best we can.

I just lost interest in going round and round over denying any of it is actually happening

 

Bos, I just noticed that your railing is bent! Did you laminate, find crooks, or what?

 

Speaking of crooks - what's with the bars on the windows. Duh, you're in Colorado - there's no crime...