97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6008
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:34 pm

Bludgeon wrote:I think most climate science research is like voodoo witch doctor stuff. Reading tree rings and trying to predict temperatures based on whatever muck they dig out of the ice I don't really call it science.

That is actually a useful way to begin a discussion, because it makes it clear that you don't actually know anything about climate science research.

Yes, yes, I know that you think you know all you need to know, because you read sneering dismissals of climate science on right-wing blogs and see sneering dismissals of climate science on right-wing television networks and listen to sneering dismissals of climate science on right-wing radio shows.

But the problem here is that you're so uninformed that you don't even realize that you're uninformed.

You have never opened the cover of a basic textbook of atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never taken a class in atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never spoken to an actual scientist in any of the directly relevant fields.
You have never even considered the possibility that a scientist at UW with a PhD in geochemistry or the physics of radiation in the atmosphere might have come to learn something about how radiation behaves in the atmosphere.

So, let's start with the basics. Here is the physics underlying what you refer to as "AGW":

1. Humans are burning fossil fuels.

2. Burning fossil fuels converts hydrocarbon molecules plus oxygen molecules into carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules plus water vapor.

3. About half of mass of CO2 molecules produced by burning fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere, while the other half is absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere.

4. In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules absorb longwave infrared (LWIR) radiation.

5. When CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb LWIR, the mean altitude at which the atmosphere effectively radiates outward to space increases.

6. When this altitude of LWIR emission increases, the column of atmosphere below it warms in proportion to depth (this is the "lapse rate"), and at the bottom of the atmosphere the surface warms as well.

That's the core of "climate science" and "AGW". Everything else is just details. So ... which of those six points do you disbelieve?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12625
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby snoqueen » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:00 pm

You'll notice that Snow, while still being on your side, has wisely slipped out of the tenuous argument you are using to hang yourselves with.


That's because arguing about eggs is not worth the time. People are gonna eat what they want to, and are gonna argue that what they want to eat is OK. It's the nature of people to put up arguments to justify themselves.

And that's exactly what you are trying to do with climate science.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:23 pm

kurt_w wrote:But the problem here is that you're so uninformed that you don't even realize that you're uninformed.

You have never opened the cover of a basic textbook of atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never taken a class in atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never spoken to an actual scientist in any of the directly relevant fields.
You have never even considered the possibility that a scientist at UW with a PhD in geochemistry or the physics of radiation in the atmosphere might have come to learn something about how radiation behaves in the atmosphere.


Your family must be arrogance free. It was all instilled in you. As if you have any idea of the above about Bludgeon or anyone else you don't personally know.

kurt_w wrote:That's the core of "climate science" and "AGW". Everything else is just details. So ... which of those six points do you disbelieve?


That is certainly part of it, but NOT the core or even a large part of climate science. The core of climate science is the ENSO.

You, like IPCC put most of your eggs in the climate model basket. The problem is, that the models don't have skill had showing sea surface temperatures. That is extremely important, not to mention major factor in weather and climate.

A Strong El Niño Releases a large amount of thermal energy in the form of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific. This spreads out across the central and eastern tropical Pacific. Land surface air temperature anomalies mimic and exaggerate these oceans surface anomalies.

Warming in the past few decades has occurred mostly in response to worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing CO2.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gil ... h2007a.pdf

Tell me Kurt: how well do your models handle an extremely important data like sea surface temperatures? They don't of course.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6008
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:07 pm

Sandi wrote:You, like IPCC put most of your eggs in the climate model basket.

Did you actually read my comment to Bludgeon?

There are no "climate models" in it. There are no tree rings. There are no mentions of actual temperature data. There is no reference to your bugbear the "IPCC".

I'm talking about the fundamental physics of the earth system's radiation balance -- the net flow of radiation across the boundary between the earth system and the rest of the universe.

If the planet is receiving more radiation from the sun than it is emitting to space, the earth system is by definition warming. If the planet is emitting more radiation to space than it receives from the sun, it is cooling.

Greenhouse gases reduce the flux of outgoing longwave radiation to space. To compensate for this imbalance the atmosphere warms, and as its temperature rises the rate of emission of LWIR increases in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law until a new equilibrium is reached and the downward and upward fluxes again are balanced.

Until you -- or Bludgeon -- can accept the basics, there's no point in talking about less important stuff like ENSO.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6008
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:16 pm

Sandi wrote:
kurt_w wrote:But the problem here is that you're so uninformed that you don't even realize that you're uninformed.

You have never opened the cover of a basic textbook of atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never taken a class in atmospheric science or climate science.
You have never spoken to an actual scientist in any of the directly relevant fields.
You have never even considered the possibility that a scientist at UW with a PhD in geochemistry or the physics of radiation in the atmosphere might have come to learn something about how radiation behaves in the atmosphere.


Your family must be arrogance free. It was all instilled in you. As if you have any idea of the above about Bludgeon or anyone else you don't personally know.

Bludgeon is a fool. I don't have much patience with fools. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:55 pm

kurt_w wrote:Did you actually read my comment to Bludgeon?

There are no "climate models" in it. There are no tree rings. There are no mentions of actual temperature data. There is no reference to your bugbear the "IPCC".


*Sigh* I don't care what you and Bludgeon discuss. You have not only mentioned models often, but posted model graphs.


kurt_w wrote:Until you -- or Bludgeon -- can accept the basics, there's no point in talking about less important stuff like ENSO.


I understand your "basics" entirely, although I submit you put the importance on the wrong area.

kurt_w wrote:If the planet is receiving more radiation from the sun than it is emitting to space, the earth system is by definition warming.


Correct, and as I said, the oceans absorb a lot of heat. The heat below ocean is then released back to the surface during El Niño events.

What has a larger capacity to hold heat: water or CO2? Of course the oceans absorb far more heat than CO2 can absorb. Many times more heat. Yet you give the greater importance the trace gas that becomes insignificant compared to where the heat mostly goes.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6008
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:21 pm

Sandi wrote: *Sigh* I don't care what you and Bludgeon discuss. You have not only mentioned models often, but posted model graphs.


That's right, I have. For example, here. And right after showing those graphs, I wrote this:

kurt_w wrote:Do I really believe this?
I wouldn't put too much weight in the predictions of global climate models. I think they're still a bit too primitive and limited to make reliable predictions, and the uncertainty in the emissions scenario is very large. We could end up burning much more fossil fuel than expected, or much less.

That said, I think this is an interesting exercise. The real-Wisconsin in 2050 or 2100 might be hotter or cooler than the model-Wisconsin, but without any way to judge which of those is more likely, I'd go with this model as a rough approximation of what to expect.

There are other ways of studying past climate change that don't rely on models. Even if no one had ever programmed a numerical climate model, we would expect the global temperature to increase just due to the fact that we know we're increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, and we know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. You don't need a model to tell you that a planet whose atmosphere resists the loss of heat to space will warm up.

I think that is an appropriately nuanced discussion of climate models. I think it's worth looking at them and considering what they have to tell us, but I don't think they're all that reliable (yet) and I don't think they are an essential part of climate science. Svante Arrhenius didn't have a computer, let alone a model, and he understood the key points 120 years ago, better than anyone at WUWT does today.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6008
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:27 pm

Sandi wrote:What has a larger capacity to hold heat: water or CO2? Of course the oceans absorb far more heat than CO2 can absorb. Many times more heat. Yet you give the greater importance the trace gas that becomes insignificant compared to where the heat mostly goes.

Of course the oceans have a higher heat capacity than atmospheric CO2. So what? Nobody is asserting that the CO2 molecules themselves are storing heat. They absorb upward LWIR and immediately reradiate it both upward and downward, producing a relatively larger flux of radiation from the atmosphere to the surface than you would see from an atmosphere with less CO2. Most of this increased downward LWIR flux ends up heating the ocean.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:40 pm

kurt_w wrote:Of course the oceans have a higher heat capacity than atmospheric CO2. So what? Nobody is asserting that the CO2 molecules themselves are storing heat. They absorb upward LWIR and immediately reradiate it both upward and downward, producing a relatively larger flux of radiation from the atmosphere to the surface than you would see from an atmosphere with less CO2. Most of this increased downward LWIR flux ends up heating the ocean.


We are making some progress, and I agree with much of that. However it is late, and I will post more tomorrow.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:18 pm

kurt-w wrote:So, let's start with the basics. Here is the physics underlying what you refer to as "AGW":

1. Humans are burning fossil fuels.

2. Burning fossil fuels converts hydrocarbon molecules plus oxygen molecules into carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules plus water vapor.

3. About half of mass of CO2 molecules produced by burning fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere, while the other half is absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere.

4. In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules absorb longwave infrared (LWIR) radiation.

5. When CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb LWIR, the mean altitude at which the atmosphere effectively radiates outward to space increases.

6. When this altitude of LWIR emission increases, the column of atmosphere below it warms in proportion to depth (this is the "lapse rate"), and at the bottom of the atmosphere the surface warms as well.

That's the core of "climate science" and "AGW". Everything else is just details. So ... which of those six points do you disbelieve?

The crucial point, which you haven't listed, that all the doomsday scenarios are founded on: the wild, grasping theory of exponential feedback loops that apocalypse cults depend on to make their faith into a reality. Maybe you will strike gold and it will come true and on that day of judgment you will be able to show the great spirits the small size of your carbon footprint and they will forgive you for the sin of your humanity and allow you into new-age heaven.

Personally I think it's a bit like claiming we have so many tidal waves from driving motorboats. You may be interested in knowing that the planet has been getting warmer since the ice ages.

Sure, let's play with house money. If the only parameters you can use to establish the validity of Scientology are the tenets of Scientology, the only possible conclusion is that the Scientology are right. Based on their own arguments, the pseudo sciences are always firmly grounded in reality.

Here's an illustration of my opinion of climatology:

1. Astronomy > Astrology
2. Mathematics > Numerology
3. Psychology > Phrenology
4. Meteorolgy > "climatology".
Image

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby jman111 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:28 pm

Bludgeon wrote:When the warmists (rabble, J-Man, Wagstaff) have to resort to claiming eggs are good for you...

Wait. I thought it was warmenists.
Now I'm confused.

(And, no, I did nothing of the sort.)

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9447
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:36 pm

I'm really enjoying this new tack Bludge has taken wherein he attacks the position that people are actually desirous of some kind of apocalypse. Given that I've never heard anybody, anywhere, argue such a ridiculous position (and I'm on record all over the place saying I dislike when environmentalists become doomsayers), it's a great way for him to avoid actually discussing the arguments people are making, all the while displaying his continued ignorance of anything actually resembling science or how it works. I'm very curious what strawman he'll attack next.

Let's watch...

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:42 pm

More than any of the rest, what I really don't buy is the notion that we have any conclusive idea when (other than the ice ages) the Earth started warming. For all we know we're in a hundreds' year cycle that began long before the invention of thermometers and will end centuries after the altars to climatology have already crumbled in ruin with all the other skyworshipping societies of the pagan modern age. What we truly know about global climate conditions beyond our few modern records is actually next to nothing. Not hot enough to kill everyone, not cold enough to kill everyone, and that's about it.

Kurt's 6 basic tenets aside, the real central tenet of climatology is that any rise in temperature we perceive must come from the original sin of our C02 byproduct and not some larger, more impactful terrestrial or cosmic phenomena that happens to be astronomical in scope, rather than the primitive divination system of climatology.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby jman111 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:46 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Let's watch...

like a train wreck.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:56 pm

jman111 wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Let's watch...

like a train wreck.

A circle jerk amongst ingratiating sycophants is not an argument, it's a cop out. Again:

self wrote:I'm so weary of this rhetorical 'tactic' on the left, essentially you all hang out on this page looking for someone to play talking points with you, basically sublimating yourselves to the masturbatory, doctrinal 'victory' scenario, it's like a predetermined script that always ends the same for ideologists who want to emulsify themselves in progressive holy water. Anytime a point of view comes up that isn't accounted for on your script of talking points, you pull a Wagstaff and bluster that the very concept of disagreement is so very ridiculous, the question is ineligible for a response.

...Which is kind of a cop out way of saying, "I don't want to have to defend my view point." I suppose, those who can't, don't.


Again:

There's significant reason for doubt about the concept of AGW. Deal with it. If you want to claim kinship with the side that's "on the side of science", don't be so antagonistic to science's true friend through the ages: SKEPTICISM.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: johnfajardohenry and 7 guests