All that is missing the point.
Sure, adding more CO2 to the mix should make us marginally warmer all other things being equal.
It is all about the models.
To assert that our relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect is going to cause significant problems, you (the generic climate alarmist ‘you’) must demonstrate a workable understanding of all the significant dynamics. The GCMs are THE attempt by our community of experts to do just that! If the GCMs do not predict the very dynamics they are intended to predict, dynamics for which we now have enough data to check, then they are not useful.
To argue the specifics of one or two or several dynamics outside of the debate of the usefulness of the models, is like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Each man touches a different part (tail, trunk, leg, other) of the elephant and is convinced of the nature of the elephant (climate). Each is very narrowly correct and adamant, at the same time, completely wrong.
An example would be the role of aerosols or small particulates. As we release CO2, we’re also releasing aerosols. The CO2 causes some warming, which adds to the water vapor and cloud dynamics. The particulates also play a role in cloud dynamics. So, depending on the relative strengths of the dynamics involved, it is possible that more water vapor added with more particulates may increase high altitude clouds. More high altitude clouds would increase the Earth’s albedo and thus reflecting solar radiation and cool us. Thus far, we lack real detail in our understand of water vapor/aerosols/particulates and cloud formation and dynamics. We know that solar wind and cosmic radiation play in the mix. But, so far, we have not been able to reasonably model cloud formation and behavior. Until we can, we not missing a puzzle piece. We’re missing half the puzzle.
I’d like the guys who do this kind of work to keep doing it. But, I’d prefer less hubris on their parts. They are blind men checking out an incredib
All that is missing the point.
Sure, adding more CO2 to the mix should make us marginally warmer all other things being equal.
It is all about the models.
To assert that our relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect is going to cause significant problems, you (the generic climate alarmist ‘you’) must demonstrate a workable understanding of all the significant dynamics. The GCMs are THE attempt by our community of experts to do just that! If the GCMs do not predict the very dynamics they are intended to predict, dynamics for which we now have enough data to check, then they are not useful.
To argue the specifics of one or two or several dynamics outside of the debate of the usefulness of the models, is like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Each man touches a different part (tail, trunk, leg, other) of the elephant and is convinced of the nature of the elephant (climate). Each is very narrowly correct and adamant, at the same time, completely wrong.
An example would be the role of aerosols or small particulates. As we release CO2, we’re also releasing aerosols. The CO2 causes some warming, which adds to the water vapor and cloud dynamics. The particulates also play a role in cloud dynamics. So, depending on the relative strengths of the dynamics involved, it is possible that more water vapor added with more particulates may increase high altitude clouds. More high altitude clouds would increase the Earth’s albedo and thus reflecting solar radiation and cool us. Thus far, we lack real detail in our understand of water vapor/aerosols/particulates and cloud formation and dynamics. We know that solar wind and cosmic radiation play in the mix. But, so far, we have not been able to reasonably model cloud formation and behavior. Until we can, we not missing a puzzle piece. We’re missing h
All that is missing the point.
Sure, adding more CO2 to the mix should make us marginally warmer all other things being equal.
It is all about the models.
To assert that our relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect is going to cause significant problems, you (the generic climate alarmist ‘you’) must demonstrate a workable understanding of all the significant dynamics. The GCMs are THE attempt by our community of experts to do just that! If the GCMs do not predict the very dynamics they are intended to predict, dynamics for which we now have enough data to check, then they are not useful.
To argue the specifics of one or two or several dynamics outside of the debate of the usefulness of the models, is like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Each man touches a different part (tail, trunk, leg, other) of the elephant and is convinced of the nature of the elephant (climate). Each is very narrowly correct and adamant, at the same time, completely wrong.
An example would be the role of aerosols or small particulates. As we release CO2, we’re also releasing aerosols. The CO2 causes some warming, which adds to the water vapor and cloud dynamics. The particulates also play a role in cloud dynamics. So, depending on the relative strengths of the dynamics involved, it is possible that more water vapor added with more particulates may increase high altitude clouds. More high altitude clouds would increase the Earth’s albedo and thus reflecting solar radiation and cool us. Thus far, we lack real detail in our understand of water vapor/aerosols/particulates and cloud formation and dynamics. We know that solar wind and cosmi
OFM, are you really that impressed that we’ve understood the trend of climate change for the past 11,000 years and scientists are able to predict the climate (within a very wide range of estimates might I add) for a decade or so? Doesn’t take much to impress you does it!!!
I bet if they plugged the result of “Mole Farts squared times pi” into their model, it would get the same result. Iv’e seen these models before. You keep plugging numbers in them until you get the results that you want, and then “presto”, you are Nostradamus!!!
Skinneej,
the vaunted Micheal Mann hockey stick al-gore-rhythms have been shown to do nearly exactly that in peer reviewed published work. If you feed the system noise, it draws a hockey stick.
Skinneej,
the vaunted Micheal Mann hockey stick al-gore-rhythms have been shown to do nearly exactly that in peer reviewed published work. If you feed the system noise, it draws a hockey stick.
“…full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”
17’ Henry O Hornet
26’ Palmer Scott
Indeed! All great models give you the answer that you were hoping to see. If it doesn't, the model needs to be fixed until it does!!!
All that is missing the point.
Sure, adding more CO2 to the mix should make us marginally warmer all other things being equal.
It is all about the models.
To assert that our relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect is going to cause significant problems, you (the generic climate alarmist ‘you’) must demonstrate a workable understanding of all the significant dynamics. The GCMs are THE attempt by our community of experts to do just that! If the GCMs do not predict the very dynamics they are intended to predict, dynamics for which we now have enough data to check, then they are not useful.
To argue the specifics of one or two or several dynamics outside of the debate of the usefulness of the models, is like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Each man touches a different part (tail, trunk, leg, other) of the elephant and is convinced of the nature of the elephant (climate). Each is very narrowly correct and adamant, at the same time, completely wrong.
An example would be the role of aerosols or small particulates. As we release CO2, we’re also releasing aerosols. The CO2 causes some warming, which adds to the water vapor and cloud dynamics. The particulates also play a role in cloud dynamics. So, depending on the relative strengths of the dynamics involved, it is possible that more water vapor added with more particulates may increase high altitude clouds. More high altitude clouds would increase the Earth’s albedo and thus reflecting solar radiation
The Physicist and the Climatologist; Follow the Money
The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn?t, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don?t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average? see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge ris
All that is missing the point.
Sure, adding more CO2 to the mix should make us marginally warmer all other things being equal.
It is all about the models.
To assert that our relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect is going to cause significant problems, you (the generic climate alarmist ‘you’) must demonstrate a workable understanding of all the significant dynamics. The GCMs are THE attempt by our community of experts to do just that! If the GCMs do not predict the very dynamics they are intended to predict, dynamics for which we now have enough data to check, then they are not useful.
To argue the specifics of one or two or several dynamics outside of the debate of the usefulness of the models, is like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Each man touches a different part (tail, trunk, leg, other) of the elephant and is convinced of the nature of the elephant (climate). Each is very narrowly correct and adamant, at the same time, completely wrong.
An example would be the role of aerosols or small particulates. As we release CO2, we’re also releasing aerosols. The CO2 causes some warming, which adds to the water vapor and cloud dynamics. The particulates also play a role in cloud dynamics. So, depending on the relative strengths of the dynamics involved, it is possible that mo
quote:Originally posted by on a fishin mission
...
You understand the principles of the greenhouse effect but until a model accurately predicts the exact temperature change expected, the theory is false, even though you admit its true.
...
The problematic words there are ‘accurately’ and ‘exact.’
No model is exact. Models make predictions wrapped in uncertainties, literally.
In the graphics used in these discussions, the GCMs explicitly express their uncertainty depicted as error bars or shaded regions around the predicted value(s).
When the data which the model is intended to predict consistently and persistently falls OUTSIDE of those ranges, then the model is necessarily WRONG by definition. That is what those expressions of precision (or, lack thereof) mean. That is why modelers/scientist include them in their work.
So, no. I don’t reject principles of the greenhouse effect.
And, yes. I do reject the result of models when the models show themselves to be inaccurate - persistently and consistently inaccurate.
Since the first IPCC report with its catastrophic temperature predictions, each subsequent report has cut the predicted heating significantly. The assertion was that there was so much warming on the way that there was no way it was all natural - man must be to blame. Now, not only have the IPCC predictions shrunk, we are watching a statistically significant trend of in-situ and satellite measured data fall below the lowest of the model predictions and even outside of the error or uncertainty ranges. So, with a fraction of the formerly predicted heat, how are we to know how much MIGHT be human induced? We can’t.
Radiated Energy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin
March 12, 2012
ABSTRACT
The transfer of thermal energy by radiation is discussed in the context of the Earth’s
surface and its atmosphere.
When considering what happens as the Sun is warming
the surface each morning, it is noted that its radiation is being directed onto the land
surfaces
and some distance below the surface of the oceans.
So, additional radiation
supposedly transferring further thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the
warmer surface would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
. This law must
apply (on a macro scale) between any two points at any particular time. An apparent
violation cannot be excused on the basis of “net” radiation, because “net” radiation has
no corresponding physical entity and is meaningless and useless for determining heat
flow in situations when other processes are also involved.
It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body (and only a portion of
the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body.
All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way, and it can be deduced
that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The
radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be
in space.
Furthermore, the stability of sub-surface temperatures will tend to maintain the
observed close thermal equilibrium at the interface between the surface and the
atmosphere. Hence other heat loss mechanisms are likely to adjust, in order to
compensate for any reduced radiation.
Some commonly raised questions are answered in the Appendix, where there is also
discussion of temperature trends and climate cycles, as well as counter arguments for
several possible
No substantial evidence? All the evidence points to anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gas. Lets be honest, if there was any evidence suggesting global warming was not real and a hoax it would be presented and the person presenting would be the poster child for the gop and be an instant millionair. Talk shows, fox news, Hannity even the scientific would be all over it. We’re talking Nobel prize winning material. Quess what, there is no evidence that suggests that.
I lay down the challenge that no one could answer last time we had this discussion. Show me 1 peer reviewed and accepted study that disproves climate change and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
Okay OFM, I’ve accepted your challenge and posted the peer reviewed study above. And, unless you’re denying the past thousand years of physics, and specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics, your suggestion of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect is pure rubbish on it’s face!
P.S. You can donate the $100 to the cf.com football parlay in the name of Mixed Nutz.
…Politicians aren’t the “Oldest Profession”, but the results are still the same!!!
