Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little Fish

Who do you believe on global warming?

218 posts in this topic

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?

As I understand it, he is claiming Dessler doesn't understand his paper and is misrepresenting it, and is currently in the middle of publishing his formal and wider response to Dessler. that's not just a difference in opinion, that's a big issue, and one of them is going to end up looking stupid.

"I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Dessler’s paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system. To whet your appetite..."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/

so he's not revealing everything in his immediate response.

"I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-on-cloud-feedback/

so the points you raise are by no means accepted points of facts, just opinions that are currently being strongly contested.

Yes correct, it is Dessler 2011 i'm referring to. He pretty much outline the problems, have you read it?

I did read through Dessler and followed the analyses last year, I don't have time now, but I would need to look again to refresh myself. At the time I was not convinced Dessler had anything significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Keeping burping up the same crap does not change the facts. If we have a greenhouse gas of which the atmosphere contains less than 400 ppm (you seem to have a problem converting percent into ppm as I already posted above the percentile of 0.0360%, having problems in both math and physics is not a good omen for your future as meteorologist, you may not be able to pay back your student loan), and that gas is responsible for 3 to 12 degrees of heat retention in the atmosphere, it is quite normal that a few ppm increase or decrease would cause a large difference. 4ppm of the atmosphere is one percent of the total carbon dioxide. 8 ppm atm more/less CO2 could account for your +- 0.5, 16 ppm for your +- 1 degree.

not sure I follow your maths as even correct, but you seem to be assuming there is a linear increase of temperature with a linear increase in co2 which is not the case. a doubling of co2 is required to produce the same quantity of warming as the last quantity of warming, so the effects of linearly increasing co2 become progressively smaller. the chart below (the amount of bending in the line is disputed) looks something like this:

image9.gif

as you increase the co2 from zero on the x axis, the temperature responds at an ever decreasing response to the same quantity of co2 increase. rapidly at first, then slowing down. you seem to be suggesting that increasing the co2 by a few ppm has the same effect as the first few ppm which it doesn't. This is why the debate is about feedbacks. the alarmists need extra feedback to makes things look scary and those feedbacks are not found in the data.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is completely nonsens. So many errors dont know where to start.

Its not 0.0360%, its 0.0392% thats your first mistake but let us just say its 0.0360%.

You second mistake would be to believe that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in the little ice age was 0.0360% or 360 ppmv(uhh yes i can convert ppmv into percentages, not that hard). Your third mistake would be your caculations, a decrease of 16 ppmv would not make temperatures drop 1 degree. Again your calculations show you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

But let us just say you are correct. A decrease in 16 ppmv would make temperatures drop about 1 degree. So pre-industrial level of CO2 was around 290 ppmv, now its 390 ppmv. So if i use your form of caculation Earth has warmed 6.25 degress since pre-industrial times. If that* was correct you wound't be sitting here.

Questionmark as i said, you should have studied what climate sensitivity was before posting your post.

Either you retract this statement or I'll show how many times you have copy pasted without references.

* - edit

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.

that's right, the alleged warming is within natural variabilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's right, the alleged warming is within natural variabilty.

Right, so it took between 1250 and 1450 to reglaciate Greenland and now it has lost 1/3 of the ice since 1970? Good one man, very good one. Nothing like a laugh in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, he is claiming Dessler doesn't understand his paper and is misrepresenting it, and is currently in the middle of publishing his formal and wider response to Dessler. that's not just a difference in opinion, that's a big issue, and one of them is going to end up looking stupid.

"I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Dessler’s paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system. To whet your appetite..."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/

so he's not revealing everything in his immediate response.

"I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-on-cloud-feedback/

so the points you raise are by no means accepted points of facts, just opinions that are currently being strongly contested.

I did read through Dessler and followed the analyses last year, I don't have time now, but I would need to look again to refresh myself. At the time I was not convinced Dessler had anything significant.

I must be misunderstanding S&B and L&C aswell then. So S6B and L6C aren't saying that ocean warming cause ocean warming?

I'll have to wait for Spencer's rebuttal then to understand Spencer and Lindzen papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

Does that make sense?

No, as most of your "sensitiveness" carousel. But keep on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, as most of your "sensitiveness" carousel. But keep on.

I know climate science is hard to understand, especially when you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

I'll try again.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless

Try to figure it out. When you got it, you will know why i dont take your posts seriously.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know climate science is hard to understand, especially when you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

I'll try again.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless

Try to figure it out. When you got it, you will know why i dont take your posts seriously.

Are you going to keep up the BS instead of showing any demonstrable science? Because I believe the weather channel still is in need of an intermission clown.... and that seems to be your future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so it took between 1250 and 1450 to reglaciate Greenland and now it has lost 1/3 of the ice since 1970?

have you informed nasa and noaa about your findings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to keep up the BS instead of showing any demonstrable science? Because I believe the weather channel still is in need of an intermission clown.... and that seems to be your future.

Questionmark i have more than once explained why your arguments are ridiculous.

If you cannot accept that, its your problem.

Btw i could ask the same?

Are you going to keep up presenting BS as the truth?

If so, i've heard the History channel has a job opening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you informed nasa and noaa about your findings?

Don't have to, they are quite as capable of reading history books as I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionmark i have more than once explained why your arguments are ridiculous.

If you cannot accept that, its your problem.

Btw i could ask the same?

Are you going to keep up presenting BS as the truth?

If so, i've heard the History channel has a job opening!

So far you have done nothing but work off the Gatech BS catalog against global warming (whether you know if it exists or not is another question) intermixed with some attempts to insult me.

First argument, it only a few degrees while omitting that the difference between ice age and moderate climate is only a few degrees

second argument, carbon dioxide just raised in trace amounts so its not important omitting that carbon dioxide itself is a trace gas

then we come with climate sensitivity, which exists but does not explain away the heating as shown by Lorius (1990), Hoffert (1992), Hansen (1993), Chylek (2007) and Bender and Schwartz (2010). And omitting that as soon as the last glacier is gone there is no more corrective.

You know, if all this would not have been tried since 1990 and not intermixed with plump tactics to make the opponent loose its cool I would say you have a great future, once O'Really? retires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far you have done nothing but work off the Gatech BS catalog against global warming (whether you know if it exists or not is another question) intermixed with some attempts to insult me.

First argument, it only a few degrees while omitting that the difference between ice age and moderate climate is only a few degrees

second argument, carbon dioxide just raised in trace amounts so its not important omitting that carbon dioxide itself is a trace gas

then we come with climate sensitivity, which exists but does not explain away the heating as shown by Lorius (1990), Hoffert (1992), Hansen (1993), Chylek (2007) and Bender and Schwartz (2010). And omitting that as soon as the last glacier is gone there is no more corrective.

You know, if all this would not have been tried since 1990 and not intermixed with plump tactics to make the opponent loose its cool I would say you have a great future, once O'Really? retires.

Climate sensitivity cant explain heating.

Climate sensitivity is just a measure on how temperatures respond to changes in the radiative forcing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a combination of my memory and my outdoor thermometer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a doubling of co2 is required to produce the same quantity of warming as the last quantity of warming, so the effects of linearly increasing co2 become progressively smaller. the chart below (the amount of bending in the line is disputed) looks something like this:

image9.gif

as you increase the co2 from zero on the x axis, the temperature responds at an ever decreasing response to the same quantity of co2 increase. rapidly at first, then slowing down. you seem to be suggesting that increasing the co2 by a few ppm has the same effect as the first few ppm which it doesn't. This is why the debate is about feedbacks. the alarmists need extra feedback to makes things look scary and those feedbacks are not found in the data.

Just one thought here: CO2 is increasing along an exponential growth curve (increasing at an increasing rate). CO2's effects are increasing at a decreasing rate. These two curves are, essentially, mirror images of each other. What happens when you put them together? Any resulting curve will be increasing. The effects could have a linear relationship to CO2 (or they might be anywhere between the two extremes). In other words, the shape of the CO2:warming curve may be irrelevant, without even considering issues like feedback loops.

And I don't consider myself an alarmist. I believe we should think very carefully about what we do about warming. Some wild-eyed types are proposing cures that may be worse than the disease. And some other wild-eyed types are trying to justify an anti-warming stance with the excuse that mitigation is expensive (not necessarily so).

The appropriate course of action seems to be the middle ground: implement the easy fixes first. The US will eventually have to convert to natural gas to avoid bankruptcy. That's not even a warming issue. But it will have a climate benefit: switching the trucking fleet to natural gas will reduce soot, removing one source of warming. Once this process is well along, we can start converting to clean energy. View natural gas as a bridge to the future.

I have listed a number of do-it-yourself approaches on UM before. There are lots of people in the US with home workshops; they'll convert their houses just to save money if somebody will show them what to do. Prevention/mitigation, in this case, is CHEAPER than doing nothing. And a small tax incentive (like allowing an income-deduction for materials) will get them started. (The money "saved" on taxes is matched at about four-to-one by the tax payer; the income taxes generated when this money is spent come very close to paying off the tax cost and in many circumstances even produce MORE tax revenue; in the US, we have figured out a way to have our cake and eat it too.).

That solar generator I mentioned before is saving me some money, but not enough to let me cut myself off from the grid. So I still have a monthly electric bill. In another five-to-ten years, I hope to see the technology improve enough that I don't need the power company (OG&E generates its power with natural gas.).

And there are other approaches that will cost very little: replace dark roofing materials with light-colored ones, thus increasing the earth's albedo. Everyone who uses asphalt shingles (most of us) has to replace his roof about every twenty years or so; when the current one is no longer useable, replace it with a light-colored one. No extra money spent, but we have made an impact on warming. Something-for-nothing.

We need pass no laws that directly impact an individual's free choice, at least at this stage of the game. If you don't want to do something about warming, you don't have to. You can continue to spend money you don't need to while complaining about how expensive coversion would be.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a combination of my memory and my outdoor thermometer.

Outdoor thermometers are good. The mercury thermometer, invented in the 1750s, is still the instrument of choice for weather stations, both professional ones and backyard ones.

Memory, on the other hand, is not really up to the task of measuring temperature changes over thirty years, let alone over a century or four centuries. Beyond that, we need proxies, like tree rings and sediment layers.

I had no idea that nineteenth century storms could be seen in tree rings until I found the patterns in one of my chronologies. It showed the storm of 1862 that drowned California (the "Noachian" Flood), then came east to freeze Oklahoma. There was one in 1864 I haven't matched up with anything and probably a small one in 1866. Nothing much happened in the 1870s, but 1881 was one to remember (Laura Engils Wilder wrote about it in "The First Four Years.") and 1886 devastated the open range; 1894 produced severe snow storms in the Rockies and major ice storms in Oklahoma. All those are written in the rings of trees growing nine miles south of Henryetta, Oklahoma. And I'm not nearly old enough to remember all that.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.