U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming - Page 12 - New England Patriots Forums

patsfan13 · #**111** 01-01-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

PF13, I've read your links on water vapor and the subsequent math. I think there are 3 things that these analyses regularly (and somewhat disturbingly) omit:

1. The calculations/discussions are for the temperature rise we've recently witnessed, which are then divided by (likely incorrect) values for the role of water vapor.

Why do you believe the value of water vapor in the greenhouse equation is incorrect?

The relatively value of greenhouse effect per mole from CO2, methane, NO and H2O are known quantities. THe relative amounts of these substances are known to a certain extent. So their relative contributions to the TOTAL green house can be defined with a fair degree of accuracy.

Quote:

But the role of water vapor is in the greenhouse effect writ large, i.e., that 33degrees celcius that keeps the planet from being one big ice ball. One could further minimize the role of carbon by taking the effect of the atmosphere and adding it to the effect of solar radiation and geothermal heat, and say that of the 500+ degrees fahrenheit between present-day earth and absolute zero, a miniscule percentage is caused by man.

When you refer to carbon can I assume you mean CO2?

Quote:

Then we could take that miniscule percentage, multiply it by the actual changes since the industrial age, and come up with a tiny fraction of a degree of heat.

In essence that is correct CO2 as a factor in the earth's temp is rather minor and the human component is even smaller.

Quote:

Needless to say, the methodology is faulty. If you're measuring the role of anthropogenic carbon against entirety of the greenhouse effect -- that is, the thermal delta caused by the presence of an atmosphere -- you come up with a tiny fraction.

You then say, "aha! This is the fraction of all warming caused by anthropogenic carbon!", and multiply that by the recent warming -- since the recent warming is part of the overall 33 degrees of greenhouse effect.

So, you multiply the tiny fraction of the entire system -- man's involvement --by our temperature change over the last century -- .7 degrees c mean temperature -- to yield an even tinier number.

Presto! Nothing to worry about, throw another log on the fire!

Now, if we believe that all things are equal, and equally changing all the time, this might make sense. But they're not Natural cycles do not often result in rapid changes such as the ones we're seeing. (see below.)

I would dispute the rapid change, we have not seen any rapid change in temps. We have seen projections based on computer models of rapid changes in temps but there aren't observations to back up the models. Any observed changed is more readily explained by natural solar processes than any activities of man.

WHy is measuring the human contribution to greenhouse effect against the total greenhouse effect faulty> The Atmosphere is a process trying to isolate 1 component (human greenhouse gas emissions (inc, methane and NO) and define them as being somehow more or less important than other components is not logical.

Quote:

2. The absorption of longwave radiation, such as IR (heat,) is different for water vapor and CO2. The effect size usually used in sources like your links ignore this difference; and of course, you knew this was coming -- CO2's ability to trap heat is therefore underestimated (see table, and article, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

I would disagree here the links show the relative amount of greenhouse effect per compound. This would include asorbsion of energy at different frequencies. Of course every compound asorbs energy as can be seen in their spectrograph.

Quote:

3. The "residence time" for water vapor in the atmosphere is about 1-2 weeks on average. YMMV regarding the local retention of water vapor. Relative humidity is approximately constant, since the variation in WV concentration is "self-correcting."

That is to say, in the presence of universally warmer air, water vapor will indeed increase, and therefore it acts as a feedback (rather than a forcing). But in the absence of temperature increases from other sources, the balance of evaporation and precipitation/condensation of WV will not spontaneuously increase or decrease.

So in other words: WV is a component of a large natural system, which goes through cycles measured in the millenia or even the millions of years. The cycles do provide the opportunity for more/less WV in the atmosphere, when temperatures rise. WV then acts to trap additional heat, providing a feedback loop.

You are still correct that the majority of greenhouse effect is from water vapor -- about 70%-90% including cloud formation. You are incorrect in concluding that CO2 is therefore insignificant. Of course, it's easier to be significant to us when the percentage of effect (9-26%) is applied to the whole greenhouse effect (33 degrees c), not solely the delta over 100 years (.7 degrees c).

When you apply the big change over the last couple of centuries (industrial activities increasing atmospheric carbon about 25%,) to the entirety of the Greenhouse effect (about 33 c), you curiously enough get about .7c -- about the amount the atmosphere has warmed in the last century:

.09 (low end of the range of influence of atmospheric carbon within gh effect)
x.25 (25% change in atmospheric carbon due to anthropogenic activities)
x33 (degrees centigrade greenhouse effect adds to current earth temp.)
----
.7425

In your analysis you mention the small .7C increase in temps over the last century and talk about greenhouse effects and totally ignore the climate driver for the earth: THE SUN and the fact that solar activity is at a thousand year maximum as well as the doubling of the strenght of the Sun's magnetic field. This would clearly affect the earth's climate and temperature.

Quote:

Persistence of carbon for decades if not centuries guarantees that we will be dealing with sequelae of the current state of affairs, even absent further buildup of carbon. Remember, the surface of the oceans are taking up about 2 gt of carbon, and land surfaces take up about 1. We are churning out 7.3 at present. Assuming that uptake capability is not affected (i.e., by disruption of currents which provide the un-carbonated deep water to the surface to account for new uptake,) we are 4.3 gt over budget per annum. (Remember, total atmospheric carbon is currently about 750 gt, so 4.3 gt is not a trifling amount. Also remember we have not had this concentration in our atmosphere for at least 650,000 years.)

The "panic" you see is that we've crossed a threshold as regards carbon forcings. Do you really want to see another 86gt infused in the atmosphere within 20 years, for a total of 836? the rapidity of these changes, as compared with the natural scale of things, is what causes the sense of urgency among climatologists.

In the next century, in addition to new carbon forcings, we have feedbacks and the previously injected carbon still to cope with. Hence the 1.7-5 degree predicted change. By the way, if you take those mean temp changes and compare them to the mean global temp change between the present and the "little ice age", the range of difference is from about 2 to 5 times larger. These small global changes are reflected in larger local changes (witness the ongoing loss of the earth's sea ice -- which, as we mentioned, creates yet another feedback.)

What the sources you quote do is multiply the cause of the change by the change.

The reality is that the change is the outcome of multiplying the cause of the change, by the entire gh effect prior to anthropogenic inputs. I would argue that this is the more accurate and appropriate way to measure the impact of the variable on the constant, using non-anthropogenic gh effect as the constant here, and with the recognition that (slower) natural changes are always in play.

PFnV

I disagree that carbon 'forces' anything. It does provide feed back as water vapor does but it is a minor contributor to the entire process. Presuming warmer temps (which I do not) plant additional plant growth will consume additional CO2.

The other factor of course is whether in a hundred years we will be using carbon based fuels as our primary energy sources. This is yet to be determined. If the peak oil scenarios are correct then the amount of CO2 will be reduces with or without the actions of politicans and special interest groups.

PatsFanInVa · #**112** 01-02-2008, 05:52 AM

Yes, relative reflective values can be known for each variable in the system, by progressively removing one or more influences, such as water vapor or CO2 (the remaining inputs still act in combinations). But the values need to be plotted for longwave radiation, such as infrared (heat).

I think we've soundly beat this horse, though I can go back and do the point-by-point quote-by-quote thing more if you want.

What we're going to arrive at is the following:

IPCC and the bulk of the scientific community do, in fact, account for the sun's magnetosphere, sunspot cycles, etc.

This is what results in "ranges" of outcomes from IPCC documents. At some ranges one or more natural cycle is emphasized, at other ranges de-emphasized; with some assumptions, the natural cycle is considered a "steady state" for the time being, others assume increases or decreases. When you see the IPCC ranges, they account for multiple hundreds of models being run.

What your argument does is says "I don't believe in the IPCC models. Why not just isolate a few variables, run one or two scenarios based on those variables, and hope for uncertainty?"

So, each anthropogenic global warming "opponent" comes up with his own single case model, or two- or three-case model. This results in substituting one or two much less robust, much less complex models, for a few hundred which take into account as many known variables as possible, with different stresses on different aspects of the model.

As you say, the IPCC models may not stress a certain variable to one's liking. They have to proceed from the atmospheric, oceanic, satellite, and other hard data available. So if I insist that they did not properly account for an eclipse, and decide that the eclipse had a tremendous influence on global warming, that does not necessarily make the IPCC model flawed. Similarly, the values used for the magnetosphere, sunspot activity, etc., are derived from a wealth of data throughout UN member nations' scientific communities. The last IPCC report is 1300 pages or so and is thoroughly documented.

It may be good for the debate that some contrarians are trying to make as much noise as possible, whether for ideological reasons, or because they truly believe the science is suspect, or even because "popularized" science just plain pi$$es them off in the abstract -- or even because they're paid at least in part to be contrarian.

Obviously the models should have to face challenges, from any climatologists who seriously disagree, or from electrical engineers and the like, and just plain laymen who think the models are missing something or underemphasizing something.

But whether or not the debate's over on patsfans.com, I think it is in the international community.

It all comes down to risk management: there is a very good chance of more radical climate change, at a far more rapid rate than we observe in nature, over the next century, unless our policies change.

There is a slim chance of a less than 1 degree c shift in climate, if our policies don't change.

There is a better chance of a less radical shift if our policies change.

When we weigh these risks, it is not required to prove that a radical shift in climate will be catastrophic. We know it has been in the past, and it is very likely it would be in the near future, but proving the future is impossible. We know one thing for certain: the ranges of temperature change, carbon concentrations (mainly CO2), and the like, which we currently are pursuing, are well beyond what nature's cycles provide in a similarly collapsed time-frame, on a global scale (i.e., non-local fluctuation.)

Nevertheless, we are able to make plans that assume most likely cases, and contingency plans for less likely cases, and make our future policy based on those plans. That's just good stewarship.

Off to struggle for the legal tender,

PFnV

patsfan13 · #**113** 01-02-2008, 08:11 AM

The IPCC does not take extraterristerial factors into account. Define the 'bulk' of the scientific community. I have seen no polls about the % of scientist on their opinion about Global warming. As I have said before polls are irrelevant, People wouldn't have believed in relativity if you took a poll in 1819. Many IPCC have come out in opposition to the IPCC report.

Fogbuster · #**114** 01-02-2008, 09:12 AM

.

Polls are what people rely on when the facts are against them. When science looks for answers, science does not conduct a poll. If you took a poll 500 years ago, most people would say the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth was flat. Polls are opinions, not necessarily facts.

//

PatsFanInVa · #**115** 01-02-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The IPCC does not take extraterristerial factors into account.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

Second paragraph, page 6. They use both natural-only and natural+anthropogenic models, and of course solar and other extraterrestrial variations are considered.

Quote:

Define the 'bulk' of the scientific community. I have seen no polls about the % of scientist on their opinion about Global warming. As I have said before polls are irrelevant, People wouldn't have believed in relativity if you took a poll in 1819.

Particularly because Einstein's first paper on relativity was published in 1905. But point taken; it's a matter of the most credible and best-supported evidence. In Einstein's case, he predicted various outcomes, such as the parallax effect making stars visible "in front of the sun" during a solar eclipse. In the case of global warming, since the early '80s the warming trend has been predicted to accelerate, and it has. Just as various other hypotheses could be proffered to explain the parallax effect (perhaps there were holes in the moon, and sunlight penetrated, creating the illusion of stars?), the most credible explanation was, as in this case, in the theory which predicted the effect.

Quote:

Many IPCC have come out in opposition to the IPCC report.

One man's "few" is another man's "many," evidently. Why don't we quantify it? Tell me how many IPCC scientists have issued statements, signed petitions, etc., disavowing the most recent IPCC report?

This does not mean a poll of people who say "warming might be good for some people." This does not mean "400 scientists some of whom were on the IPCC." That is not the same thing as "400 IPCC scientists."

This means, how many IPCC scientists have said/written "This report is bullcrap"?

If you want to assail the conclusions of a body of thousands of scientists, claiming there's no "consensus," hows about you tell me who disagrees?

Or, if you don't care about the numbers, why make a big deal about whether or not there is consensus?

PFnV

Fogbuster · #**116** 01-03-2008, 07:15 PM

.

OOOPs. Make that 401 (and counting). The Russians just checked in:

Holy Plutocrats, Batman, it's going to get "colder" again????

//

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode