Is It All Just Hot Air? (Global Warming)

Albuquerque Journal ^ | 7/23/06 | John Fleck

[Steve Van Doorn]

JasonC proven years ago they ignored Stefan-Boltzmann law. Do the math yourself it isn't that hard dude. It really isn't.
You can add 2+2 all day long it will never equal 5.

[sauropod]

review

[mulligan]

Even handed makes it true? What nonsense. The whole issue is full of lies and politics. Will we ever wake up?

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I know ancient geezers have memory problems"

Why the personal attacks?

[ChessExpert]

The Cooling World article I mentioned did not specify that an Ice Age would occur in the 70's (by 1980). The 1975 article may not have explicitly predicted an imminent Ice Age. But the Newsweek article was very alarmist in considering the likelihood and danger of global cooling. It referred to the opinions and findings of climatologists and others who were presented as experts. How did this happen?

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/09/15/the-cooling-world

[Mr. Brightside]

evidence from Greenland temperature records showing the North Atlantic island was cooler in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first

That's because in the 1970's we were still moving into an Ice Age.

[ChessExpert]

april15Bendovr, you might be interested.

[centurion316]

One popular notion amongst Glaciologists was that the Antartic ice cap would reach a critcal mass and, reacting to intense pressure, weight, and reduced friction in a melt zone at the boundary between ice and bedrock, the ice would collapse like a giant souffle. This would greatly increase the surface area of the ice cap as it expanded over the Southern Ocean, increasing proportionally the albedo in those parts thereby rapidly reducing global temperatures.

Ain't this fun. Don't know what happened to that idea, but I know some guys who rode it to tenure and some nice grants. I suppose they don't list those publications on their vitae these days.

[JasonC]

Fallacy of authority.

Suppose for the sake of argument it is 1.2 and not 0.6. Since the community you site continually says 3-5 not 1.2, why aren't you running after them for their error, 3-6 times the size of the one you'd impute to me?

Because the direction is more important than the figure?

It is possible I've missed some factor and I'm off by 2 times - though I based my reasoning on a power budget your provided, and it is at least as likely any error in the estimate comes from there, rather than my reasoning, if error there is. Physically informed calculations like that can miss by a factor of 2, it does happen. But they don't miss by an order of magnitude. And none of those alleging an order of magnitude higher temperature response, can even name the source of the power they are alleging as operating.

I've asked you about fifty times to name the power source that can supposedly keep the whole earth glowing 5C hotter. You've trolled every website there is and I imagine asked all your friends, but I still don't have a power source. Not even one to test, let alone one that passes.

Seems to me the honest thing to do in the circumstances is to admit you don't know what the scale of warming will be, and that you actually don't have any good reason to believe the headline 3-5C figures, that you can't tell the rest of us how that makes physical sense, and that you are flat guessing if you agree with it.

[cogitator]

Why the personal attacks?

Because "ancient_geezer" continues to post outdated and misleading material and never changes any of it. I've pointed out the OISM petition hoax to him numerous times, and still he posts it as authoritative.

[cogitator]

You're using the wrong blackbody radiation temperature for Earth, JasonC.

See post 85 in this thread:

650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations

And remember I told you to consult with this particular author before continuing. (Also note the comments in post 92 and 98.)

This might be useful as well: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/geo232/Notes.pdf (And don't think I can explain the physics; I couldn't pass my grad school P-chem comps. That's why I consult with the experts when the equations get thick.)

As for your question, the 1.2 C is for the instantaneous effect of CO2 doubling with nothing else changing -- as Raypierre notes, this wouldn't happen, you'd have to have positive water vapor feedback, leading to a prediction of a stronger temperature increase than 1.2 C. The big uncertainty factor is cloud reflection and absorption effects.

Good luck! Supplementary material below.

[Steve Van Doorn]

”As for your question, the 1.2 C is for the instantaneous effect of CO2 doubling with nothing else changing -- as Raypierre notes, this wouldn't happen, you'd have to have positive water vapor feedback”

That proves he isn’t a scientists. You can’t just add random numbers into you calculation and hope they stick. You have to prove it.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I've pointed out the OISM petition hoax to him numerous times, and still he posts it as authoritative."

As i stated earlier OISM petition has mostly physicist. Your article states because there are mostly physicists they shouldn't be recognized.

I couldn't disagree more. If there are problems with math the physicists are the ones that will step up and say something. That is how things are supposed to work.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I know ancient geezers have memory problems"

Why the personal attacks?

Even if you are right that the petition is misleading(which I totally disagree with you.) You resorted to personal attacks... WHY?

[Straight Vermonter]

If your time period is 1700-2000, it looks like we are warming. If your time scale is 1400-2000, it doesn't.

Even the recent warming of the last 30 years is somewhat suspect. All temperature data is adjusted to account for changes in land use. How much of an adjustment should be made is a subject of some debate.

[JasonC]

Is or is not the watts in at the surface 492? Your diagram says it is.

Is or is not the temperature at the surface approximately 18C? Every reputable source says it is, to within a degree or so.

The delta T, first order, is (496/492)^.25 times (273+18) = 291.59.

Let's say the correct surface temperature is 15C rather than 18C, fine, that +18 on the right becomes +15, and the answer becomes 288.584. One way you get 0.59 C and the other way you get 0.584 C.

Power at the surface and temperature at the surface have to be used to get a change in temperature at the surface. You don't use a temperature from the edge of space or cloud tops, and you don't use a power that is some minute fraction of the total power.

If you want to transform the problem into other units (watts solar insolation equivalent rather than watts absolute e.g.) you can do so, but then you also have to transform the power term from CO2, which is 4, at the surface, from doubling CO2 from present levels. Past CO2 changes only give 2.4W, or .6 times the above figures, or approximately +0.35C.

Observed delta T is already seen on the order of 0.6C, and some of that is early in the century before CO2 rises. The increase since CO2 rose is roughly right for the 0.35C theoretically predicated, without any hocus pocus feedbacks merely alleged by waving the hands.

The empirical CO2 observation, power measurement, observed temperature change (already), all agree with the known physics of the SB law without any such imaginary multipliers or extra factors of 2 then 2 more then 2 more, that are needed to boostrap reality into the scaremonger predictions.

Global warming by greenhouse effect is real, present, already operating, and modest in scope. So will any further future change from the same cause. A degree or less, probably half a degree, with no dramatic acceleration in the observed trend.

And the rest is utter nonsense.

[Steve Van Doorn]

you are not going to get it any clearer then JasonC last post cogitator. It isn't difficult.

[ChessExpert]

Quoting (myself) in post 145:

The Newsweek article was very alarmist in considering the likelihood and danger of global cooling. It referred to the opinions and findings of climatologists and others who were presented as experts. How did this happen?

It occurred to me that Newsweek might have cherry picked quotes and misrepresented science. If true, that would be big black eye for Newsweek.

I went over your posts 120:

Of course, back then they were all convinced that the globe was cooling.

and 140:

One popular notion amongst Glaciologists was that the Antarctic ice cap would reach a critical mass and ...

It seems that Newsweek article represented climatologists and other experts at least somewhat fairly. If these experts were so convinced of global cooling then, and many are so convinced of global warming today, what are we to conclude? A lack of humility? Confusion between firm knowledge and speculation? Ideological or other inappropriate motivations? A deficit in wisdom?

As I review the many excellent posts from all parties, it appears that the subject matter is very complex. There are many variables mentioned, unmentioned, considered, and not yet considered. The influences on the world’s climate are too complex for us to make bold statements. Yet bold statements about “The Cooling World” and “Global Warming” have been made. In my opinion, these exaggerated claims are a disservice to both the better researchers, and to citizens at large.

[cogitator]

That proves he isn’t a scientists. You can’t just add random numbers into you calculation and hope they stick. You have to prove it.

Why do you think he's adding random numbers into a calculation? The question regards SOLELY the effect of a CO2 doubling, i.e., the radiative forcing resulting from that change. While the effect can be calculated, it wouldn't occur absent any other climate system effects -- that's his point.

[cogitator]

Even if you are right that the petition is misleading(which I totally disagree with you.)

The paper accompanying the petition was faked to look like a publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences had to issue a disclaimer because of it.

You resorted to personal attacks... WHY?

Because ancient_geezer doesn't respond to constructive criticism any more.