Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Seems to be getting moist in my pants , is this due to CO2?

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.

Best link on this thread.

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.

Best link on this thread.

Some of the comments in response to that article are worth a read.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.

Best link on this thread.

Some of the comments in response to that article are worth a read.

I had a look
its like saying a chip pan on fire will heat the kitchen up.
well it will, until the water sprinklers kick in

if the earth warms up variables also come into play too
the earth cracks more and volcanoes pump our coolants !!


hopefully ...

The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years. We have theories, ideas, hopes and fears. I fear a mini or worse Yuge ice age not global warming, that would be wonderful, to return to the days of roman empires weather. When Hannibal could ride elephants across the alps...... The warming periods ushered in centuries of growth and prosperity for the world, of course there some losers, there will always be winners and losers.

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.

Best link on this thread.

Not really his methodology is flawed. Explained here;

first a word of caution. Clive Best is an AGW 'skeptic', and while he is more mathematically sophisticated than most AGW 'skeptics', he still breathlessly writes about the lack of warming over the last twelve years, and predicts cooling temperatures for the next decade because the lower uncertainty bound of the HadCM2 model short term climate forecast permits it. Any recommendation of one blog post by Clive Best should not be construed as a recommendation of any other blog post by Best, or the quality of his blog in general.

More importantly, Clive Best's attempt to calculate the effective altitude of radiation clearly fails on empirical grounds. Specifically, this is his calculated "effective altitude of radiation":





Clearly he shows the effective altitude of radiation on either sides of the spikes at 620 and 720 cm-1 as being between zero and 1000 meters. In contrast, as can be seen in the real spectrum he shows, at those wave numbers, the effective altitude of radiation is closer to 6000 meters {calculated as (ground temperature - brightness temperature)/lapse rate}:





As can be seen from his graph of the predicted IR spectra, he clearly gets the 660 cm-1 spike wrong as well, showing it as a dip (?!) for 300 ppmv, and as a barely discernable spike at 600 ppmv. That is so different from the obvious spike in the real world spectrum (at approx 390 ppmv) that you know (and he should have known) that he has got something significantly wrong.


Before addressing that specifically, I will note two minor things he omitted (perhaps for simplicity). The first is that he has not included a number of factors that broaden the absorption lines. Broadening increases the width of the lines, but also reduces the peak absorbance of the lines. In any event, he has not included doppler broadening, possibly does not include collissional broadening, and probably does not include some of the other minor forms of broadening.


The second factor is that he has not allowed for the difference in atmospheric profiles between the US Standard atmosphere and actual tropical conditions. Specifically, the atmosphere is thicker at the equator due to centrifugal "force", and also has a higher tropopause due to the greater strength of convective circulation. That later should reduce CO2 density, and might be accepted as the cause of the discrepancy except that mid latitude and even polar spectra show the same reduce absorbance relative to his calculated values (and hence higher effective altitude of radiation in the wings, and for the central spike).
Although these factors are sources of inaccuracy, they do not account for the major error in calculation. That is probably a product of his definition of effective altitude of radiation, which he defines as the highest altitude at which "... the absorption of photons of that wave length within a 100m thick slice of the atmosphere becomes greater than the transmission of photons". That is, it is the altitude of the highest layer at which less than half of the upward IR flux at the top of that altitude comes from that layer.


This definition is superficially similar to another common definition, ie, the lowest altitude from which at least half of the photons emitted upward from that altitude reach space. Importantly, however, this later definition is determined by the integrated absorption of all layers above the defined layer. Specifically, it is the layer such that the integrated absorption of all layers above it = 0.5. I think the layer picked out by Best's method is consistently biased low relative to that picked out by this later definition.


There are two other common definitions of the effective layer of radiation around.



The most common is:

"Here the effective emission level is defined as the level at which the climatological annual mean tropospheric temperature is equal to the emission temperature: (OLR/σ)1/4, where σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant."

(Source, h/t to Science of Doom)


That definition can be generalized to specific wave numbers, or spectral lines, and is used by Best in an earlier blog post specifically on the subject. It also needs to be modified slightly to allow for the central spike (which comes from the stratosphere). The difficulty of such a modification, plus a certain circularity in this definition makes others preferable. The third definition is the one I give above of "the temperature weighted mean altitude from which the radiation comes". I take it that the three common definitions pick out the same altitude, at least to a first order approximation. In contrast, Best's definition in the blog post to which you refer is of by (in some portions of the spectrum) at least 6 kms.


Despite this flaw, Best's blog post does give a good idea of the methods used in radiative models. However, his detailed results are inaccurate, in a way that does not reflect the inaccuracy of the radiative models used by scientists. This also applies to the graph shown by scaddenp @55 above, which was also created by Best. It is very indicative of the type of profiles likely to be seen, but should not be considered an accurate source. I discuss the accuracy of actual models briefly here, and in more detail in the comments.

https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2414&p=2

^ well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link. In the link he is trying to follow the derivation of an increase of 1.2 degrees C for every doubling of the concentration of CO2.

It turns out that it is based on the assumption that the temperature increase of 0.6 degrees C since 1790 is entirely due to the increase in CO2. So it is a circular argument!

^ Regardless the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more the earth warms.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years. We have theories, ideas, hopes and fears. I fear a mini or worse Yuge ice age not global warming, that would be wonderful, to return to the days of roman empires weather. When Hannibal could ride elephants across the alps...... The warming periods ushered in centuries of growth and prosperity for the world, of course there some losers, there will always be winners and losers.

There's not knowing, and there's not knowing the future with absolute certainty. Everything is about probabilities, and there's world of difference between not knowing at all, and extrapolating based on a mixture of sources.
It's right to be sceptical about models, in a similar way you might be about political polls, because although models are derived from real data, that data is never complete, and has both irregular and much lower spatial and temporal resolution: it's a best guess.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by longway

well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link.

It is in the comments below. My point was that he uses a flawed methodology.

It wasn't your point - it was someone elses...
This is what I was saying about bsnub reading someone else's comments, and parroting them as though they were his own to blind you with science and try to sound like he knows much more about it than he actually does.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Much of the Marxists strategy on all arguments is to just outlast your oponents. Keep endlessly putting out gibberish with pretty pictures, graphs, with the truth buried in the details of details on page 745, index F. Knowing very well that less then 1 in a million can ever find the flaws. Graphs, pictures, smiling faces all look so great, photo ops everyone.

I'm a long way from being a Marxist, and I have much greater staying power... I once deployed a programme that generated replies to a leftard's comments every time he replied... there's no knowing how many years he was there thrashing away at his keyboard, whilst I was paying no attention at all and living life... now that's trolling gold, baby

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Regardless the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more the earth warms.

That's not strictly true... the safer statement would be "the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the earth's climate changes".
It certainly isn't even or fixed, like stacking blankets, it's quite dynamic, and without definining the window you're looking at with this statement, it's a bit meaningless... do you suppose the CO2 just sits there in the sky accumulating until the Earth turns into Venus?

Here's an accessible-to-all primer:

Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.
Water vapor concentrations in the air are controlled by Earth’s temperature. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, expand air masses, and lead to higher humidity. Cooling causes water vapor to condense and fall out as rain, sleet, or snow.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water. Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations. When carbon dioxide concentrations drop, Earth cools, some water vapor falls out of the atmosphere, and the greenhouse warming caused by water vapor drops. Likewise, when carbon dioxide concentrations rise, air temperatures go up, and more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere—which then amplifies greenhouse heating.
So while carbon dioxide contributes less to the overall greenhouse effect than water vapor, scientists have found that carbon dioxide is the gas that sets the temperature. Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect.

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

The CO2 also has other effects:
PMEL CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Program

The very fact that the greens use such devious, convoluted, deceptive ways to push global warming puts the lie to it. If the science was overwhelming theyd not need to resort to devious, deceptive, bullying, slandering, insulting and out and out lying to convince us. The fact that they do screams the its all a lie in our faces. TRUTH and SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY.

Sadly most people are totally overwhelmed with real life and take little notice except what their tv news tells them and the left knows this, so they bought up all the tv news networks. And then fox started one up damn them!

But now the majority of the population knows the media is feeding them lies and no longer trusts them. But the media is so locked into its lying ways that they continue the lies of the left and Obama on the latest Israel for example and keep revealing themselves to growing numbers who see this and no longer trust them. The left is locked into their strategy and cannot seem to break the pattern that is destroying themselves. The wave is building, it has not crested and the lying left is on the losing end.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The very fact that the greens use such devious, convoluted, deceptive ways to push global warming puts the lie to it. If the science was overwhelming theyd not need to resort to devious, deceptive, bullying, slandering, insulting and out and out lying to convince us. The fact that they do screams the its all a lie in our faces. TRUTH and SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY.

No... this is just the politics of the left-lib cryptofascists, and it is their approach to everything.
DELINGPOLE: 'Moronic, Self-Righteous, Disgusting Losers' Tried to Turn the Berlin Attack on Nigel Farage - Breitbart

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Sadly most people are totally overwhelmed with real life and take little notice except what their tv news tells them and the left knows this, so they bought up all the tv news networks. And then fox started one up damn them!

But now the majority of the population knows the media is feeding them lies and no longer trusts them. But the media is so locked into its lying ways that they continue the lies of the left and Obama on the latest Israel for example and keep revealing themselves to growing numbers who see this and no longer trust them. The left is locked into their strategy and cannot seem to break the pattern that is destroying themselves. The wave is building, it has not crested and the lying left is on the losing end.

..as you kind of describe. It's a cult. Group-think gone mad. What Orwell warned us about... but it does not mean that the scientific facts of anthropogenic climate change and pollution aren't real... the task is to wrest control of the pro-conservation agenda from the left, so that it doesn't get polluted itself by leftist ideas, nor conflated with leftist causes.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years.

who the fvck is we

Climate models,.....

The artful dodger was skillful too.

^ Good luck with that.