Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warming?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:54 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
Among the amateur skeptical community there is a hearty appetite to master the science of climate change, at least in the spirit of a whodunit. Hence the incessant demands that have been made by amateur skeptics for the data underpinning published studies and even for computer code and intermediate calculations. Those who would attribute this slavish intent to exactly reproduce the work of the professionals to lack of imagination or analytical ability miss the point. The amateur critics are not primarily interested in replicating results via independent analysis, as a scientific peer would be. Rather, they wish to audit the results, to look for flaws, evidence of wrongdoing or incompetence.


It seems you didn't read it yet before responding.

Though note that I am actually interested in replicating results where I am capable, as much for curiosities sake as an urge to check results.
No, I haven't read it. I thought that I implied that by saying 'assumedly' (as in, I'm assuming, rather than checking). I'm also not planning on checking it, because I'm not arguing the science--I asked for a link for everyone else's sake (those who are arguing the science, and have no clue what your position actually is).

That being said, when I say 'You aren't a climate change skeptic', what I am saying is that you don't get to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with actual climate change skeptics who do actual climate change research and actually study climate science. If you want to be an 'amateur climate change skeptic', then sure; have at it. But that 'amateur' bit is important, and needs to stick. Because 'climate change skeptic' implies 'climate scientist', and you actually don't study climate science. If you are interested in clear dialogue, you have an obligation to make sure anyone who listens to your arguments does so with that understanding--that you are not a professional.

Hell, you owe it to the actual climate change skeptics. They're the ones putting themselves at risk--not you. You're just arguing on the internet. They're arguing in the laboratory. That takes courage.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:00 am UTC

TGH, you missed the post where I edited in a note after I included a checklist from Curry.

This is it;


"NOTE: I am not, I repeat NOT claiming to be qualified to be called a climate scientist or that I am more qualified to decide the validation of models or whatnot by these criteria, just thought I would provide what an actual climate scientist considers important criteria, as it is a good rundown of some basic areas of information that should be covered before even approaching expertise.

I am a skeptic, an amateur skeptic, that is all."

So yeah, chillax yo.

gmalivuk wrote:
Max™ wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Max™ wrote:Why is the amount of energy at a given time more relevant than the time it takes energy to leave the system?
Um, because that's what determines the temperature? We are still talking about temperature, right?
The amount of energy at a given time is a snapshot, the time it takes for energy to move through the system determines the temperature for an entire set of snapshots.
Yup. What's your point? A snapshot with more energy in it will have a higher temperature, will it not? And a snapshot where more energy is absorbed before it can radiate out into space will have more energy in it, will it not?

It's sort of like the difference between weather and climate, and why things like record temperatures aren't the best way to make ones case about climate change.

That there is one hot datapoint is one datapoint, that there is a mechanism maintaining the energy level high enough to produce multiple hot datapoints is an explanation.

Max™ wrote:in a simplified model you can reduce it to the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation
Only in a simplified model? I mean, yeah, I guess a much more complex model would account for the energy that gets tied up in organic chemical bonds instead of just moving around as heat, but I doubt that's what you meant.

Well, I do mean that as an end case, life is part of the energy budget after all, and more advanced climate models are beginning to represent this with more skill.

So what else do you think can change the heat content of the Earth System apart from a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation?

(And note that I'm not saying anything about the *distribution* of that heat. Obviously that would require a more complex model than simply calculating total radiative input and output. For the time being, we're getting right back to the very basics, since you seem to be having great fun obfuscating or evading when folks try to figure out how much you know and what you believe about those.)

You're asking a question which isn't really tied together properly.

A change in the heat content shows as a difference in outgoing radiation, since the incoming radiation is for the most part fixed.

There can be variations in the amount of energy reaching the ground from albedo, which could be considered incoming radiation fluctuations, but that roughly depends on which point you declare the radiation to be "entering" the atmosphere at.

There can be similar variations due to cloud cover which won't really qualify as outgoing radiation, but result in less energy making it to the ground.

Like I said, it is difficult to simplify this too far because you lose any useful explanatory ability.
Last edited by Max™ on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:00 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I am having a terribly difficult time in trying to understand Max's understanding of the planet's energy budget.

I am beginning to think that he might actual view the energy content of the Earth System as some important constant that cannot change.

No, the only thing remotely like that would be the solar constant, i.e. radiation on a surface at the distance of the top of the atmosphere.


The how is it that you did not accept this premise?

Premise: The heat content of the Earth System can only change if there is a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.


Do you accept this premise?

I thought that I went over this with chenille, and the whole bit about the distribution of energy as it is transported around the system, and the difference between the idea of "trapped" and "transported" energy.

Yes though, in a simplified model you can reduce it to the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, I really don't think you read what I post and just look for buzzwords sometimes.


No, not in just a simplified model. In its entirety. (Although I am somewhat curious as to what simplifications you think are being made but honestly I'm too scared to ask)

Either which way, I am going to translate what you mean as a "YES". Correct this if it is not an accurate representation of your understanding.

And as gmalivuk pointed out, the premise should strictly be rephrased:

Premise: The energy content of the Earth System can only change if there is a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.


So, if you accept Premise1, that you did explicitly accept:

Premise1: Convection cannot transport energy out of the Earth System.

And the following premise which I think you have accepted.

Premise2: The energy content of the Earth System can only change if there is a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.

Then surely it follows that if radiation entering or leaving the Earth System is, affected in some way, that that would affect the energy content of the Earth System?

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:06 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:No, not in just a simplified model. In its entirety. (Although I am somewhat curious as to what simplifications you think are being made but honestly I'm too scared to ask)

Either which way, I am going to translate what you mean as a "YES". Correct this if it is not an accurate representation of your understanding.

And as gmalivuk pointed out, the premise should strictly be rephrased:

Premise: The energy content of the Earth System can only change if there is a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.


So, if you accept Premise1, that you did explicitly accept:

Premise1: Convection cannot transport energy out of the Earth System.

And the following premise which I think you have accepted.

Premise2: The energy content of the Earth System can only change if there is a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.

Then surely it follows that if radiation entering or leaving the Earth System is, affected in some way, that that would affect the energy content of the Earth System?

>.>

By the hammer of Thor man, I specifically said this to you.

I wrote:Hmmm... it seems you're the one missing my point, AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST CONVECTION TRANSPORTS HEAT OUT OF THE TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE, did you see it that time?
mu

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:10 am UTC

Max™ wrote:It's sort of like the difference between weather and climate, and why things like record temperatures aren't the best way to make ones case about climate change.

That there is one hot datapoint is one datapoint, that there is a mechanism maintaining the energy level high enough to produce multiple hot datapoints is an explanation.
And if you arrange twenty datapoints on a chart, and notice that each one is slightly higher than the last, you can never assume that any point inbetween follows a similar pattern. Similarly, if I see a baseball hurtling at my face at 60 FPS, I shouldn't duck, because in the next frame it might start traveling in the opposite direction.

These are all snapshots. We can't produce a model with perfect granularity. We get as close as we can with the given science and the given models. If there are ways to get more granularity, then we do so. If there isn't, we work with what we have.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:10 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:10 am UTC

You explicitly stated that you accepted Premise1. Are you now suggesting that you don't?

How are you getting frustrated by me simply repeating what you explicitly stated?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:12 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
So what else do you think can change the heat content of the Earth System apart from a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation?

You're asking a question which isn't really tied together properly.

A change in the heat content shows as a difference in outgoing radiation, since the incoming radiation is for the most part fixed.

There can be variations in the amount of energy reaching the ground from albedo, which could be considered incoming radiation fluctuations, but that roughly depends on which point you declare the radiation to be "entering" the atmosphere at.

There can be similar variations due to cloud cover which won't really qualify as outgoing radiation, but result in less energy making it to the ground.
None of that matters, as long as you count it consistently both ways. Radiation that comes in and is immediately reflected back out has a net zero impact on radiation differences or on heat content, so whether you count it at all is irrelevant.

Why do you keep trying to make this more complicated?

If I give you three beans each day, and each day you give me two beans, what will happen to your total number of beans? If I give you three each day, and each day you give me four, what will happen to your total number of beans? If I give you two beans and you give me some number back, and I also bounce a third one off a rim in the middle of the table so it comes back to me without ever sitting in your pile of beans, is that importantly different from if I give you three beans and you give one more back to me than you did before?

I don't care what you do with the beans on your side. You can give me back only the beans you received most recently, or you can give me back the beans you've had the longest, or you can pick beans at random to give back to me, or you can go to the bean store and trade your beans for an equal number of a different kind of beans before giving me the requisite number of beans. The fundamental fact remains that the way your total number of beans changes depends only on the difference between how many beans I give you each day and how many beans you give me each day.

So when the only thing a bunch of people are asking you is how you expect your number of beans to change over time, why in the seven hells do you keep bringing up all this other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with the question? Why is it so important for you to tell us all the weird things you like to do with your beans while they're in your possession?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:21 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Max™ wrote:
So what else do you think can change the heat content of the Earth System apart from a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation?

You're asking a question which isn't really tied together properly.

A change in the heat content shows as a difference in outgoing radiation, since the incoming radiation is for the most part fixed.

There can be variations in the amount of energy reaching the ground from albedo, which could be considered incoming radiation fluctuations, but that roughly depends on which point you declare the radiation to be "entering" the atmosphere at.

There can be similar variations due to cloud cover which won't really qualify as outgoing radiation, but result in less energy making it to the ground.
None of that matters, as long as you count it consistently both ways. Radiation that comes in and is immediately reflected back out has a net zero impact on radiation differences or on heat content, so whether you count it at all is irrelevant.

Why do you keep trying to make this more complicated?

If I give you three beans each day, and each day you give me two beans, what will happen to your total number of beans? If I give you three each day, and each day you give me four, what will happen to your total number of beans? If I give you two beans and you give me some number back, and I also bounce a third one off a rim in the middle of the table so it comes back to me without ever sitting in your pile of beans, is that importantly different from if I give you three beans and you give one more back to me than you did before?

I don't care what you do with the beans on your side. You can give me back only the beans you received most recently, or you can give me back the beans you've had the longest, or you can pick beans at random to give back to me, or you can go to the bean store and trade your beans for an equal number of a different kind of beans before giving me the requisite number of beans. The fundamental fact remains that the way your total number of beans changes depends only on the difference between how many beans I give you each day and how many beans you give me each day.

So when the only thing a bunch of people are asking you is how you expect your number of beans to change over time, why in the seven hells do you keep bringing up all this other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with the question? Why is it so important for you to tell us all the weird things you like to do with your beans while they're in your possession?

I'm trying to say that I've never been focusing exclusively on the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere, and many times now have reiterated that I was discussing processes happening in the troposphere.

When asked an overly simplified question I don't feel like I'm being honest if I don't state how the answer could be misleading, sorry about that.

BattleMoose wrote:You explicitly stated that you accepted Premise1. Are you now suggesting that you don't?

How are you getting frustrated by me simply repeating what you explicitly stated?


No I am not saying that, Premise 1 is very true. I get a little frustrated when I point out that you aren't paying attention to what I say, I make a note that you aren't paying attention, and then you ask me if I said something which is exactly what I said when I pointed out you weren't paying attention.
Last edited by Max™ on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:32 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
mu

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby VannA » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:30 am UTC

Max.

If the total, energy state of the atmosphere rises over 10 years, would you expect the average temperature to increase?

Noting that the temperature increase would not have to be large, or distributed. Let's pick stereotypical ice-cap or glacial melt.

And, if we, as I believe has been show, the energy-life cycle of the atmosphere is lengthened by an increase in CO2, do you also accept that the energy state would under go changes, until finding a new equilibrium? (without any speculation on what that point is.)
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:35 am UTC

VannA wrote:Max.

If the total, energy state of the atmosphere rises over 10 years, would you expect the average temperature to increase?

Noting that the temperature increase would not have to be large, or distributed. Let's pick stereotypical ice-cap or glacial melt.

And, if we, as I believe has been show, the energy-life cycle of the atmosphere is lengthened by an increase in CO2, do you also accept that the energy state would under go changes, until finding a new equilibrium? (without any speculation on what that point is.)

Yes, this is not what I am taking issue with.


What I am taking issue with is things like the idea that if CO2 was removed the atmosphere would begin sliding into an ice age immediately, which goes along with the idea that a small change of CO2 is enough to overwhelm the natural variations in the climate.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:08 am UTC

Max™ wrote:No I am not saying that, Premise 1 is very true. I get a little frustrated when I point out that you aren't paying attention to what I say, I make a note that you aren't paying attention, and then you ask me if I said something which is exactly what I said when I pointed out you weren't paying attention.


You just got frustrated and had a little rant at me, for correctly stating your position regarding Premise 1.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:41 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:No I am not saying that, Premise 1 is very true. I get a little frustrated when I point out that you aren't paying attention to what I say, I make a note that you aren't paying attention, and then you ask me if I said something which is exactly what I said when I pointed out you weren't paying attention.


You just got frustrated and had a little rant at me, for correctly stating your position regarding Premise 1.

Less of a rant, more of a chance to amuse myself with comical exasperation and recursive statements, but hey.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:52 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:No I am not saying that, Premise 1 is very true. I get a little frustrated when I point out that you aren't paying attention to what I say, I make a note that you aren't paying attention, and then you ask me if I said something which is exactly what I said when I pointed out you weren't paying attention.


You just got frustrated and had a little rant at me, for correctly stating your position regarding Premise 1.

Less of a rant, more of a chance to amuse myself with comical exasperation and recursive statements, but hey.


Do you appreciate that no one in this thread has any real idea what your position about climate change or the working of atmospheric physics actually is.

Correctly restating what you said and what your opinion is a means to make sure we are at least progressing to the same library. (Don't think we are anywhere near to being on the same page yet)

And you find being understood, frustrating?

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:06 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:No I am not saying that, Premise 1 is very true. I get a little frustrated when I point out that you aren't paying attention to what I say, I make a note that you aren't paying attention, and then you ask me if I said something which is exactly what I said when I pointed out you weren't paying attention.


You just got frustrated and had a little rant at me, for correctly stating your position regarding Premise 1.

Less of a rant, more of a chance to amuse myself with comical exasperation and recursive statements, but hey.


Do you appreciate that no one in this thread has any real idea what your position about climate change or the working of atmospheric physics actually is.

Correctly restating what you said and what your opinion is a means to make sure we are at least progressing to the same library. (Don't think we are anywhere near to being on the same page yet)

And you find being understood, frustrating?

I find you going from comments about "no one tell Max about hurricanes not being modeled, puppies, etc" to acting as though you care a bit odd, and I think that I've had a lot of help understanding my own position from various posters, and judging from the transition in various parts of the discussion I think I've been able to clarify my position better to certain extents.

Just to say again, I appreciate being able to actually engage in a discussion about this which goes above a level of "DOOD UR A DENIER WTF WHY DON'T YOU LOVE THE PLANET UR AN OIL SHILL", as I had gotten more than I ever need of that at other places.

That's part of the problem I had originally. The posters here are far more intelligent and picked out things that I had slipped up on or forgotten entirely, like I said, that's a great change, and I don't want anyone to think I'm just trying to be difficult or fucking around.

If I'm difficult it's due to being rusty and realizing I had fucked up how I presented certain ideas, and so on, my bad.
mu

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Soralin » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:10 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
Soralin wrote:
Max™ wrote:There's another way to change this system, put a towel in the bucket so it doesn't block the hole, what will happen?

Adding the towel will displace water, which will raise the water level in the bucket. The increased water level will increase the flow rate out of the hole, causing more water to flow out than is flowing in, decreasing the water level. The decrease in water level will bring the water flowing out through the hole back down again, and the water level will regain equilibrium at the same place it started.

I think I was picturing the system differently, I saw it as the hole being near the bottom, but what I was getting at was that the towel will reduce the overall amount of water the bucket can hold without changing the actual size, by taking up some of the available space.

So if the stable water level with the hole was x, the hole+towel puts it at x+n, where n is the result of adding the towel, the flow in and out is still the same, though if you put dye into the system you will see it percolate through the towel at a slower rate than it moves through the rest of water.

If a GHG reduces the amount of dye which leaves by redirecting it away from the hole, convection reduces the amount of dye that leaves by forcing it to follow a slower path, that make any sense?

Yeah, I was picturing the system like that too I think. If the level is at x+n, then the flow rate out will be increased, either from the towel directly adding more weight, adding pressure to the base, or by displacing more water upward, increasing the column of water pressing down, and adding pressure to the base, in both cases, the flow rate out would increase until it equalized again.

And this probably isn't a very good analogy to demonstrate what you're talking about, since I think the amount of water flowing out through a hole in this case only depends on the force of gravity, the size of the hole, and the height of the water level above the hole, regardless of the size or shape of the container. So, you could just make the container half the size, or 10 times the size, etc. and as long as the flow rate in, and the hole size are the same (and gravity is the same), then the water level should remain the same. If you made the bucket 100x larger, but kept the hole the same, and the flow rate as the same, the water level would keep the same equilibrium level, but any given molecule will take longer to exit the system. The amount of water in the system(energy) would be higher, but the water level at any given point would still be the same (energy concentration, i.e. temperature would be the same). A larger system would just take longer to reach equilibrium from any changes.

If you had a 2 liter water bottle and swirled it around as you poured it out, you could slow down the rate at which water exited the bottle. But if you did slow down the rate at which water exited, and still had water flowing into it at the same rate, the amount of water which was in the bottle as a whole would increase, until the effect of your slowing down the exit was canceled out by the increase in water. Basically, none of those effects would matter to the overall water level in the system, unless they effected the rate at which water came into the system, or the rate at which it left the system. And this analogy is getting rather stretched at this point. :)

The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.[25]

Sorry, yes, the oceanic heat capacity is huge, I thought we were talking about the atmosphere alone.

Well, with global warming, it's not just the air temperature, the idea is the temperature of everything is slightly increased, overall, on average: That regardless of how it's distributed, that there's more heat energy in the system as a whole, due to an alteration of the rates and ways in which energy enters and leaves.

Decrease CO2, keep the amount of energy coming in the same, there is more IR in the wavelengths which CO2 and H2O absorb bouncing around isn't there?

No, there would be less IR bouncing around, less CO2 around would mean that it would be able to escape to space in a few number of bounces, as it random-walked its way around.

Also note, the heat from the sun peaks in visible light, rather than IR. Heat isn't just IR, all light transfers heat. The frequency of light that something primarily emits light at depends on it's temperature. The sun is quite hot, so the peak of it's heat output is in visible light, which this stuff is largely transparent to. So visible light coming in, would travel until it hits something opaque to visible light (like the ground) and heat it up. Now the ground is much less hot than the sun, so it primarily emits heat in the form of IR, which can't travel out the other way as easily as visible light can make it's way inward. We only really associate IR with heat, because objects at around human temperatures primarily emit heat in the form of IR. Hotter objects can emit more heat in the form of visible light, and visible light transfers heat just the same as IR does.

I like you, you reminded me to go read up on solar radiation from a non-climate focused source.

:)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:16 am UTC

Soralin wrote:
Max™ wrote:
Soralin wrote:
Max™ wrote:There's another way to change this system, put a towel in the bucket so it doesn't block the hole, what will happen?

Adding the towel will displace water, which will raise the water level in the bucket. The increased water level will increase the flow rate out of the hole, causing more water to flow out than is flowing in, decreasing the water level. The decrease in water level will bring the water flowing out through the hole back down again, and the water level will regain equilibrium at the same place it started.

I think I was picturing the system differently, I saw it as the hole being near the bottom, but what I was getting at was that the towel will reduce the overall amount of water the bucket can hold without changing the actual size, by taking up some of the available space.

So if the stable water level with the hole was x, the hole+towel puts it at x+n, where n is the result of adding the towel, the flow in and out is still the same, though if you put dye into the system you will see it percolate through the towel at a slower rate than it moves through the rest of water.

If a GHG reduces the amount of dye which leaves by redirecting it away from the hole, convection reduces the amount of dye that leaves by forcing it to follow a slower path, that make any sense?

Yeah, I was picturing the system like that too I think. If the level is at x+n, then the flow rate out will be increased, either from the towel directly adding more weight, adding pressure to the base, or by displacing more water upward, increasing the column of water pressing down, and adding pressure to the base, in both cases, the flow rate out would increase until it equalized again.

And this probably isn't a very good analogy to demonstrate what you're talking about, since I think the amount of water flowing out through a hole in this case only depends on the force of gravity, the size of the hole, and the height of the water level above the hole, regardless of the size or shape of the container. So, you could just make the container half the size, or 10 times the size, etc. and as long as the flow rate in, and the hole size are the same (and gravity is the same), then the water level should remain the same. If you made the bucket 100x larger, but kept the hole the same, and the flow rate as the same, the water level would keep the same equilibrium level, but any given molecule will take longer to exit the system. The amount of water in the system(energy) would be higher, but the water level at any given point would still be the same (energy concentration, i.e. temperature would be the same). A larger system would just take longer to reach equilibrium from any changes.

If you had a 2 liter water bottle and swirled it around as you poured it out, you could slow down the rate at which water exited the bottle. But if you did slow down the rate at which water exited, and still had water flowing into it at the same rate, the amount of water which was in the bottle as a whole would increase, until the effect of your slowing down the exit was canceled out by the increase in water. Basically, none of those effects would matter to the overall water level in the system, unless they effected the rate at which water came into the system, or the rate at which it left the system. And this analogy is getting rather stretched at this point. :)

Quite, the best part of a bucket analogy is as a black body one I think, where you can't "fill" a surface with radiation beyond the point where it "spills" over.

I think chenille found a decent one with the channel, and it's easier to present the idea of something impeding the flow and so on.

Well, with global warming, it's not just the air temperature, the idea is the temperature of everything is slightly increased, overall, on average: That regardless of how it's distributed, that there's more heat energy in the system as a whole, due to an alteration of the rates and ways in which energy enters and leaves.

Yeah, was gonna say, it's not everything being increased, as an example, a mechanism suggested is actually having the lapse rate be changed enough that the altitude at which radiation is emitted is cooler, reducing energy leaving the system.
mu

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby chenille » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:08 am UTC

Max™ wrote:I started wondering what a zeta like plot of that series would look like, but yeah, one thing to note.
Energy which is being transported through convection isn't leaving either, how is it that only IR absorption prevents it from leaving, while other processes don't?
Wouldn't all processes involving absorption and emission at any point--along with forays into convection--do this? Why only greenhouse gases?

Well, as far as radiation goes, nothing else is stopping energy from leaving, right? Absorption of light from the star is the entry of energy in the first place, and emission is actually how it escapes except to the extent that it is re-absorbed. Neither of those cause energy to recirculate again, so neither is going to be a multiplier. Convection on the other hand definitely does influence the time, but there are a couple of problems here:

    1. The amount of radiation gas emits depends on its temperature. So while convection does keep energy from escaping, it's only by turning thermal energy into bulk motion - in other words, reducing how much the increase in energy means an increase in temperature. That's why when we look at balancing radiation in and out, we get the same basic result regardless of how much convection there is.

    2. Changing the gases doesn't have the same kind of effect on convection. Different gases do have different levels of convective heat transfer, but I don't think it's ever depends very much on minor components, the way re-absorption can. So for smaller changes in composition, convection is not going to change much except where some other factor is changing the energy distribution.
Most importantly, though, re-absorption is the last chance to stop energy from leaving the system. So even if something like convection did turn out to have a comparable result, you would still have the multiplier from re-absorption, and so find that gases that absorb more infrared will cause larger temperature increases. Unless the other effects happened to be correspondingly reduced despite having more energy supplied to them via recirculation.

For the record, the series was just 1/(1 - A), so if you look at it in the complex plane it's just going to be a complex inversion, only flipped around a line. I suspect not so interesting on its own, sorry to say.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:56 am UTC

chenille wrote:
Max™ wrote:I started wondering what a zeta like plot of that series would look like, but yeah, one thing to note.
Energy which is being transported through convection isn't leaving either, how is it that only IR absorption prevents it from leaving, while other processes don't?
Wouldn't all processes involving absorption and emission at any point--along with forays into convection--do this? Why only greenhouse gases?

Well, as far as radiation goes, nothing else is stopping energy from leaving, right? Absorption of light from the star is the entry of energy in the first place, and emission is actually how it escapes except to the extent that it is re-absorbed. Neither of those cause energy to recirculate again, so neither is going to be a multiplier. Convection on the other hand definitely does influence the time, but there are a couple of problems here:

    1. The amount of radiation gas emits depends on its temperature. So while convection does keep energy from escaping, it's only by turning thermal energy into bulk motion - in other words, reducing how much the increase in energy means an increase in temperature. That's why when we look at balancing radiation in and out, we get the same basic result regardless of how much convection there is.

    2. Changing the gases doesn't have the same kind of effect on convection. Different gases do have different levels of convective heat transfer, but I don't think it's ever depends very much on minor components, the way re-absorption can. So for smaller changes in composition, convection is not going to change much except where some other factor is changing the energy distribution.
Most importantly, though, re-absorption is the last chance to stop energy from leaving the system. So even if something like convection did turn out to have a comparable result, you would still have the multiplier from re-absorption, and so find that gases that absorb more infrared will cause larger temperature increases. Unless the other effects happened to be correspondingly reduced despite having more energy supplied to them via recirculation.

For the record, the series was just 1/(1 - A), so if you look at it in the complex plane it's just going to be a complex inversion, only flipped around a line. I suspect not so interesting on its own, sorry to say.

Yeah, I was just reminded of the zeta plots I'd looked at the other day (you wanna see a neat version of it, go check out X-ray of the Riemann Zeta on google for the pdf), but yeah, your post, lemme see.

You're right, but remember my point about convection was that it's the main way the troposphere energy exchange works, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.

As I mentioned in another post, getting the right answer the wrong way, and attributing more of an effect to CO2 than it probably should have.

We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing, that is taken as a good reason to think they hypothesis is correct, but it seems that it could also indicate an error like the one I'm describing.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:58 am UTC

Max™ wrote:, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.


No. Convection schemes do not transport energy out of the Earth System and no amount of over simplifications of a convection scheme could ever increase the amount of energy transported out of or into the Earth System.*

The amount of energy within the Earth system is increasing.

This outcome cannot be achieved through bad convection schemes.

As I mentioned in another post, getting the right answer the wrong way, and attributing more of an effect to CO2 than it probably should have.


We understand the properties of CO2 pretty damn well. We also have a very good idea of how much of it there is in the atmosphere. Of all the sources of errors within GCMs, the errors associated with CO2 radiative forcing, are small.

We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


Completely untrue.

*Convection schemes can certainly indirectly effective radiation, in and out of the Earth System. But this doesn't seem to be at all a part of Max's argument so I won't go into it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:39 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.


No. Convection schemes do not transport energy out of the Earth System and no amount of over simplifications of a convection scheme could ever increase the amount of energy transported out of or into the Earth System.*

The amount of energy within the Earth system is increasing.

This outcome cannot be achieved through bad convection schemes.

CO2 is involved in moving energy from the ground to the troposphere in climate models, is it not?

We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


Completely untrue.

*Work to reproduce past climate variations up to and including the 20th century.
Last edited by Max™ on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.


No. Convection schemes do not transport energy out of the Earth System and no amount of over simplifications of a convection scheme could ever increase the amount of energy transported out of or into the Earth System.*

The amount of energy within the Earth system is increasing.

This outcome cannot be achieved through bad convection schemes.

CO2 is involved in moving energy from the ground to the troposphere in climate models, is it not?


While you might think this detail is relevant, it is not. My objection stands for exactly the same reasons.

Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


Completely untrue.

*Work to reproduce past climate variations up to and including the 20th century.


Still completely untrue.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


Completely untrue.

*Work to reproduce past climate variations up to and including the 20th century.


Still completely untrue.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... q-9-2.html

Image
FAQ 9.2, Figure 1. Temperature changes relative to the corresponding average for 1901-1950 (°C) from decade to decade from 1906 to 2005 over the Earth’s continents, as well as the entire globe, global land area and the global ocean (lower graphs). The black line indicates observed temperature change, while the coloured bands show the combined range covered by 90% of recent model simulations. Red indicates simulations that include natural and human factors, while blue indicates simulations that include only natural factors. Dashed black lines indicate decades and continental regions for which there are substantially fewer observations. Detailed descriptions of this figure and the methodology used in its production are given in the Supplementary Material, Appendix 9.C.


Not sure exactly what you thought I was saying, but this right here is what I was actually saying.
Last edited by Max™ on Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
mu

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:33 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Not sure exactly what you thought I was saying, but this right here is what I was actually saying.
This is vague, the instance before where you used it is even more vague. The models are run with or without forcing, without the forcing the models don't match the actual data. In all cases in the graphic you posted the model follows the data when forcing is taken into account. Using sentence fragments is cute but not very clear. What exactly is your point? I'm having a really hard time just gleaning any meaning from what you are saying.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:43 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


I was referring to this assertion, that is and very obviously untrue.

EDIT:Also, you quoted me out of context in your previous post. I would appreciate it if you fixed it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:05 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Max™ wrote:We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


I was referring to this assertion, that is and very obviously untrue.

Eh, that was sloppy wording on my part, a proper statement would be "the models which are ran with natural forcings alone are unable to reproduce 20th century climate variations, only with the inclusion of anthropogenic CO2 forcing is a statistically significant correlation obtained", see any issue with that?

EDIT:Also, you quoted me out of context in your previous post. I would appreciate it if you fixed it.

Not a problem, I was just trying to avoid huge quote trains, didn't realize how it might appear, and didn't intend to give the appearance that you were just blindly disagreeing.

Though perhaps I could ask a favor as well, before you attribute something to me just blindly denying things, at least assume it's a result of ignorance or misunderstanding, I'm not offended so much as I'm bothered because you were completely off base with those types of assertions.

It makes it a bit difficult to take you seriously when you've as much as said you think I'm just willfully ignoring science for whatever reasons.

If you don't want to go into detail, that's cool, but if you think I'm wrong and care enough to say so, by all means, lemme know why you think that before you jump to the aforementioned conclusions about my motives.


I really am interested in this subject (among many others) and really do enjoy having to go over my own positions and understanding, but I don't want to make it seem like I'm just demanding people correct me or whatnot, as the thread title says, I'd love to see what more rational discussion of the subject looks like.

For the most part this has been informative and challenging, I've actually been making notes for a paper on social science methods that I'm starting soon to see how I can work it into the research question portion.


Not to change the subject, but I am actually really curious about something which may not seem directly related, but would anyone mind if I asked what their general political leanings are? I'll go over why if need be, but it's an interesting opportunity to compare some past datasets I've got now.
mu

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

I didn't say anything about your conclusions or your attitude. I quite plainly and simply stated where you were wrong.

We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


I expected this to actually by a typo or just an oversight but no matter. Its wrong because models include all the forcings that we know about and think that are relevant. The anthropogenic forcing is actually very small compared to all the other forcings.

Just on a not on how to manage this discourse better.

You keep bring up many many many different points and topics all the time. For the most part many of the points you bring up are ignored because it would just take far too much time to deal with them all, so its easier just to pick up on the , most wrong aspects.

I would suggest trying to keep your posts to one point at a time until that point has been concluded and only then moving on.

EDIT: Liberal, very very very liberal, as in, I think its wrong to kick the people of Bhutan in the balls.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Do you appreciate that no one in this thread has any real idea what your position about climate change or the working of atmospheric physics actually is.


This.

Max, can you answer this question in a single word for me?

Do you believe that global warming is occurring?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:I'm trying to say that I've never been focusing exclusively on the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere, and many times now have reiterated that I was discussing processes happening in the troposphere.

When asked an overly simplified question I don't feel like I'm being honest if I don't state how the answer could be misleading, sorry about that.
Can you explain to people what you think is actually happening, using the simple bean metaphor as your medium?

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I didn't say anything about your conclusions or your attitude. I quite plainly and simply stated where you were wrong.

Oh fuck, I think that a quote tag got taken out and I mistakenly attributed it to you and Hippo, my bad, you are right, you did not do that. Sorry, that's the downside of quote trees.

Again, I was completely wrong, BattleMoose did not make the comments I had thought, I formally apologize for being short with you about that, it was actually one of Hippo's comments in the middle of two replies to you, but none had names in the quotes.

It seemed odd, but I've come to expect people to start tossing around shit like that, and just kinda wrote it off.

Seriously, whoops.

We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,


I expected this to actually by a typo or just an oversight but no matter. Its wrong because models include all the forcings that we know about and think that are relevant. The anthropogenic forcing is actually very small compared to all the other forcings.

Yeah, it was a typo, but like I explained above, I wasn't expecting honest discourse from you after misattributing Hippo's quote to you, so I didn't get into it. That's why I seemed a bit confused by you acting normally, sorry again. My eyes kinda started glazing over Hippo posts once he went into rant-at-max mode.

Just on a not on how to manage this discourse better.

You keep bring up many many many different points and topics all the time. For the most part many of the points you bring up are ignored because it would just take far too much time to deal with them all, so its easier just to pick up on the , most wrong aspects.

I would suggest trying to keep your posts to one point at a time until that point has been concluded and only then moving on.

EDIT: Liberal, very very very liberal, as in, I think its wrong to kick the people of Bhutan in the balls.

Noted, and ty for the info, I'll send you a PM over the reasons.
mu

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,
I expected this to actually by a typo or just an oversight but no matter. Its wrong because models include all the forcings that we know about and think that are relevant. The anthropogenic forcing is actually very small compared to all the other forcings.
I think this is a simple misinterpretation of how "only" works in that sentence.

Max said, "We know the models work only when they include anthropogenic forcing (and not when they don't)", and this got interpreted as, "We know the models only include anthropogenic forcing (and don't include anything else)."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
We know the models only work with anthropogenic CO2 forcing,
I expected this to actually by a typo or just an oversight but no matter. Its wrong because models include all the forcings that we know about and think that are relevant. The anthropogenic forcing is actually very small compared to all the other forcings.
I think this is a simple misinterpretation of how "only" works in that sentence.

Max said, "We know the models work only when they include anthropogenic forcing (and not when they don't)", and this got interpreted as, "We know the models only include anthropogenic forcing (and don't include anything else)."

Thank you, that is indeed what I intended, fucking english language and it's multiple use wordy-bastardness.
mu

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby chenille » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:You're right, but remember my point about convection was that it's the main way the troposphere energy exchange works, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.

Well, I don't really want to try to go through all the details of the current climate models. It does strikes me as very unlikely you actually have a better idea what assumptions do to the accuracy than people who've spent their whole lives studying it, especially since they do a good job matching most of our observations. But there are obviously some problems with them; for instance, although greenhouse gases are the only explanation I've ever seen for why arctic ice is changing, it seems the IPCC may have rather underestimated the rate. So sure, somebody should be looking at them.

However, several times you've suggested that with more realistic assumptions, the temperature shouldn't be particularly sensitive to small amounts of greenhouse gases at all, they won't change things much more than other gases, and so on. The point of my explanations has been that this expectation is definitely a mistake, because the sensitivity doesn't actually depend on the details of the models, it's a general consequence of how energy is interchanged with space. A different treatment of convection might give better estimates of how fast temperature changes, or where in the system; but so long as the output is mainly infrared, you still get that small changes in carbon dioxide affect the temperature more than larger changes in, say, nitrogen.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:26 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
Max™ wrote:You're right, but remember my point about convection was that it's the main way the troposphere energy exchange works, and it seems plausible that a model which had an improper convection scheme but made up for it with radiative energy exchange could be made to produce reasonably realistic looking projections and reconstructions.

Well, I don't really want to try to go through all the details of the current climate models. It does strikes me as very unlikely you actually have a better idea what assumptions do to the accuracy than people who've spent their whole lives studying it, especially since they do a good job matching most of our observations. But there are obviously some problems with them; for instance, although greenhouse gases are the only explanation I've ever seen for why arctic ice is changing, it seems the IPCC may have rather underestimated the rate. So sure, somebody should be looking at them.

However, several times you've suggested that with more realistic assumptions, the temperature shouldn't be particularly sensitive to small amounts of greenhouse gases at all, they won't change things much more than other gases, and so on. The point of my explanations has been that this expectation is definitely a mistake, because the sensitivity doesn't actually depend on the details of the models, it's a general consequence of how energy is interchanged with space. A different treatment of convection might give better estimates of how fast temperature changes, or where in the system; but so long as the output is mainly infrared, you still get that small changes in carbon dioxide affect the temperature more than larger changes in, say, nitrogen.

Ah but THAT expectation is one where I'm not working from my own understanding alone, as an example, Judith Curry agrees that the sensitivity to CO2 has most likely been overstated, and suggests that while as much as half of the arctic melt could be due to human CO2 emissions, she cautions that the talk about "tipping points" is hasty, and makes a note about how many known unknowns there are in her reckoning as a climate scientist.

Like I said, if I sound like I'm extremely confident, it isn't deliberate, it's just a response to the overconfidence put forth regarding things which simply don't warrant the claims of certainty that have been and are being made.

I doubt that the models are as skillful as they are presented, I know that there are issues they've had since the 80's which are treated as fairly standard features nowadays, and I have my own suspicions about certain factors that might be explained by "right answers" gotten the wrong way. Setting aside my own personal doubts, there are known and accepted flaws and limits in various aspects of our computer models which aren't a matter of my being somehow more capable of discerning them, they are clearly stated in any number of published pieces of literature on the subject.

They may not seem as important to you, but part of why I bring up things like convection is because I find myself unable to overlook deviations from key observations made after model runs such as the upper tropospheric water vapor amounts (which models predict increasing, but observations show have been decreasing).

I would be more impressed with paleoclimate reconstructions if it weren't for the various issues with actually choosing accurate proxies making one wonder how we can consider a reconstruction accurate when we're not really sure about the actual accuracy of the record being reconstructed.
mu

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby chenille » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:11 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Ah but THAT expectation is one where I'm not working from my own understanding alone, as an example, Judith Curry agrees that the sensitivity to CO2 has most likely been overstated, and suggests that while as much as half of the arctic melt could be due to human CO2 emissions, she cautions that the talk about "tipping points" is hasty, and makes a note about how many known unknowns there are in her reckoning as a climate scientist.

But that's a question of the exact degree, not the existence of the effect. Seeing as how you were said things like that Venus' heat has more to do with the mass than composition of the atmosphere, that carbon dioxide isn't the only atmospheric gas that emits infrared, that the energy budget doesn't depend on small amounts of it, that heating from it is small compared to the star, et cetera... my understanding was that you were arguing against the whole idea that temperature should be very sensitive to greenhouse gases and not mostly infrared-transparent ones. Are you saying you do agree with it, just think the calculations are off? It is very hard to tell what your position here is.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:19 pm UTC

I already asked him a direct yes/no question about if he thinks global warming is happening, but I haven't seen an answer.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I already asked him a direct yes/no question about if he thinks global warming is happening, but I haven't seen an answer.

Oh sorry, missed it in the pile, yes the planet has warmed since the 18th/19th century, yes there was warming from the 70's til around 2000, and I think we've been chugging along at around 0.2 or 0.3 since then.

Yes CO2 has an effect on temperature, I went over this a while back, the question is the scale of the effect, and whether or not natural fluctuations could explain various amounts of the warming attributed in part or entirely to CO2. This whole rigamarole has been about explaining--not that CO2 does nothing at all--just why it is I am bothered that there is still a null hypothesis which has yet to be falsified: the recent temperature increases are due to natural cycles, which could indeed be influenced by CO2, but are driven by various other features of the climate system and the sun, regardless of CO2 concentrations.

The point with Venus was that I can't see how the temperatures claimed are justified as being due to radiative properties of CO2 alone, it doesn't add up, and since it is just a hypothesis rather than a confirmed fact regarding a runaway greenhouse being responsible, that's a valid question to ask. Particularly since you get another dose of "this is just the beginning, look at Venus" popping up in the news every now and then when it warms up.
mu

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby chenille » Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Yes CO2 has an effect on temperature, I went over this a while back, the question is the scale of the effect, and whether or not natural fluctuations could explain various amounts of the warming attributed in part or entirely to CO2. This whole rigamarole has been about explaining--not that CO2 does nothing at all--just why it is I am bothered that there is still a null hypothesis which has yet to be falsified: the recent temperature increases are due to natural cycles, which could indeed be influenced by CO2, but are driven by various other features of the climate system and the sun, regardless of CO2 concentrations.

That's not a null hypothesis, it's a set of hypotheses where different natural effects are invoked to explain the changes. They would need to be explored and tested, just like the idea of our carbon dioxide emissions being responsible; and so far as I know no accurate models have ever been made in terms of them. But also, you would need some way to explain how carbon dioxide could be produced without causing an increase in temperatures, because as per the above, that should violate the basic energy balance with space.

Max™ wrote:The point with Venus was that I can't see how the temperatures claimed are justified as being due to radiative properties of CO2 alone, it doesn't add up, and since it is just a hypothesis rather than a confirmed fact regarding a runaway greenhouse being responsible, that's a valid question to ask. Particularly since you get another dose of "this is just the beginning, look at Venus" popping up in the news every now and then when it warms up.

Can you see it now that you know the temperatures on Venus aren't supposed to do with radiation from carbon dioxide, rather its absorption of infrared and so multiplication of the total energy in the system? Because that's the principle that I've been explaining, and as I said, I really can't tell whether you agree with it or not.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
Max™ wrote:Yes CO2 has an effect on temperature, I went over this a while back, the question is the scale of the effect, and whether or not natural fluctuations could explain various amounts of the warming attributed in part or entirely to CO2. This whole rigamarole has been about explaining--not that CO2 does nothing at all--just why it is I am bothered that there is still a null hypothesis which has yet to be falsified: the recent temperature increases are due to natural cycles, which could indeed be influenced by CO2, but are driven by various other features of the climate system and the sun, regardless of CO2 concentrations.

That's not a null hypothesis, it's a set of hypotheses where different natural effects are invoked to explain the changes. They would need to be explored and tested, just like the idea of our carbon dioxide emissions being responsible; and so far as I know no accurate models have ever been made in terms of them. But also, you would need some way to explain how carbon dioxide could be produced without causing an increase in temperatures, because as per the above, that should violate the basic energy balance with space.

The null hypothesis being that the climate is not driven by CO2 forcing, implying that the temperature changes are modulated by other processes. So I would expect for the influence of human CO2 emissions to still be detectable as an (appropriately sized) anomaly after accounting for said natural climate drivers.

It is the null hypothesis because the "CO2 forcing drives the climate" hypothesis is the one being tested.

I must ask though, you might not have intended to do so, and I'd like to make sure that it is what you meant... but you just said that no accurate models have been made of natural factors which could drive climate variability, was that what you meant to say?

Max™ wrote:The point with Venus was that I can't see how the temperatures claimed are justified as being due to radiative properties of CO2 alone, it doesn't add up, and since it is just a hypothesis rather than a confirmed fact regarding a runaway greenhouse being responsible, that's a valid question to ask. Particularly since you get another dose of "this is just the beginning, look at Venus" popping up in the news every now and then when it warms up.

Can you see it now that you know the temperatures on Venus aren't supposed to do with radiation from carbon dioxide, rather its absorption of infrared and so multiplication of the total energy in the system? Because that's the principle that I've been explaining, and as I said, I really can't tell whether you agree with it or not.

Yeah, the radiative transfer of energy (which covers absorption and emission by CO2 and other gases) is what you've been explaining, though I'm not sure why it would be multiplicative rather than additive.
mu

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby chenille » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:03 am UTC

Max™ wrote:I must ask though, you might not have intended to do so, and I'd like to make sure that it is what you meant... but you just said that no accurate models have been made of natural factors which could drive climate variability, was that what you meant to say?

Yes, but I didn't mean climate variability in general. I meant the particular climate variability we're seeing - the general warming trend you mentioned, the anomalous succession of record highs in places like the US, the collapse of the arctic ice, and so on. Not only is temperature increase what one would expect from increased carbon dioxide, but I've never heard of any models detailed enough to make predictions for these based only on other factors.

Without any alternative models, I don't see how the combination of warming and increased carbon dioxide wouldn't be taken evidence for the prediction that they are related. So in my view, the null hypothesis that they are not has already been falsified, and now the burden is on people who think something else could be happening to say what and provide support for that.

Max™ wrote:Yeah, the radiative transfer of energy (which covers absorption and emission by CO2 and other gases) is what you've been explaining, though I'm not sure why it would be multiplicative rather than additive.

Really? I gave a full argument why re-absorption has a multiplicative effect on Rt back here, and since your caveat to that was that I should consider the time energy takes to pass through the system, I sketched why it has the same effect for that here. It would be one thing to disagree or want clarification, but to simply say you don't know why it would be multiplicative...basically all I have talked about is how things get multiplied by 1/(1-A). I guess I have not had any impression.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Is it possible to have a rational debate on global warmi

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:46 am UTC

Using terms like "natural fluctuations" or "natural cycles" as an explanation for a phenomenon is completely useless. It gives absolutely no detail and is a kin to claiming the boogeyman did it. The boogeyman did not do it.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests