Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: :goonsay:

Topic: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory (Read 755 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • F X
  • The one and only
AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
CO2 theory says CO2 controls the earth's climate, increasing the SW radiation budget, which raises the global temperature as levels increase, and lowers global temps as it reduces. It's the feedback that allows small changes in solar insolation to change the global climate. AGW is the theory that the man made increase will result in drastic warming, due to a water vapor feedback effect from a small increase in LW radiation. The effect (enhanced greenhouse effect) will be observed more over land than oceans, more at high latitudes, and in winter more than summer. Further feedbacks from albedo changes due to warming will increase the warming by changes in the SW radiation budget.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #1
To understand AGW requires understanding the theory, and our confidence in the theory is either increased or decreased by evidence. And since the theory can be changed as evidence mounts, describing, or defining the theory, plainly spelling it out is an essential step before the debate starts.

Just claiming "it's hotter and humans are creating a lot of CO2 so it's hotter because humans" is not a theory, nor does it lend itself to the rigorous demands of science. The physical mechanism and how climate actually works is the key thing. A theory that CO2 is the main driver of climate change faces a huge challenge to confirm. The changes we expect are from the theory. If the changes do not happen, then either our observations are wrong, or CO2 is not the main driver, or something else unexpected.

But there is no getting around the theory, which states the main driver of climate, even when the starting cause is changes to solar insolation, when that changes, it's the CO2 levels that causes the huge changes in global climate, that is the core of the theory.

The further theory is that humans increasing the CO2 will cause an un-natural change in climate, since CO2 is the main factor in climate change. This is what the real argument, debate, uncertainty is about.

Certainly there are many more things involved, but the core of it is CO2 forcing drastic climate swings. The evidence for this happening already (as some claim it has), is the main thing. There is also the prediction of future changes as levels rise higher.

My view is that we actually do not know, and we can't know, because of the chaotic nature of nature, and the unexpected things that always happen. The theories that rising CO2 and warming will usher in an ice age are as valid in this matter, in regards to predicting the future changes. In the past the glacier building phase of the ice age started when it was warm. Since snow and ice is increasing in the boreal winters, and that is where the ice age starts, the northern hemisphere high latitudes, and because the sun can't be dismissed as a force of change, and a huge string of volcanic eruptions can happen, there is no way to say "we know what will happen with the climate", because we just don't.

The theory always includes "everything else being equal", which means no other factors are involved, a doubling of CO2 will cause ...". Then the water vapor feedback and melting ice and decreasing sea ice comes into play. All this is theoretical, in the absolute sense that it isn't known.

So my mind is certainly not made up about most of it, except for the unchanging fact that almost everybody will end up being wrong about something involved.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #2
Did it hurt that you were completely ignored the first time you posted this back in March?  
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #3
You think that was the first time I posted that?

hahahaha
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #4
So you think its insightful enough to be copypasta-ed all over the internet?   Interesting. 

Anyway, the only copy I can find indexed on Google is City-Data, so as far as I know it is the only other time you've posted it.   Do you find that people tend to just completely ignore you on other forums?   Is that why you keep coming back here?

While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #5
The effect (enhanced greenhouse effect) will be observed more over land than oceans, more at high latitudes, and in winter more than summer.
I'm interested in these particular predictions. Do you have sources for them? Are these the general consensus among publishing climatologists? I'd like to read the sources.

"At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea." - Christopher Hitchens

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #6
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #7
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

There's nothing more recent than 1896?

Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:

Quote
I'm not sure what your position is - as I said it seems somewhat vague. I'm not sure if you are questioning any link between CO2 levels and average atmospheric temperatures or denying any significant rise in CO2 or merely saying that humans can't do anything to affect the trend. Maybe you'd like to flesh out your position a bit. It may be there's either too much or too little difference to justify further discussion.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #8
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #9
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
That's quite old but I guess the one that started much of it. I found a more recent (John F. B. Mitchell, 1989) one here The "Greenhouse" effect and climate change.

The specific predictions of the models considered are that, assuming a doubling of CO2 and all else held equal, it does appear that there will be greater warming over land than over water, more at higher latitudes (and altitudes), more in winters than summers, and with the greatest proportion at the poles.
"At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea." - Christopher Hitchens

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #10
The specific predictions of the models considered are that, assuming a doubling of CO2 and all else held equal, it does appear that there will be greater warming over land than over water, more at higher latitudes (and altitudes), more in winters than summers, and with the greatest proportion at the poles.
Of course, it's common knowledge for anyone who has studied the theory.  Or the models based on the theory.

You can even deduct why if you are a science minded person.  Just like the original theory does.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #11
The great failing of "scientists" is when you make an assumption, then go on to try and figure something out, when the assumption is wrong, and you don't use the scientific method for the basic assumption, before going forward.

It's almost always the stumbling block for a theory, or an entire field of science.  Once the authorities embrace the assumption (which is going to turn out to be wrong later) and now work to repress or destroy anyone who doesn't toe the line, it may take decades, or a century for the problem to be solved.  The worst case is when it actually leads to the situation where it's impossible for somebody with no resources or support to even work on the error, which after the fact seems obvious.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #12
The big error, that is what always seems obvious later.  My language was unclear.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #13
In regards to the CO2 theory, some people think of it as a scientific law or a fact or something, and don't realize it's a theory.
They use the phrase The "Greenhouse" effect instead of the proper word "theory"
Quote
The presence of radiatively active gases in the Earth's atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone) raises its global mean surface temperature by 30 K, making our planet habitable by life as we know it. There has been an increase in carbon dioxide and other trace gases since the Industrial Revolution, largely as a result of man's activities, increasing the radiative heating of the troposphere and surface by about 2 W m−2. This heating is likely to be enhanced by resulting changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud.

There is the basic assumption
increasing the radiative heating of the troposphere and surface by about 2 W m−2. This heating is likely to be enhanced by resulting changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #14
If a small increase in the heat balance (at the top of the atmosphere) leads to feedbacks from "changes in water vapor, snow and sea ice, and cloud", then we will observe a special kind of global warming, caused by mankind changing the balance of the atmospheric chemistry. If everything else stays the same.

I see a problem with that assumption.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #15
Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #16
Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
And I still am curious.
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
And I don't see anything new in the threads I glanced through. Maybe I missed something. Maybe you haven't got round to mentioning it yet. Unless you feel like making your position clearer, I guess I'll never know.

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #17
It's almost always the stumbling block for a theory, or an entire field of science.  Once the authorities embrace the assumption (which is going to turn out to be wrong later) and now work to repress or destroy anyone who doesn't toe the line, it may take decades, or a century for the problem to be solved.  The worst case is when it actually leads to the situation where it's impossible for somebody with no resources or support to even work on the error, which after the fact seems obvious.
How does this relate in particular to climate change? What are the erroneous assumptions?

And what is wrong with adopting a strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions whether or not there is a proven link. Most strategies such as developing renewable energy are worth doing anyway.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #18
Two quite different matters there.
And what is wrong with adopting a strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions whether or not there is a proven link. Most strategies such as developing renewable energy are worth doing anyway.
I tend to agree, mankind should be working towards using solar energy, and clean energy, energy efficiency, even if extra CO2 turns out to be a benefit, not a disaster.  Especially stopping coal, which I really dislike.  Oil is also pretty nasty and really destructive when an undersea rig fails, or a tanker goes tits up in Alaska.

That's a completely different issue that knowing if the theory is valid or not.



"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #19
How does this relate in particular to climate change? What are the erroneous assumptions?
I don't actually know if the assumptions are erroneous or not.  But based on observations of weather/climate, we have not witnessed global warming as it was supposed to happen.  It seems other factors may be more important than the CO2 crowd keeps insisting won't matter.

Certainly regional changes have not happened, that were projected. (they stopped using the word prediction)

There is also the matter of the horrendous manipulation of data and facts that were first revealed in the emails.  The actual data does not support an unnatural warming,  and certainly not anything approaching the Altithermal yet.  Then there is the issue of even if we do change the climate to cause the world to warm like it was 5000 years ago, will that be a disaster or not?

There was no runaway greenhouse during the Altithermal, in fact it was followed by a cooling.  The historic record also shows cooling happens after the peak warmth in between the glacier building phases of the ice ages.   We might be sending the planet back into a glacier building period by raising the CO2 levels.  Nobody actually knows.
  • Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 11:34:09 AM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #20
Anyway, the only copy I can find indexed on Google is City-Data, so as far as I know it is the only other time you've posted it. 
Why are you under the illusion anybody cares?
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #21
You messed up the quotes there.
Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
And I still am curious.
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
And I don't see anything new in the threads I glanced through. Maybe I missed something. Maybe you haven't got round to mentioning it yet. Unless you feel like making your position clearer, I guess I'll never know.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #22
The great failing of "scientists" is when you make an assumption, then go on to try and figure something out, when the assumption is wrong, and you don't use the scientific method for the basic assumption, before going forward.
I don't think it's really that simple. For example, the theory makes certain predictions given certain assumptions, and reality may not bear out exactly as predicted in all aspects, because some of the assumptions were wrong. Maybe the whole theory is wrong, maybe only some of the assumptions are wrong because of unanticipated/unpredicted effects.

Theories are rarely fully right or fully wrong in that idealized popperian sense. If the theory predicted a certain pattern of warming for everywhere on Earth, but only (say) the climate patterns in the french Alps is off, is the theory then just complete garbage? Doesn't seem likely.
Perhaps some of the assumptions are off about how that particular location happens to interact with the surrounding ones, not that the main subject of the whole theory (there will be warming, mostly at higher altitudes, mostly in winter and mostly at the poles) is complete garbage.
This of course then raises the question, at what point do we go back to the drawing board and reevaluate the entire premise of the theory?

Just like newtonian mechanics are pretty accurate up to some fraction of relativistic velocities, or down to some microscopic scale. You can arrive at some prediction for the motion of a cannon ball. And if it says the ball will fly straigh up and never come back at a constant velocity, well then sure it's a crap prediction. But as it approaches the actual ballistic trajectory of a cannon ball, the theory will become increasingly accurate. But at what point do we cross from "the theory is false" to "the theory is accurate enough that there's actually something to it?".

I know where you're going with this. You're going to say that the CO2 theory is wrong because you can cherry pick some locations on the globe where the particular aspect of the theory (general warming in winter time) don't bear out. But is that actually a quantifiable result there? What is the deegree of deviation caused by this smaller area, out of the whole overall pattern? The theory also predicted mostly at high altitudes, and the vast majority at the poles (which did in fact bear out), besides certain patterns in precipitation and soil humidity. In the greater scheme of things, does the deviation you point to really completely falsify the whole theory (it got many other things right), or is there just something more specifically wrong with the assumptions about how those areas interact?

You're going to have to do more than just point to some landmass in Siberia and say "it's blue when it should be red".
"At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea." - Christopher Hitchens

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #23
I know where you're going with this.
No, you don't have the slightest clue actually.

I've not laid out the entire story, because of the time constraint, and the amount of work involved.  I don't even have the files organized properly yet, or the images all edited. And everyday there is more and more.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #24