Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Here be giants.

Topic: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory (Read 751 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #25
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.

Obviously! But you say (regarding measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels) that you agree that such measures are worth taking whether human contribution to rising CO2 is significant or not. Saves arguing about something we agree on.

Regarding whether the greenhouse effect is real and leading to a net rise in the amount of solar energy arriving on Earth, sure it's a separate issue. I'm still not clear whether you dismiss climate change altogether, dispute rising CO2 as a major factor, or just think humans aren't a major contributor to rising CO2

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #26
I'm still not clear whether you dismiss climate change altogether, dispute rising CO2 as a major factor, or just think humans aren't a major contributor to rising CO2
I've never doubted the Keeling curve or the calculations based on fossil fuel use, cement making and gas flaring.  That we have increased the fraction of CO2 I would think is beyond doubt.

Same for the massive changes to river systems, deforestation, irrigation, contrails, ship tracks, urban heat islands and many other things.  I have little or no doubt these things have happened, or are happening.  The real questions are what is it doing to the world?  Are we actually in control of the entire global climate 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 #27
Think about it.  If the CO2 theory is true, we know how to control the global heat balance of the world.  If it gets cold, we add more CO2, if it get hots, we take CO2 out of the air. Both of these things are something mankind can actually do now.  (obviously the adding is easier)

We know things, like that plants grow faster near highways, due to fertilization from CO2 and run off from the roadways.  It's possible that irrigation has also changed the climate in some regions, along with massive agriculture.  The important questions are about what will happen.  If changing things is going to cause the oceans to rise, the weather to go crazy, and places people live to become much warmer, that's considered a very bad thing.

But we have to know how the climate of the planet works before we can say what we are doing to it.
"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 #28
But we have to know how the climate of the planet works before we can say what we are doing to it.
I misspoke, because there actually can't be a global climate.  (the mean global temp is what people really mean)

Climate by definition is for a region, it's actually the source of the word. 

Quote
late Middle English: from Old French climat or late Latin clima, climat-, from Greek klima 'slope, zone,' from klinein 'to slope.' The term originally denoted a zone of the earth between two lines of latitude, then any region of the earth, and later, a region considered with reference to its atmospheric conditions.
"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 #29
What are the erroneous assumptions?
It helps to realize there are multiple theories involved. The second theory is that a small amount of warming from CO2 (which is the basic greenhouse theory, hothouse theory, the CO2 theory) will result in catastrophic warming due to water vapor (WV), which is by far the most uncertain part of the entire matter.  Because past warming (which was far greater than any current observations) did not result in any such runaway warming.  Nor is there a sound scientific basis to assume this can even happen.  (the assumption that a 1 degree C increase from a doubling of CO2 levels will lead to far greater warming from an increase in WV) . This is the assumption for the second theory, the one that predicts a disaster from the CO2 warming, but not from CO2, but from a positive feedback due to water vapor.

An increase in WV may result in much greater plant growth, especially in the dry forest regions, leading to a negative feedback, decreasing CO2 levels.  An increase in WV may result in more clouds and rain.  It may change the general circulation, nobody actually knows what would happen.  For all anyone actually knows, it could cause an early return of the glacier building part of our current ice age.

The MIT study predicts a CO2 increase  will cause more heat to be radiated in the IR, and future warming will come from SW hearing, due to other feedbacks, changes in ice and albedo.  This is an assumption, based on models. To program a computer model means you have to program assumed things, which is why different models show different results.  (if they all used the same "laws of physics" then they would all show the same result)

One model run actually shows CO2 increase leads to global cooling.

It's not settled what will actually happen.
  • Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 12:10:11 PM 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 🔭

  • MikeB
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #30
Since water is so available over the earth to be in equilibrium through evaporation / condensation I expect that it is not a threat to be triggered into action by increased CO2 as far as contributing much to "global warming".  It is already a dominant player that (I think) should not be much subject to synergistic interaction.

Trapped methane may be another matter.

But also I think the term "runaway" is not so apt.  A combination of environmental changes may move the global temperature set point a few degrees then settle out.  But the effects on local climate might be significant for the stability of the food supply chain.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #31
Since water is so available over the earth to be in equilibrium through evaporation / condensation I expect that it is not a threat to be triggered into action by increased CO2 as far as contributing much to "global warming".  It is already a dominant player that (I think) should not be much subject to synergistic interaction.
That would seem to place you in the skeptic category.


"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 #32
Maybe the whole theory is wrong, maybe only some of the assumptions are wrong because of unanticipated/unpredicted effects.
That actually is much like my current view.  Let me give an example of why I have become so skeptical of the wild sounding claims being made.

Here is an example, just one I came across this morning.

LAST UPDATED ON MARCH 8TH, 2013 AT 6:04 AM BY MIHAI ANDREI
Quote
According to NASA, the average global temperature for 2012 was 14.61 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit); even an increase of a single degree can have catastrophic consequences - bare in mind, this is the average temperature for the entire year for the entire globe. Basically, every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase brings with it a (roughly) 20 meter increase in sea levels - but that's really the least of the problems. In the past century, temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees, and the trend is accelerating
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/holocene-global-warming-08032013/

The alarmists won't blink an eye at something like that.  A skeptic might see the problem.  (and it's a huge one, once you see it)
"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 #33
Since my experience has been most people just don;t think about things, or use skepticism, I will just explain it. 
Here it is broken down, to make it easy.  Unlike many of the crazy sounding claims, this one is easy to explain.


even an increase of a single degree can have catastrophic consequences

So the claim is simple and easy to understand.  Just one degree rise will be a catastrophic event.

Basically, every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase brings with it a (roughly) 20 meter increase in sea levels

and there is why.  Just 1.8 degree will raise the world's sea level 20 meters

In the past century, temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees, and the trend is accelerating

and there is why such claims are so often just pure bullshit.  Really, just crazy sounding nonsense.

And they put it all right next to each other, and with out any doubt, the author doesn't realize what he is writing.

Still can't see it?

If 1.8 degrees means 20 meters rise in sea levels, and there has been a 1.3 degree rise in the last century, if those two things are true, the sea level would be 15 meters higher now.  (at least)

Since obviously the ocean isn't 15 meters higher now than it was, (not even close), it has to be a false statement.   There isn't any other way to look at it.

Of course that isn't what a believer is going to realize.  They will start making up reasons why it has to be true, because that's how true believers roll. 

"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 🔭

  • Fenrir
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #34
Effects are, of course, always instantaneous with causes.  :hmm:
It's what plants crave.

  • MikeB
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #35
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

  • MikeS
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #36
I don't know FX, there's certainly some sea level rise occurring here.


Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #37
Since water is so available over the earth to be in equilibrium through evaporation / condensation I expect that it is not a threat to be triggered into action by increased CO2 as far as contributing much to "global warming".  It is already a dominant player that (I think) should not be much subject to synergistic interaction.

Trapped methane may be another matter.

But also I think the term "runaway" is not so apt.  A combination of environmental changes may move the global temperature set point a few degrees then settle out.  But the effects on local climate might be significant for the stability of the food supply chain.

The whole point is that water vapor is in equilibrium. Any increase in temperature will shift that equilibrium. In general each one degree of warming will produce about 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere. That will cause more warming. All other things being equal.  

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #38
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Sea level rise is very slow. New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree.

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #39
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Quote
Sea level rise is very slow
Citation, please!

Quote
New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree..
Citation, please!

See here!

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #40
I know where you're going with this.
No, you don't have the slightest clue actually.

:stare:  Congratulations on the most prodigious of understatements.  This guy just got finished drawing predictive skill parallels between climastrology and general relativity/Newtonian mechanics.

Btw CAGW,/climate change/climate disruption etc. is not a theory.  Without supporting evidence it is a hypothesis.  A shape-shifting jet-propelled goalpost-moving hypothesis.  Well it would be the ultimate chameleon hypothesis were there any in-principle way to falsify it.  If someone eventually puts forward a reliable methodology for separating putative anthropogenic effects from natural effects then it would progress at last into the sanctified zone of hypothesis.  And in the ultimate reach of some supporting evidence being advanced then further up the ziggurat of science to the dizzying heights of theory it would indeed progress.  Meanwhile though it's unvalidated models only all the way down I'm afraid.

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #41
Unvalidated? Are you an engineer by any chance?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #42
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Quote
Sea level rise is very slow
Citation, please!

Quote
New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree..
Citation, please!

See here!


Simply demanding citations leaves me no clue to what your beef is. But whatever...

http://e360.yale.edu/features/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise

" Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 -- more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. "We have our arms around the problem well enough to say there's a limit to how crazy things are going to get," says Ted Scambos, head scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "

Again I have no idea what your beef is but this number is all over the internet for anyone to find. There was even a sciam article recently.

I call this a very slow rise and it is in the context of the current discussion. But by historical standards it is very fast.


Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #43
Unvalidated? Are you an engineer by any chance?

I do research, the output from which is sometimes passed to engineering and more frequently not.  The bits which are have invariably been rigorously validated, yes.  I certainly do not have the luxury of simply claiming that my models are correct in the absence of repeatable validation.  Even less do I have the extravagance of hurling quasi-religious hysterical invective at the unbelievers - aka engineers - should they have the mulish temerity to ask for evidence supporting my opinions on any given subject.  Because, as you know, an unvalidated model is nothing more than an opinion.

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #44
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Quote
Sea level rise is very slow
Citation, please!

Quote
New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree.
Citation, please!

See here!


Simply demanding citations leaves me no clue to what your beef is. But whatever...

http://e360.yale.edu/features/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise

" Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 -- more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. "We have our arms around the problem well enough to say there's a limit to how crazy things are going to get," says Ted Scambos, head scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "

Again I have no idea what your beef is but this number is all over the internet for anyone to find. There was even a sciam article recently.

I call this a very slow rise and it is in the context of the current discussion. But by historical standards it is very fast.

You (ppnl) made two claims:
  • Sea level rise is very slow
  • New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree..

I just wondered what figures you were working with. There is the most recent NOAA (PDF) report which suggests a range of projected sea level rise between at the very least 30 cm and an upper "extreme" of 2.5 metres by 2100. There is a trend that measurement has outstripped prediction with previous estimates consistently being revised upwards. And it won't stop rising at the end of the century, either. I'm OK. I live around 300 metres above current sea level. Those living at or near the coast in the US might not be so lucky.




Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #45
Problem with these sea level rise projections is that they are - like everything else - a result of temperature projections from the GCM's.  The GCM's are running too hot and do not reflect the actual climate we observe.  Everyone knows this.  Even arch Climategate guys like Ben Santer and Mikey Mann know this.  Here's what they say in a paper just out in Nature Geoscience.

Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou

Abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html


In short - the 'pause' or 'hiatus' or whatever you want to call it is real and was not predicted by the models because of deficiencies in the models.  Santer et al conclude that the disparity is not caused by errors in co2 sensitivity but rather in applied external forcings.  Others would disagree and do indeed think that an unrealistically high value for co2 sensitivity is the primary error.  Karl who produced the now infamous 'pausebuster' paper in time for COP 21 and was called out for it by his own staff is now pretty much isolated on this point.  If even Santer and Mann go against you then you can safely assume that you really are screwed.

You cannot rely on the GCM's in their current incarnations to deliver reliable temperature forecasts and so all predictions stemming from that, such as sea level rise, are off the menu until further notice.
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 10:36:16 AM by Cephus0

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #46
If the wilder excesses of the GCM's with their demonstrated poor levels of predictive skill for whatever reasons are taken away it is interesting to have a look at what can be expected if things proceed along the current real climate trajectory without the putative 'runaway warming' which is not observed.

Danish Meteorological Institute claim ~ - 200 Gt/yr surface mass balance over the last decade for the Greenland ice sheet.  That is, 200 billion tonnes of ice lost every year.  As a side issue unrelated to sea level it's worth noting that over the same period Arctic Ocean sea ice cover has also been mostly declining.

NASA claim between 112 and 82 billion tons * of ice gained per year on Antarctica over roughly the same time frame.  Antarctic sea ice cover has seen record extents over this period but is a movable feast and since it is in general only around one meter thick it can see massive swings if warm air masses arrive from the north.

Say then that the current global net rate of continental ice loss to the oceans is 100 Gt/yr.  Given that the global oceanic mass is ~ 1.35e18 tonnes we have an annual increase in ocean mass of 0.0000074%/yr.  You are going to be waiting at the high tide mark a very long time indeed to get so much as your feet wet - assuming no other confounding factors.  To cross check that, the figures readily available on the internet give the volume of ice on Antarctica - representing around 90% of the volume of ice on the planet - as approximately 30 million cubic kilometres, weighing in at a hefty ~ 3e16 tonnes.  It is estimated that if this volume of ice were to melt, the resulting sea level rise would be 58 m or so.  The current annual melt of 100e9 tonnes then would result in a sea level rise of just under 0.2 mm/yr or 2 cm/century.  Not exactly cause for alarm and bailing on that beachfront property deal.

*  Note that NASA are using imperial tons and I haven't done the conversions since it makes little practical difference - 1 imperial ton = 1.01605 metric tonnes.
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 10:35:05 AM by Cephus0

Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #47
Quote
If the wilder excesses of the GCM's with their demonstrated poor levels of predictive skill for whatever reasons are taken away it is interesting to have a look at what can be expected if things proceed along the current real climate trajectory without the putative 'runaway warming' which is not observed.
Well, indeed. Observation and measurement should reinforce or weaken our reliance on particular climate models.

Quote
Danish Meteorological Institute claim ~ - 200 Gt/yr surface mass balance over that last decade for the Greenland ice sheet.  That is, 200 billion tonnes of ice lost every year.  As a side issue unrelated to sea level it's worth noting that over the same period Arctic Ocean sea ice cover has also been mostly declining.
Funny you mention Denmark - a country engaged in a Pascal wager with renewable energy.

Quote
NASA claim between 112 and 82 billion tons * of ice gained per year on Antarctica over roughly the same time frame.  Antarctic sea ice cover has seen record extents over this period but is a movable feast and since it is in general only around one meter thick it can see massive swings if warm air masses arrive from the north.
Yet a recent study employing satellite radar finds Antarctic glaciers melting at an increasing rate.

Quote
Say then that the current global net rate of continental ice loss to the oceans is 100 Gt/yr.  Given that the global oceanic mass is ~ 1.35e18 tonnes we have an annual increase in ocean mass of 0.0000074%/yr.  You are going to be waiting at the high tide mark a very long time indeed to get so much as your feet wet - assuming no other confounding factors.  To cross check that, the figures readily available on the internet give the volume of ice on Antarctica - representing around 90% of the volume of ice on the planet - as approximately 30 million cubic kilometres, weighing in at a hefty ~ 3e16 tonnes.  It is estimated that if this volume of ice were to melt, the resulting sea level rise would be 58 m or so.  The current annual melt of 100e9 tonnes then would result in a sea level rise of just under 0.2 mm/yr or 2 cm/century.  Not exactly cause for alarm and bailing on that beach front property deal.

*  Note that NASA are using imperial tons and I haven't done the conversions since it makes little practical difference - 1 imperial ton = 1.01605 metric tonnes.
I'll repeat my suggestion that most practical steps to reduce CO2 emissions are worth doing anyway (see Denmark). What's not to like?


Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #48
A recent paper regarding glacial melting in Antarctica.

  • MikeS
Re: AGW, CO2 theory, basic global warming theory
Reply #49
Ice loss as an effect on ocean level can only account for the ice above sea level.
Antarctic ice gain per year is perimeter ice already on the water and has a net zero effect on sea level.
Greenland Ice loss, and pretty much all other glacial losses around the world, are near 100% effect since it's melting above sea level.

The alarmists are also idiots since they take the volume of ice as a total and don't discount the large amount of it that sits below sea level on both the Greenland or Antarctic land mass.

http://nsidc.org/data/atlas/news/bedrock_elevation.html