Climate change- discuss

[Albedo]

Nice post again Pumpy...you do know your onions.

 

That C02 versus H20 absorption stuff follows on from the work of Arheniuss. They had jars with the above gasses in and shone light thru them. Its why the effects differ between the poles and the equator. Their jars didn't work well because of some other factor which I have forgotten.

 

I had a good article on this on the old laptop, I'll search it out again. I think some googling on the history of climate change science will find this one so should be able to dig up both sides of this one without too much trouble:001_smile:

[Albedo]

Here's a bite sized chunk to be going on with Pumpy:001_smile:

 

 

"Arrhenius' calculations were disputed and subsumed into a larger debate over whether atmospheric changes had caused the ice ages. Experimental attempts to measure infrared absorption in the laboratory showed little differences resulted from increasing CO2 levels, and also found significant overlap between absorption by CO2 and absorption by water vapor, all of which suggested that increasing carbon dioxide emissions would have little climatic effect. These early experiments were later found to be insufficiently accurate, given the instrumentation of the time. Many scientists also thought that oceans would quickly absorb any excess carbon dioxide."

 

I know this doesn't negate your argument Pumpy but there is quite a lot of this to read thru. The source is just 'History of Climate Change' on good old Wicki.

[Pumpy]

Nice post again Pumpy...you do know your onions.

 

I've been into weather forecasting most of my life (sailor), I read a lot on climate before it was politicised, if you have a body of knowledge from before 1980 you realise the IPCC threw the whole body of accumulated knowledge under a bus. I only know a bit, really, I am humbled daily on this subject by many scientific bloggers, I consider myself a lightweight on this subject.

 

Climate science is largely science by press release IMO, they put out some scary headline paper, it's picked up by a compliant alarmist media and travels the world in hours, it takes years in some case to even get the data to reproduce the results, which are very often spurious, but by that time another ruck of scary headlines have been put out, no-one remembers the original paper or cares about it, it did it's job the day the headline was created.

A recent example was the "peer reviewed" Gergis et al 2012 paper "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium" it was supposed to be a new temperature reconstruction for the IPCC AR5 (the latest IPPC draft due next year) The scary press release went global in hours, bloggers pulled it to pieces in days they stuck at it highlighting glaring errors, so much so the paper has been "put on hold" it should have been retracted there and then, no doubt it will see the light of day again.

What they did was get a bunch of temperature proxies, filter the lot to pick reconstructions that fitted their preconceived notion of what the graph should look like, and omit the ones that didn't fit their notions, this is called omitted variable fallacy, bloggers have since looked at the omitted data, the graph from law dome (a high resolution ice core from Antarctica) hit my screen this morning, it is quite remarkable as it shows higher temps than the 20th century during the last 2000 yrs, clearly the MWP was global. Clearly this graph was inconvenient for the warmist cause. I've seen hundreds of similar shenanigans over the years.

 

Don't use Wiki for climate science, it has a bunch of gatekeeprs patrolling to keep sceptic science out, it's a saga in it's self, just one chapter of the revisionist propaganda that is todays climate science.

 

I have to stick to logic, my alarm bells started to ring in the early 80's when they started to claim a warmer global climate, warmer poles, would mean more storms, this is illogical from the get go. Most of the energy gets into the system at the equator, most of it leaves at the poles, it is the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles that causes weather patterns and storms, the more the difference the more the energy flow, the more prevalent extreme weather, if the poles are warmer it should mean less storms, and it does if you bother to check global storm numbers, but here we hit a snag, data has not been collected globally for very long.

 

This means you need some historical perspective, globally, before you can start to make a judgement about changes, when you start to look for the historical evidence you soon realise climate always changed, it's been warmer in the recent past (Romans growing grapes in Yorkshire) and colder (Thames ice fares on the frozen river).

 

Global "average temperature" is another silly idea IMO, when it's summer in the NH, it's winter in the SH. Only half the planet is getting energy from the Sun at any one time, the other half is losing energy at night, even if you could accurately measure global temps, what use is an average to anyone? Min global temp can be -50 and max can +140 at the same time, an average is meaningless IMO. When you start to look at long temperature graphs from many parts of the world, where you can get at the raw unadjusted data you see "climate scientists" have been revising past temps down and recent temps up, there can be no justification for revisionist science IMO, it's a crock of propaganda.

 

Pumpy

[Albedo]

The press have never understood climate science. To go by 'press release' is a waste of time. The press do not lead the climate change debate, they fail woefully to follow it...

 

Re wickipedia and Arrhenius try The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources loads of good essays there and the history is the history when it comes down to it.

 

Its good that you're raising proper sceptic arguments.... I've done quite a lot of work on one of your earlier ones this morning.

 

I'm having trouble summarising for posting here as whilst I think folk reading the thread want to make informed choices. If we just post links to lengthy articles the thread won't have any flow to it.

 

The point you make about climate always changed.... Thats a biggy ... but its the basis of the whole thing... Anthropogenic Climate change theory comes from an understanding of the ice ages and the fact that climate always changed.

 

This is just a quick response, but there's a lot of big points in your post.

 

I think we need to find a way to do digestible bite sized chunks. We could help each other out here because you and I both know the arguments. We need to present them a little bit better:thumbup1:

[Albedo]

Sorry thats the wrong link I have not seen that page at all.

 

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

Hopefully, this is the right link

 

 

Wasn't doing links but I threw this in just for reference for you pumpy

 

 

if you click on this link then 'timeline of milestones' bottom right of page then 'radiation math' a few lines down.... you'll see where I've been all morning ...

enjoy

Edited June 13, 2012 by Albedo

[Le Sanglier]

Fair enough mate.

 

I had let it ride till you quoted him, and it did get my back up. As I am on best behaviour and in the interest of less derailing I'm happy to let it go. Feel free to have your say however Mr S.Grinder.

 

Thank you for your permission:001_smile: This thread has in various forms appeared countless times before, so I make no apology for derailing it. (it's all been said before)

So I ask you, if you can, to put to one side global warming, true or false, whatever.

Whenever this comes up the same sort of language comes to the surface.

Angry Mother Earth will wipe us out. We Have been bad/greedy/immoral.

We Must lead a more simple life.

lots of links to men in suits in rooms full of people predicting our doom if we do not change our ways. and written documents spouting pseudo science twisted to suit.

People professing virtue by boasting about their self sufficiency/carbon offsetting.

Ring any bells? yep, you got yourself a full blown religion.

Now very few young people nowadays, and in our culture would want to be seen as religious but it seems a need exists to have fear of an armageddon of some sort meted out by an angry god to punish our sinful ways. The climate change debate brings them in their droves.

Right I'm off to throw a maiden into a volcano. Or buy English apples I can't decide which is more effective.

Mick

[Albedo]

I do know that if we weren’t worrying about global warming, we’d be worrying about the next ice age.

 

This is all designed to ‘confuse’ the population from worrying about the environment as a whole, i.e. global warming bad therefore nuclear energy good.

 

This is a good point.... I wouldn't put it past them:001_smile:

[easy-lift guy]

Mick, Might I suggest splitting the diference. Find a maiden eating an apple next to a volcano push her in and I know I will feel much better!. I am off to work.

easy-lift guy

[Albedo]

Thank you for your permission:001_smile: This thread has in various forms appeared countless times before, so I make no apology for derailing it. (it's all been said before)

So I ask you, if you can, to put to one side global warming, true or false, whatever.

Whenever this comes up the same sort of language comes to the surface.

Angry Mother Earth will wipe us out. We Have been bad/greedy/immoral.

We Must lead a more simple life.

lots of links to men in suits in rooms full of people predicting our doom if we do not change our ways. and written documents spouting pseudo science twisted to suit.

People professing virtue by boasting about their self sufficiency/carbon offsetting.

Ring any bells? yep, you got yourself a full blown religion.

Now very few young people nowadays, and in our culture would want to be seen as religious but it seems a need exists to have fear of an armageddon of some sort meted out by an angry god to punish our sinful ways. The climate change debate brings them in their droves.

Right I'm off to throw a maiden into a volcano. Or buy English apples I can't decide which is more effective.

Mick

 

 

Cheers Stumpgrinder, it takes all sorts to make a world doesn't it, I guess Tony was right and I read you wrong. I don't agree with you though.

 

I'm interested in this stuff but don't necessarily believe it all. Its hard to say what I think I have learned about it without appearing to be preaching it.

 

I guess thats how us types come across.

 

Thats why I think this thread should be about learning what the arguments are rather than pushing others to take one point of view or another:thumbup1:

[Pumpy]

Sorry thats the wrong link I have not seen that page at all.

 

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

Hopefully, this is the right link

 

 

Wasn't doing links but I threw this in just for reference for you pumpy

 

 

if you click on this link then 'timeline of milestones' bottom right of page then 'radiation math' a few lines down.... you'll see where I've been all morning ...

enjoy

 

OK mate, I can follow that lot, here's the rub though... it's all modelling, i.e. theoretical, non of it is empirical. Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.

 

Here's an empirical example... "greenhouse theory disproved a century ago"

 

Here the theory is expanded, partly empirical "Limits on the Co2 Greenhouse Effect" (warning the maths makes my head hurt, so I'll link the empirical bit below)

 

This is a discussion paper that uses well established engineering methods for the calculation of radiant heat transfer in the atmosphere (based on measurements)

Conclusion (pdf warning)

Beyond 200 ppm, the Leckner curves indicate that there is a negligible change in emissivity and hence a negligible change in forcing. That is: Above 200 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 there is no increase in the greenhouse affect due to CO2, and changes to human emissions of CO2 will have no affect on climate.

 

I'm having trouble summarising for posting here as whilst I think folk reading the thread want to make informed choices. If we just post links to lengthy articles the thread won't have any flow to it.

 

Not sure how I can simplify that lot, stick with the experiment from a century ago it's quite simple, if anyone can simplify the rest, I'm all ears