Understanding the Global Warming Debate

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
absolutely fantastic article at Forbes that describes the differences between warmers and skeptics-
Understanding the Global Warming Debate - Forbes


The IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated, and thus arrived at numbers that implied that feedbacks added an additional 2-4 degrees to the 1 degree from CO2 directly. So in the IPCC numbers, at least two thirds of the future warming comes not from the basic greenhouse gas effect but a second independent theory that the Earth’s climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks. Other more alarmist scientists have come up with feedback numbers even higher. When Al Gore says that we will see a tipping point where temperatures will run away, he is positing that feedbacks will be nearly infinite (a phenomenon we can hear with loud feedback screeches from a microphone).

But the science of this positive climate feedback theory is far from settled. Just as skeptics are probably wrong to question the basic greenhouse gas effect of CO2, catastrophic global warming advocates are wrong to over-estimate our understanding of these feedbacks. Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius. After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks.

I highly recommend reading the article
 
Forbes is hardly a science journal, and any article that starts out with a quote from Ayn Rand is obviously bullshit.

Here is a real science article from the Geological Society of America.


GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

What is the physical theory behind the greenhouse gas effect, and can it be computed from the laws of physics? The answer is a resounding yes! The effects of heat trapping by greenhouse gases was first noted over a century ago and understood from the viewpoint of classical physics involving the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by matter and the thermodynamics of gas. The mathematical and physical laws of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter underlie our understanding of greenhouse gas warming.

This understanding gained a firm basis with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. This development enabled detailed calculations of the physics of absorption, scattering, and emission of electromagnetic radiation by atoms and molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere. Highly sophisticated radiation transfer codes have been perfected to calculate the energy balance in an atmosphere as energy is transferred through atmospheric layers. Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see YouTube video).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
 
GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.




There has been a warming trend ongoing for about 2000 years with a brief interruption by the LIA.

We know the the warming was happening and we know that the warming is happening.

We know what caused the interruption.

Without the LIA, the warming trend is pretty consistent and pretty steady.

The interruption by the LIA caused a pause in the warming, but did not stop it.

It seems very reasonable to accept that whatever it was that caused the warming to run up for 1200 years before the LIA simply resumed when the effects of the Maunder Minimum ended.

I don't see the warming following the Maunder Minimum as a sudden reversal of a previous trend, but rather as a resumption of a trend that was merely interrupted.

By removing the cooling effects of the Maunder Minimum, all of the factors that had been causing the warming of the previous 1200 years resumed and the planet returned to the same level it would have reached had the Maunder Minimum never occurred.

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art
 
Last edited:
I get it just fine...Goebbels warming an amalgamation of Luddism, misanthropy and Malthusian declinism.

Same self-loathing, different wrapper.

Fact-filled?
Yup.

If you were to bother yourself to understand the thematic structure behind Luddism, misanthropy and Malthusian declinism, you'll discover the same doomsday scenarios....But I'm not holding my breath that you would.
 
I get it just fine...Goebbels warming an amalgamation of Luddism, misanthropy and Malthusian declinism.

Same self-loathing, different wrapper.

Fact-filled?
Yup.

If you were to bother yourself to understand the thematic structure behind Luddism, misanthropy and Malthusian declinism, you'll discover the same doomsday scenarios....But I'm not holding my breath that you would.

That's "buzzword-filled". To be fact-filled, you'd actually have to put some facts in the post. Nice try, not biting. :cool:
 
Old Rocks- did you even read the article? do you realize that you are illustrating the very point of the opinion piece? you are talking past the argument. I, as well as the majority of skeptics, agree that some warming has taken place and that the radiative effect of increasing CO2 has contributed. so that part of the discussion is not the sole property of the warmers, although we may still argue about the actual measurements.

the next part of the cascade is feedbacks. here is where the real differences are, and the science is definitely not 'settled'. your side says positive feedbacks multiply the ~1C per doubling of CO2 into 3C and my side says the feedback is neutral or negative. the actual data seems to line up with my side here and against your claim because we should have had ~1.5C warming since 1950 or so.

the last part of the cascade, where catastrophic weather events are predicted and seen, is pure fiction. the data prove it false no matter how much the conclusions are massaged to fit the program of CAGW.



the point of this discussion is to show where there is reasonable concensus ( some warming, CO2 makes some contribution), where there is hotly debated mechanisms like feedbacks (increased CO2 vs all the other pathways that have kept the climate relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years despite major differences in inputs), and the complete fabrication of climate predictions that are only the speculation of those who make them. warmers insist that if you believe the first stage then you must believe the next two stages as well. skeptics think the first stage is somewhat true but the second stage is highly contested and the third stage is nonsense.

I have no antipathy towards you Old Rocks. everyone gets to make their own decisions as to what evidence is believable and how much weight to give it. I think you have gone far overboard in giving credence to the farfetched catastrophic predictions at the far end of the cascade of climate knowledge but that is your perogative. I prefer to stay more grounded in what we actually know to a high degree and I stay away from fantastic predictions of doom that have always been proven wrong in the past.
 
Fact-filled?
Yup.

If you were to bother yourself to understand the thematic structure behind Luddism, misanthropy and Malthusian declinism, you'll discover the same doomsday scenarios....But I'm not holding my breath that you would.

That's "buzzword-filled". To be fact-filled, you'd actually have to put some facts in the post. Nice try, not biting. :cool:
Like I said....Not holding my breath that you would bother to understand.
 
I think you have gone far overboard in giving credence to the farfetched catastrophic predictions at the far end of the cascade of climate knowledge but that is your perogative. I prefer to stay more grounded in what we actually know to a high degree and I stay away from fantastic predictions of doom that have always been proven wrong in the past.
You mean kinda like the Luddites and Malthusian declinists did? :eusa_whistle:
 
Man-made Global warming is a scam.

Is there warming? Well, not all scientists agree.

Is it caused by CO2s, or are CO2s a result? Scientists don't all agree.

Are we putting out a sufficient amount of CO2 to the degree that the vast CO2 sink that is called the oceans cannot compensate for? Scientists cannot agree.

Is CO2 more of a factor than sun spot activity? Most scientists would say no.

There are blatent cover ups and political and financial pressures that influence the AGW mania that exists today.

It used to be called Global Warming, now it's called Climate Change. Change the name so that any kind of climate change can be blamed on man. It's a scam.

And the last point, anything to which the solution is socialism, has to be fraud.
 
Forbes is hardly a science journal, and any article that starts out with a quote from Ayn Rand is obviously bullshit.

Here is a real science article from the Geological Society of America.


GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

What is the physical theory behind the greenhouse gas effect, and can it be computed from the laws of physics? The answer is a resounding yes! The effects of heat trapping by greenhouse gases was first noted over a century ago and understood from the viewpoint of classical physics involving the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by matter and the thermodynamics of gas. The mathematical and physical laws of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter underlie our understanding of greenhouse gas warming.

This understanding gained a firm basis with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. This development enabled detailed calculations of the physics of absorption, scattering, and emission of electromagnetic radiation by atoms and molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere. Highly sophisticated radiation transfer codes have been perfected to calculate the energy balance in an atmosphere as energy is transferred through atmospheric layers. Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see YouTube video). CO2 experiment - YouTube

How much warming does the lab report from each additional PPM of CO2?
 
"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."
 
"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"? :mm:

Yes, using the "Because we say so" method of scientific research

More water vapor > more warming >warmer ocean > more CO2.
 
Last edited:
"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"? :mm:
Were that a true feedback loop, the planet would've turned into a cloud shrouded sauna millennia ago.

But it's not....And you Malthusian warmist loons are still loony.
 
"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"? :mm:


just out of curiousity, did you read the article konradv? Old Rocks obviously didnt, or at least didnt get past the first couple of paragraphs, and even then he totally misunderstood what was being said.

how did you rationalize away what was said about "feedback loop" in the article? and did you see my comment on that other thread where you were talking about the logrithmic effect of CO2? what do you think has happened to the missing temperature rise that should have already happened if the IPCC central value of 3C per doubling is correct?
 

Forum List

Back
Top