A Climate Hero.

[ding]

Well you’re creepy as fuck. That’s for sure

Says the one who keeps bringing up her genitals.

At least you acknowledge that humans can have an effect on climate

I'm not a monster.

Or just really stupid.

There's no controlled laboratory experiment which quantifies the associated temperature of CO2 from radiative forcing. Tyndall measured different cool down times for two different gas compositions; air and 100% CO2. He observed there was a difference in the cool down times but never quantified the temperature difference. No one has, but they could. So it comes down to modeling. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset in your models. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset in their models. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not.

Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing so there is no certainty that your guys are right and my guys are wrong just because we happen to be in a warming trend.

 

[ding]

I have seen two estimates of when the Earth was this warm. One said 3 million years ago and another said around 125,000 years ago. So choose your poison.

The planet was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 about 125,000 years ago.

 

[ding]

I have seen two estimates of when the Earth was this warm. One said 3 million years ago and another said around 125,000 years ago. So choose your poison.

The earth was also this warm about 3 million years ago but most of that 3 million years have been much colder. But ever since the Holocene started - about 12,000 years ago - temperatures have been pretty similar to today.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I could show you loads of graphs that say the opposite. But against your global warming denier cult it would probably do no good.

Who is denying "global warming" around here?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not a monster.

I dunno...over on the gun thread I believe you called my response to the recent slaughter of 20 children "emotional" and claimed since I was disgusted by 20-40 little kids getting blown to pieces that I clearly was unhappy with ANY gun violence.

Me: Disgusted by gun violence and the second slaughter of little kids in 10 years.
You: OK with a certain level and at least 20 dead kids is apparently not above that level.

Who's the monster?

There's no controlled laboratory experiment which quantifies the associated temperature of CO2 from radiative forcing.

You don't understand anything about this topic. It's kind of scary.

our guys include urban station temperature data

That's because it has been statistically shown to have NO EFFECT ON THE OVERALL DATA SET.

This is what fascinates me about you. You honestly seem completely OBLIVIOUS to how data is handled.

Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing so there is no certainty that your guys are right and my guys are wrong just because we happen to be in a warming trend.

Given the chance to side with people who actually understand the science or someone like you who can't even listen when someone tells them their gender and who doesn't seem to know the basics of data handling I think I'll go with the professionals.

Sorry.

 

[ding]

I dunno...over on the gun thread I believe you called my response to the recent slaughter of 20 children "emotional" and claimed since I was disgusted by 20-40 little kids getting blown to pieces that I clearly was unhappy with ANY gun violence.

Me: Disgusted by gun violence and the second slaughter of little kids in 10 years.
You: OK with a certain level and at least 20 dead kids is apparently not above that level.

Who's the monster?

You are.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are.

If being disgusted by 20 dead kids makes me a monster, then I have to wonder what kind of bizarro world you live in.

Creep.

 

[ding]

If being disgusted by 20 dead kids makes me a monster, then I have to wonder what kind of bizarro world you live in.

Creep.

You're pure evil.

 

[ding]

You don't understand anything about this topic. It's kind of scary.

Says the girl who knows nothing about Tyndall's experiment or laboratory experiments.

 

[ding]

That's because it has been statistically shown to have NO EFFECT ON THE OVERALL DATA SET.

This is what fascinates me about you. You honestly seem completely OBLIVIOUS to how data is handled.

This says otherwise.

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Given the chance to side with people who actually understand the science or someone like you who can't even listen when someone tells them their gender and who doesn't seem to know the basics of data handling I think I'll go with the professionals.

Again... There's no controlled laboratory experiment which quantifies the associated temperature of CO2 from radiative forcing. Tyndall measured different cool down times for two different gas compositions; air and 100% CO2. He observed there was a difference in the cool down times but never quantified the temperature difference. No one has, but they could. So it comes down to modeling. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset in your models. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset in their models. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not.

Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing so there is no certainty that your guys are right and my guys are wrong just because we happen to be in a warming trend.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You're pure evil.

Niiice, finally I've gotten under your skin! Now I know how you feel every day! I don't think I really like trolling people as much as you do. I have limited stomach for it.

As I said earlier I'm more than willing to accept your claim of being an engineer (I was mostly just hitting you back for all your attacks on me). And in all reality I don't REALLY think you are OK with dead kids. But your could TRY at some point to post things that show a more "human" side.

Just a pro tip. But you have far more stomach for coming across as a tool and a bastard than I do. I can only do it for so long.

 

[ding]

Niiice, finally I've gotten under your skin! Now I know how you feel every day! I don't think I really like trolling people as much as you do. I have limited stomach for it.

As I said earlier I'm more than willing to accept your claim of being an engineer (I was mostly just hitting you back for all your attacks on me). And in all reality I don't REALLY think you are OK with dead kids. But your could TRY at some point to post things that show a more "human" side.

Just a pro tip. But you have far more stomach for coming across as a tool and a bastard than I do. I can only do it for so long.

No. You can be pure evil and not get under my skin. You are what you are. Nothing I do will change that.

 

[ding]

I don't think I really like trolling people as much as you do. I have limited stomach for it.

You are lying, abu. It's the only thing you do.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again... There's no controlled laboratory experiment which quantifies the associated temperature of CO2 from radiative forcing.

Let's talk real science for a second. You're an engineer so maybe you can explain to me how to construct such an experiment.

Here's the boundary conditions:

1. It has to allow for water vapor feedbacks

2. It has to mimic the actual greenhouse (ie it has to be a gas volume with decreasing pressure with altitude in order to measure the balance of energy in and out and allow for how CO2 actually works as a greenhouse gas --it re-radiates IR until it gets to a point in your model "atmosphere" where re-radiation back out into the vacuum of space gets higher and higher...this is how the greenhouse effect ACTUALLY works)

3. It would be very nice to couple the model atmosphere with some "ocean" as well. That way the added CO2 in your system will have to undergo the complex chemistry of CO2 in the model "ocean".


The reason I mention all that is how earth science is done. Since we can't actually make an entire tectonic plate in the lab we have to go out into the field and see how these things function. We track the movement of the plate. But we don't do repeatable experiments in the lab on this. But plate tectonics is really well established!

Earth sciences OFTEN rely on field work ONLY.

As I noted earlier, my earth science career was mostly in the lab and in the petrography scope room, so I didn't get out much. There are SOME things you can do in the lab and some things you can't.

CLimate sensitivity is one of those things that is really hard if not impossible to do in the lab.

Tyndall measured different cool down times for two different gas compositions; air and 100% CO2. He observed there was a difference in the cool down times but never quantified the temperature difference. No one has, but they could.

But it wouldn't really relate to the greenhouse effect other than to show that CO2 absorbs IR. That was the point of Tyndall's research. He wasn't trying to quantify how many photons of IR a given quantity of CO2 was absorbing. And even if that COULD be pulled back out it wouldn't really be useful to understanding how added CO2 in the real atmosphere behaved with regards to warming.

That's because the greenhouse effect ISN'T JUST CO2 ABSORBING IR PHOTONS. It's CO2 absorbing an IR photon, then re-radiating it back out and another CO2 molecule absorbing it etc etc. The IR photons steadily rise in the atmosphere to a point where it re-radiates back out into space. The incoming and outgoing energy to the earth is in balance. The key is that level in the atmosphere where the IR re-radiates back out into space is higher and higher and higher with more CO2. And at those high elevations the amount of gas is much lower so the transmission out into space is less efficient which leads to increased warmth at the surface.

So it comes down to modeling.

Why do you ignore the folks who used real-time measures related to Mt. Pinatubo?

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider.

Yeah, you keep noting that, but that isn't really quite the story. There are denialists and skeptics who think they've found the magic key but until the vast majority of experts who actually WORK IN THIS AREA look at this analysis and act on it I'm going to assume that this analysis, like McKitterick and McIntyre's PCA "analysis" is probably flawed in some way. I will hold off on simply accepting a claim that has just been thrown out.

Your guys include urban station temperature data

Which, again, has been shown to NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL DATA SET.

and use the low variability solar output dataset in your models. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset in their models. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not.

Your guys amount to a small cadre of denialists. In every science there's denialists even in the ranks of the professionals. I had a mineralogy teacher in the 80's who doubted plate tectonics (he was really old and relatively well known in his circles, but he still had this doubt.)

There's always going to be a small number of opponents. Since neither you nor I are actual climate scientists it seems like you are following nothing more than confirmation bias. Otherwise you'd be bound to listen to the majority of the experts and not just your favorite minority.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. You can be pure evil and not get under my skin. You are what you are. Nothing I do will change that.

Well, then the pure evil person is the first to actually apologize for being nasty to you.

Sorry.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are lying, abu. It's the only thing you do.

I see you keep saying "abu". I'm genuinely curious if you could give me their full name so I could see their posts and determine if I'm even marginally like that person.

Thanks.

 

[ding]

Let's talk real science for a second. You're an engineer so maybe you can explain to me how to construct such an experiment.

Here's the boundary conditions:

1. It has to allow for water vapor feedbacks

2. It has to mimic the actual greenhouse (ie it has to be a gas volume with decreasing pressure with altitude in order to measure the balance of energy in and out and allow for how CO2 actually works as a greenhouse gas --it re-radiates IR until it gets to a point in your model "atmosphere" where re-radiation back out into the vacuum of space gets higher and higher...this is how the greenhouse effect ACTUALLY works)

3. It would be very nice to couple the model atmosphere with some "ocean" as well. That way the added CO2 in your system will have to undergo the complex chemistry of CO2 in the model "ocean".


The reason I mention all that is how earth science is done. Since we can't actually make an entire tectonic plate in the lab we have to go out into the field and see how these things function. We track the movement of the plate. But we don't do repeatable experiments in the lab on this. But plate tectonics is really well established!

Earth sciences OFTEN rely on field work ONLY.

As I noted earlier, my earth science career was mostly in the lab and in the petrography scope room, so I didn't get out much. There are SOME things you can do in the lab and some things you can't.

CLimate sensitivity is one of those things that is really hard if not impossible to do in the lab.



But it wouldn't really relate to the greenhouse effect other than to show that CO2 absorbs IR. That was the point of Tyndall's research. He wasn't trying to quantify how many photons of IR a given quantity of CO2 was absorbing. And even if that COULD be pulled back out it wouldn't really be useful to understanding how added CO2 in the real atmosphere behaved with regards to warming.

That's because the greenhouse effect ISN'T JUST CO2 ABSORBING IR PHOTONS. It's CO2 absorbing an IR photon, then re-radiating it back out and another CO2 molecule absorbing it etc etc. The IR photons steadily rise in the atmosphere to a point where it re-radiates back out into space. The incoming and outgoing energy to the earth is in balance. The key is that level in the atmosphere where the IR re-radiates back out into space is higher and higher and higher with more CO2. And at those high elevations the amount of gas is much lower so the transmission out into space is less efficient which leads to increased warmth at the surface.



Why do you ignore the folks who used real-time measures related to Mt. Pinatubo?



Yeah, you keep noting that, but that isn't really quite the story. There are denialists and skeptics who think they've found the magic key but until the vast majority of experts who actually WORK IN THIS AREA look at this analysis and act on it I'm going to assume that this analysis, like McKitterick and McIntyre's PCA "analysis" is probably flawed in some way. I will hold off on simply accepting a claim that has just been thrown out.



Which, again, has been shown to NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL DATA SET.





Your guys amount to a small cadre of denialists. In every science there's denialists even in the ranks of the professionals. I had a mineralogy teacher in the 80's who doubted plate tectonics (he was really old and relatively well known in his circles, but he still had this doubt.)

There's always going to be a small number of opponents. Since neither you nor I are actual climate scientists it seems like you are following nothing more than confirmation bias. Otherwise you'd be bound to listen to the majority of the experts and not just your favorite minority.

tl/dr

The test only needs to measure the immediate GHG effect. Tyndall's experiment is perfect. This isn't about climate sensitivity. The flow of heat is being retained/restrained/choked immediately. Measure that. That's the GHG effect.

 

[ding]

I see you keep saying "abu". I'm genuinely curious if you could give me their full name so I could see their posts and determine if I'm even marginally like that person.

Thanks.

abu afak

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

tl/dr

Thank you for ignoring my efforts. It is a comfort to know you want to talk about technical details given your expertise.

The test only needs to measure the immediate GHG effect.

Which I laid out in what you determined was too long.

Tyndall's experiment is perfect.

Not really. It established quite well that CO2 absorbs IR photons which was the point. It couldn't be used to determine how much an added Xppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would alter temperature.

This isn't about climate sensitivity.

That's EXACTLY what it is about.

The flow of heat is being retained/restrained/choked immediately. Measure that. That's the GHG effect.

The GHG effect, again, is much more complex than just "heat trapping". It's a lot of radiation physics in gases of different concentrations in a vertical column.


What you are describing is a measure of how much IR radiation a given number of moles of CO2 can absorb. That's only a tiny tiny fraction of the topic.

I suppose if you were REALLY interested you could integrate under an absorption spectrum those peaks associated with the various modes of the C=O bond. But, again, that wouldn't really tell you much in regards to the AGW concept.