Working to cope with climate change

[Trakar]

We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.

I believe I have looked at every one of them that can be found on video and none of them are showing anything like a greenhouse effect. They are mostly proving the ideal gas laws and at least one is providing unarguable proof that CO2 molecules can't absorb the emission of other CO2 molecules. None demonstrate a greenhouse effect or anything like a danger from absorption by the oceans.

Try looking in science journals and texts instead of political advocacy youtube presentations.

 

[Trakar]

...BTW: Why do you think a Wiki link to "hockey stick" would change my mind? I posted the UK Telegraph journalistic story of the fraud that includes the hockey stick -- did they lie or misrepresent anything or didn't you read it or do you think that Wiki is the ultimate scientific referee? Which is it -- enfant terrible?

They lied and misrepresented virtually every statement in the article. Not surprising, however, expecting journalism from the Telegraph is about as silly as expecting accuracy in its American twin publication, the Weekly World News

 

[Trakar]

No fair PREPARING for a response.. Nobody else here does. You're not taking this shit seriously are you?

LOL! serious enough to label it "play."

Practically, yes, I take the issue of climate change extremely seriously, and a large part of both my personal and professional life revolve around addressing the issues of climate science and the changes that climate change are bringing to our families, nation, and planet. I don't take this board too seriously, but it is a good place to research and explore fringe hyperpartisan reactions to more mainstream concepts and considerations. Now let me get back into character...

Sounds to me like your copping to the fact that your livelihood DEPENDS on the assumption of man-made climate change. That's an important disclosure dontcha think? I'm not poking you about it -- but perhaps it does make a diff to some of us who ARE actually pretty economically and politically neutral (but SERIOUS) about the topic... Carry-on...

I have seen nothing politically neutral about your interests in this topic, in fact, your beliefs and understandings seem entirely and fringely partisan in nature and character. I do invest to protect the future of my family and while many of my investments do reflect my understandings of the world and business in particular, none of my investments depend upon the realities and demonstrable fact that human CO2 emissions are the primary forcing agent of modern climate change.

 

[Trakar]

...Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

Other factors changed (Atmospheric CO2 levels, aerosol concentrations, etc.,) -

"On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes" - http://webcenter.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/divergence2007.pdf

"Increased temperature sensitivity and divergent growth trends in circumpolar boreal forests" - http://web1.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/2005WILMKGL023331.pdf

"Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes" - Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes

"Long-term changes in tree-ring – climate relationships at Mt. Patscherkofel (Tyrol, Austria) since the mid 1980s" - Long-term changes in tree-ring

Many more available

 

[flacaltenn]

...BTW: Why do you think a Wiki link to "hockey stick" would change my mind? I posted the UK Telegraph journalistic story of the fraud that includes the hockey stick -- did they lie or misrepresent anything or didn't you read it or do you think that Wiki is the ultimate scientific referee? Which is it -- enfant terrible?

They lied and misrepresented virtually every statement in the article. Not surprising, however, expecting journalism from the Telegraph is about as silly as expecting accuracy in its American twin publication, the Weekly World News

NOW -- your objectivity falls to shreds... I've SEEN the data from every tree in that Siberian forest. I witnessed their obviously fraudulent selection of the ones that fit their objectives. I've also seen studies trying to confirm ANY accuracy in that tree ring data from Siberia and it isn't there. (Briffa was FORCED to release the raw data set after ClimateGate) There is no defense of the indefensible. Yet you try..

Anyways -- on top of all that -- From some other source..

"I think that I shall never see
A thermometer as bad as a tree."

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL! serious enough to label it "play."

Practically, yes, I take the issue of climate change extremely seriously, and a large part of both my personal and professional life revolve around addressing the issues of climate science and the changes that climate change are bringing to our families, nation, and planet. I don't take this board too seriously, but it is a good place to research and explore fringe hyperpartisan reactions to more mainstream concepts and considerations. Now let me get back into character...

Sounds to me like your copping to the fact that your livelihood DEPENDS on the assumption of man-made climate change. That's an important disclosure dontcha think? I'm not poking you about it -- but perhaps it does make a diff to some of us who ARE actually pretty economically and politically neutral (but SERIOUS) about the topic... Carry-on...

I have seen nothing politically neutral about your interests in this topic, in fact, your beliefs and understandings seem entirely and fringely partisan in nature and character. I do invest to protect the future of my family and while many of my investments do reflect my understandings of the world and business in particular, none of my investments depend upon the realities and demonstrable fact that human CO2 emissions are the primary forcing agent of modern climate change.

Not talking about your investments.. I'm talking about your ".... professional life revolve around the .. issues of climate change"..

 

[saveliberty]

Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream. A steadily increasing number too.

Go back to your task masters and tell them we understand and will not be silent Trakar.

 

[bobgnote]

Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream. A steadily increasing number too.

Go back to your task masters and tell them we understand and will not be silent Trakar.

Hey, sock. Put up a link and some information, and quit spamming a bunch of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do realize that these are libelous lies and malicious fairytale distortions from top to bottom, don't you?

Filthy heretics, speaking words that impugn the church.

Are you planning violence against them?

 

[flacaltenn]

Doubt over man-made climate change is mainstream. A steadily increasing number too.

Go back to your task masters and tell them we understand and will not be silent Trakar.

Hey, sock. Put up a link and some information, and quit spamming a bunch of shit.

Perhaps the GNote should spend some time actually commenting and debating on the work we "skeptics" are doing here. Or can't you think for yourself based on your mastery of the subject?

Never really responded to :::
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5398138-post276.html

 

[Trakar]

I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.

You haven't read it yet, but you don't see anything inconsistent. Let me help you...

My actual words are listed above, and while they don't appear to need translation to me, they are different in meaning than your paraphrase of my intent.

I see no compelling support for the assertions of the author in the data or described technique of data analysis. I see nothing that compellingly challenges mainstream climate science understandings or the physics of atmospheric radiation transfer. I see unfounded speculation based upon incomplete incidental data rather than the types of data required to produce a valid and complete TI assessment, the simplistic peak-trough measurements for TI work fine when you are trying to figure out the thermal inertia of a block of concrete, but the process is a bit different when we are talking about trying to measure the TI of a turbulent block of sky, where the mass of air you are measuring is not the same mass of air at mid-afternoon (~high temp.) and pre-dawn (low temp), there seem to be several inappropriate misapplications of standard theory, processes and modelling, but I've only made it through my first good solid read of the "paper." I use quotes there because technically this really isn't in the form of research paper beyond some sectional layout similarities, and I guess since it wasn't intended to be a science research paper, there is nothing wrong with that, but in its current form I'd be very surprised if it ever made it beyond editorial review yet alone preliminary peer-review in any professional science journal.

...That latter part .... "...it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidth are SO NARROW that there is no appreciable energy retained." This couples with my OTHER LISTED skeptical concern about what we know in terms of Solar spectrum and trends in shifts of important spectral lines. We've only had access to accurate measurements of this for about 30 years as I'm about to explain to my buddy and pal OopyDoo when we chat about the width and placement of absorption bands in GH gasses.

It is indeed an oft repeated trope among the pseudoscience cranks, but it simply isn't an accurate portrayal of what extensive observation and experiementation over the last 150 years or so have demonstrated.

 

[flacaltenn]

I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.

You haven't read it yet, but you don't see anything inconsistent. Let me help you...

My actual words are listed above, and while they don't appear to need translation to me, they are different in meaning than your paraphrase of my intent.

I see no compelling support for the assertions of the author in the data or described technique of data analysis. I see nothing that compellingly challenges mainstream climate science understandings or the physics of atmospheric radiation transfer. I see unfounded speculation based upon incomplete incidental data rather than the types of data required to produce a valid and complete TI assessment (the simplistic peak-trough measurements for TI work fine when you are trying to figure out the thermal inertia of a block of concrete, but the process is a bit different when we are talking about trying to measure the TI of a turbulent block of sky, where the mass of air you are measuring is not the same mass of air at mid-afternoon (~high temp.) and pre-dawn (low temp), there seem to be several inappropriate misapplications of standard theory, processes and modelling, but I've only made it through my first good solid read of the "paper." I use quotes there because technically this really isn't in the form of research paper beyond some sectional layout similarities, and I guess since it wasn't intended to be a science research paper, there is nothing wrong with that, but in its current form I'd be very surprised if it ever made it beyond editorial review yet alone preliminary peer-review in any professional science journal.

...That latter part .... "...it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidth are SO NARROW that there is no appreciable energy retained." This couples with my OTHER LISTED skeptical concern about what we know in terms of Solar spectrum and trends in shifts of important spectral lines. We've only had access to accurate measurements of this for about 30 years as I'm about to explain to my buddy and pal OopyDoo when we chat about the width and placement of absorption bands in GH gasses.

It is indeed an oft repeated trope among the pseudoscience cranks, but it simply isn't an accurate portrayal of what extensive observation and experiementation over the last 150 years or so have demonstrated.

Pardon me --- but you haven't said ANYTHING important here. It is one of MANY similiar studies that fail to confirm surface temps correlating with increase in CO2. The construct of the experiment is BRILLIANT (as oppose to weak bleating about "peaks and troughs") because it virtually removes solar irradiation and water vapor.

As for you dismissing the Carbon Spectral Asorption Band arguments as "trope amongst cranks" -- I see you have no grounded foundation in basic physics or graph reading. Even tho CO2 is a POWERFUL GHG -- It's abilities are limited to a few spectral lines that MIGHT be vulnerable to shifts in solar spectrum.. You fail to grasp the fact that the CO2 filtering effects in W/m2 are logarithmic and WILL SATURATE at a point where no more Solar irradiance can fill that spectral filtering. The fact that those lines largely overlap with water vapor makes it MUCH more suspect the proposition that CO2 concentrations ALONE are adequate for modeling climate change or are the principal driver of observed warming..

You'd be loath to dismiss ANY set of studies that all contradict the "mainstream understanding" of anything. The guy is qualified. His set-up is brilliant and he IS measuring the correlation of surface temps with CO2 concentrations.

Gee I thought this was as simple as a fish tank and a bottle of CO2 and few barbie dolls...
Which is it Trakar????

 

[wirebender]

OK, Wienerbender, look at these and see if absorption happens:

Where did you ever get the idea that I don't think absorption happens. Of course CO2 absorbs IR. That is self evident when you look at its absorption spectra. What you don't seem to realize is that it is also self evident when you look at its emission spectra that it isn't hanging on to any of that energy it absorbs. It emits what it absorbs and it emits it at a slightly lower frequency that is out of the absorption range of other CO2 molecules.

CO2 doesn't cause warming because it has no mechanism by which to cause warming.

It is clear that you don't understand any of this and are just a parrot for whoever you percieve to be on your side politically.

 

[Trakar]

Something is either funky with your graph or you are focused on the wrong region of the spectrum (I suspect a bit of both). First, the vast majority of emitted solar energy (98%) is within the visible light spectrum (400 - 700 nanometers) which would be light to the left of the 1 on your bottom scale. This light is absorbed by the Earth, and re-emitted in the near infra-red 5-15 µm with peak emission at 10µm. The terms at the top of the graph are incorrect, 98% of the radiated energy from the Earth exist within 5 or so ticks either side of the 10µm frequency on the graph, and the CO2 absorption band should be centered at 14.9µm.

Black Body (Plank) curves for the Sun and Earth

The American Institutes of Physics has a more complete discussion of the details and physics involved at The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[wirebender]

I gonna leap to the assumption that you really DO care and that you've followed the "climategate" story.. Why is this important? Because these folks were in the LEADERSHIP of the AGW science. They kept much of the data TO THEMSELVES. Other people studying the topic had to use THEIR PAPERS, THEIR CONDITIONED DATA, and THEIR CONCLUSIONS to further the science studies. SO --- as a result gnotetard, we have not just THEIR WORK, but dam near a decade of DERIVATIVE work that is now suspect and mixed shit.. Thousands of researchers WASTED THEIR TIME with crappy data and crappy references..

Good description of the error cascade that is known as climate science.

 

[wirebender]

Try looking in science journals and texts instead of political advocacy youtube presentations.

I have and there isn't the smallest shred of evidence there that CO2 can in any way drive the climate. The closest thing to evidence you guys have is the pathetically inept output of computer models that have the biases, misrepresentations, and deliberate lies of at least two decades of climate pseudoscience written into their code. CRAP IN CRAP OUT.

 

[Trakar]

Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

Insolation was largely based upon surface measurements up until the late seventies/early eighties and aerosols largely masked many of the CO2 increase impacts of the time, until the clean air acts in US, Europe and most of the developed world in the '70s began clearing these aerosols out of the atmosphere and the beyond the atmosphere orbital solar obervatories began building much more accurate incident TSI information. The actual divergence of strongly correlated TSI and surface temps begins in the late '40s-mid '50s (when TSI significantly exceeds previous surface temperature correlation ratios - it isn't initially that solar irradiance declined, its that temps began to fall while TSI continued to increase - the signature of masking in association with the wartime activities and industrializations of many parts of the planet to support that war and in recovery from it).

Not totally in evidence. If the particulate, aerosols, War Effects?...

possibly some small contributions directly from warzone destruction, firestorms in major european and far eastern cities, but the overwhelming majority was from the industrial ramp up and greatly increased electrical and transportation applications.

 

[Trakar]

Have to like the concept of CO2 allowing solar radiation into the atmosphere, but blocking it on the way out...

Your likes and dislikes are irrelevent. Our atmosphere is relatively transparent to visible wavelength light. The ground tends to absorb visible wavelength light and re-emit much of the energy it gains from absorbing such in the form of IR energy. Our atmospheric gases tend to diffuse and absorb IR energy warming the atmosphere and delaying the re-emission of that energy back into space.

 

[Trakar]

So my pal -- it aint' as simple as focusing on CO2 concentrations alone. All those experiments will give you qualitative confirmation of the effect. No enlightment on whether to worry about it..

"Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History"

Earth's climate history potentially can yield accurate assessment of climate sensitivity. Imprecise knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change is the biggest obstacle to accurate assessment of the fast-feedback climate sensitivity, which is the sensitivity that most immediately affects humanity. Our best estimate for the fast-feedback climate sensitivity from Holocene initial conditions is 3 ± 0.5°C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing (68% probability) . Slow feedbacks, including ice sheet disintegration and release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the climate system, generally amplify total Earth system climate sensitivity. Slow feedbacks make Earth system climate sensitivity highly dependent on the initial climate state and on the magnitude and sign of the climate forcing, because of thresholds (tipping points) in the slow feedbacks. It is difficult to assess the speed at which slow feedbacks will become important in the future, because of the absence in paleoclimate history of any positive (warming) forcing rivaling the speed at which the human-caused forcing is growing...

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf

Long-term sensitivity which includes slow feedback equilibriums is another matter and looks to be somewhere between 4-6ºC per doubling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So 50PPM is lethal to the planet? That's .005% change of atmospheric composition.

Surely there must be a lab experiment that shows how much the temperature will increase by making a .005% change to the total atmosphere, right?