It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

You’re conflating so many different things in your responses to Phage.

First of all, the difference between radiative forcing and climate sensitivity – you’re trying to argue that the expected temperature rise from radiative forcing alone is not in step with what’s observed.

It is.

The temperature increase from radiative forcing alone is a well understood physics problem that is long settled (even agreed to by skeptic scientists) at around 1.1-1.2 K for a CO2 doubling.

We’re already at about 80% of that, even though CO2 levels have only increased by ~40%.

Second of all you’re trying to claim that CO2 isn’t changing in step with temperatures because emissions have risen non-linearly, while temperatures have only risen linearly.

But has CO2 concentration increased non-linearly?





posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

despite an increase in CO2 of 3500%.
What are you talking about?
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to 380 ppm. That is an increase of 35%.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Second of all you’re trying to claim that CO2 isn’t changing in step with temperatures because emissions have risen non-linearly, while temperatures have only risen linearly.

Here is data on CO2 emissions corresponding to the timeframe of the concentration data. With an R squared value of better than 0.9, it would appear that the increase in CO2 emissions is a good fit for a linear increase.

cdiac.ornl.gov...

A look at the longer term also shows a good match.
www.skepticalscience.com...

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Gee, I guess I'll just have to say that I'm glad that there wasn't a cadre of climate change scientists around the globe ten thousand years ago when the glaciers began melting... That "Stop The Earth" group would have us all living on the edges of the glaciers in our skin coats. The great lakes and the Mississippi river wouldn't exist if they'd had their way!
Now I'm sure that there were some high priest types who blamed the people for the flooding. They may have sacrificed a few folk to the Glacier God in hopes it would remain static and all that water would stay where the Glacier God meant it to stay---locked in the Glacier.
Ahhh, but you say they didn't have all the data way back then..... well, despite what you might believe, we don't have all the data now either but that doesn't stop the current generation of high priests from staring into their scrying pools (also known as computer models) and making all sorts of predictions based on their limited knowledge and their complete control of the conditions on which their models are based.
Perhaps if some of the modern-day prophets got outside a bit more, maybe even attempted to grow a garden---they would come to an epiphany---complete control of nature is impossible. The earth won't stop evolving because they wish it so.
Do we need to be mindful of the gifts of the planet and not be going about polluting? Certainly.
When I see the warmist priests practicing what they are preaching, I'll be far more impressed with their message. It's kinda like seeing a morbidly obese preacher screeching at his congregation about adultery and never a word about gluttony!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




Gee, I guess I'll just have to say that I'm glad that there wasn't a cadre of climate change scientists around the globe ten thousand years ago when the glaciers began melting

Nor was there anyone who was aware of the orbital and axial cycles which cause glaciation. Now there are.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Greenpeace on Patrick Moore


Huh, I didn't know all that. Now I like him even more. He ticked-off the hippies.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Oversimplification. It's not a two-sided coin with 50% chance.

A simplification, of course. But talking about "energy absorption" of CO2 is nothing but a red herring.
The re-emitted radiation has a 50% chance of being emitted toward space or not. Above the horizon, or not.



I know you are smarter than to try insinuating that CO2 only emits radiation along a gravity well vector, to/from the largest mass. Want to try and rephrase that?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Want to try and rephrase that?
No. It has nothing to do with gravity.

Radiation is re-emitted in a random direction. It has a 50% change of being directed above the horizon because the there are 180º of elevation above the horizon and 180º of elevation below the horizon for any given azimuth.


edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MamaJ


If we all stop driving cars will that help us?
Cars powered by petroleum, yes. A bit.


Electric cars are plugged to outlets powered by petroleum. Thorium cars are not a reality yet. It is simply not practical to give up carbon sources.

I reject the premise we need to stop driving cars, or any other petroleum source. Please define 'a bit'.

Even is we accept every premise from the AGW zealots, from what I have read the impact on shutting down every single petroleum source of energy would lead to insignificant temperature change.

Why do people who call themselves scientists lack such faith in technological advancement?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No matter what it is being re-emitted into the atmosphere, that's where the original energy was absorbed in the first place. The question is the possibilities in three dimensions for the energy to escape Earth's atmosphere. It's not 50%.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Electric cars are plugged to outlets powered by petroleum.
Not all of them. Many are powered by home photovoltaic systems.


I reject the premise we need to stop driving cars, or any other petroleum source. Please define 'a bit'.
Petroleum powered transportation contributes about 27% of US CO2 emissions. That includes all forms of transportaion; trucks, trains, ships, cars, planes. So it would be something less than that 27%.


Even is we accept every premise from the AGW zealots, from what I have read the impact on shutting down every single petroleum source of energy would lead to insignificant temperature change.
I'm not sure what you're reading but stopping the use of fossil fuels entirely would definitely have an impact on the rate of increase.


Why do people who call themselves scientists lack such faith in technological advancement?
Actually, we're pretty much counting on it. But it's gotta get into high gear pretty quickly.


edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



The question is the possibilities in three dimensions for the energy to escape Earth's atmosphere. It's not 50%.

Actually, it is. For each individual CO2 molecule. Above the horizon or below. One or the other.
Of course, there are other molecules which get in the way, but the basic principle is valid. It was, obviously, a very simple model.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt




Gee, I guess I'll just have to say that I'm glad that there wasn't a cadre of climate change scientists around the globe ten thousand years ago when the glaciers began melting

Nor was there anyone who was aware of the orbital and axial cycles which cause glaciation. Now there are.


Are you really that thick? Don't you think they were just as convinced that they knew what was causing the flooding as some folk today are convinced?
How do you know that they didn't know about orbital and axial cycles? Since they left no written records we are hard-pressed to know what they knew so your statement is supposition.
My point is that the earth turns and cycles repeat and those who seek to "stop the earth" or stop this or that on a global scale, have only their immediate viewpoint, not the hindsight we have today. To that 10k year-old civilization the glaciers melting with the attendant problems would have been just as disastrous as what many people are forecasting for us. Adaptation has saved our behinds for a few hundred thousand years.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



To that 10k year-old civilization the glaciers melting with the attendant problems would have been just as disastrous as what many people are forecasting for us. Adaptation has saved our behinds for a few hundred thousand years.

Except for the little matter that there are 7 billion of us now. And maybe a couple of hundred thousand (if that), living in small groups, then.

Neither the Earth or humans will be destroyed by global warming. But a whole lot of people will be put into a whole lot of misery because of it.



edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
So we've got a great advantage these days with more people to figure out the adaptations we need to make.
A lot of people are going to be in misery, on that we can agree. Plenty of that going around.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Nathan-D

Damn it, bank holiday monday! Still can't get to the computers. *Sigh*


You’re conflating so many different things in your responses to Phage. First of all, the difference between radiative forcing and climate sensitivity – you’re trying to argue that the expected temperature rise from radiative forcing alone is not in step with what’s observed. It is.

I am not conflating climate sensitivity with radiative forcing. I have simply pointed out that between 1975-1998 we emitted 480 gigatonnes of CO2 and between 1860-1880 we emitted essentially no CO2 (12 gigatonnes). According to the AGW-theory the temperature would have been expected to accelerate. But it did not. It has nothing to do with CO2 rising or not rising linearly. In fact I was not even saying that the temperature must have increased, since there is always the possibility that the warming from all that extra CO2 may have been counteracted by natural factors. What I did say when I first made the observation in this thread was simply that the rate of warming between 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 was almost identical to the the rate of warming between 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 despite CO2 emissions being inconsequential pre-1940 and posted the figures on page 10. I then said, in consideration of that observation, how do we know that what has happened to the temperature from 1975 onwards is not merely mother earth rolling on with natural temperature-cycles as she has done for eons?

You say that radiative forcing alone is in step with that's observed. How do you know this? My calculations (based on the IPCC's equations) show that even with all the hypothesized positive feedbacks factored in it cannot account for the rate of warming between 1860-1880 and 1910-1940.


The temperature increase from radiative forcing alone is a well understood physics problem that is long settled (even agreed to by skeptic scientists) at around 1.1-1.2 K for a CO2 doubling.

Yes, I know what the predicted temperature increase is from a doubling of CO2. The radiative forcing is predicted by the MODTRAN computer model codes and comes out at 3.7W/sq.m. It is then converted into temperature with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I know how to do it, and can calculate it thanks. It's not news to me. Though I will say that I don't think the radiative forcing of 3.7W/sq.m from a doubling of CO2 is settled science in light of the measurements of CO2's emissivity from the likes of Hottel and Leckner.


Second of all you’re trying to claim that CO2 isn’t changing in step with temperatures because emissions have risen non-linearly, while temperatures have only risen linearly.

No, what I was showing simply is that temperatures have been rising at the same rate as they were when our emissions and the increase in CO2 were negligible. The radiative forcing from our emissions and the CO2 increase between 1975-1998 would have been vastly greater than the radiative forcing from our emissions and the CO2 increase between 1860-1880 and I can put numbers on it if you need me to. However, since the temperature increase between 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 could not have been due to the increase in CO2 (with feedbacks) and if the temperature increased at the same rate when we started producing much more CO2 (and before that it was natural) then how do we know that what has happeneed to the temperature post-1940 is not merely mother earth rolling on with natural temperature-cycles?
edit on 31-8-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

despite an increase in CO2 of 3500%.
What are you talking about?
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to 380 ppm. That is an increase of 35%.
I was talking about the difference in human CO2 emissions between 1860-1880 and 1975-1998.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

Neither the Earth or humans will be destroyed by global warming. But a whole lot of people will be put into a whole lot of misery because of it.



As opposed to the misery may of them know right now without advancements that we take for granted. Little things like electricity, running water, refrigeration, etc.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Of course, there are other molecules which get in the way, but the basic principle is valid. It was, obviously, a very simple model.


Good, we can agree on that at least.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's not about simply "giving up" and "shutting down" every petroleum source of energy. It's about developing and moving to alternatives, and increasing efficiency. Carbon Capture is also possible.


Why do people who call themselves scientists lack such faith in technological advancement?

The only person who lack faith in technological advancement is you, as demonstrated by your own posts.


a reply to: Teikiatsu


As opposed to the misery may of them know right now without advancements that we take for granted. Little things like electricity, running water, refrigeration, etc.

You are making an assumption that we can either live in poverty or we can have global warming. Again, you lack "faith" in technological advancement.

By the way, electricity doesn't usually come from petroleum, unless you live in Saudi Arabia.
edit on 31/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join